BoxRec

What do you think?

Absolutely.

how many voted Yes because they wanted to see Whittaker lose?

If an experienced boxing fan hadn't seen the fight but heard it was stopped too early, then asked who was the ref and they were told it was Howard Foster....it would all make sense !

golden_labrador wrote: ↑21 Apr 2025, 08:04 how many voted Yes because they wanted to see Whittaker lose?

Definitely not, the crowd were robbed, Whittaker took he needs to be tested, I wanted something conclusive.

However the lazy journalists, who just copied Boxxers press release, all reported it as devastating!!!

Coco wrote: ↑21 Apr 2025, 08:13

golden_labrador wrote: ↑21 Apr 2025, 08:04 how many voted Yes because they wanted to see Whittaker lose?

Definitely not, the crowd were robbed, Whittaker took he needs to be tested, I wanted something conclusive.

However the lazy journalists, who just copied Boxxers press release, all reported it as devastating!!!

I'd hardly call them journalists at GB News anyway

golden_labrador wrote: ↑21 Apr 2025, 08:25

Coco wrote: ↑21 Apr 2025, 08:13

golden_labrador wrote: ↑21 Apr 2025, 08:04 how many voted Yes because they wanted to see Whittaker lose?

Definitely not, the crowd were robbed, Whittaker took he needs to be tested, I wanted something conclusive.

However the lazy journalists, who just copied Boxxers press release, all reported it as devastating!!!

I'd hardly call them journalists at GB News anyway

I'm sure none of these sorts were at the fight, or are Gareth Davies

Coco wrote: ↑21 Apr 2025, 08:33

golden_labrador wrote: ↑21 Apr 2025, 08:25

Coco wrote: ↑21 Apr 2025, 08:13

Definitely not, the crowd were robbed, Whittaker took he needs to be tested, I wanted something conclusive.

However the lazy journalists, who just copied Boxxers press release, all reported it as devastating!!!

I'd hardly call them journalists at GB News anyway

I'm sure none of these sorts were at the fight, or are Gareth Davies

Spencer Oliver and Davies both agreed it was a correct stoppage (I managed to watch them watching the fight on TalkSport Youtube )

The Frazer Clarke v Tetteh stoppage was even more premature than the Cameron one IMO.

golden_labrador wrote: ↑21 Apr 2025, 08:43

Coco wrote: ↑21 Apr 2025, 08:33

golden_labrador wrote: ↑21 Apr 2025, 08:25

I'd hardly call them journalists at GB News anyway

I'm sure none of these sorts were at the fight, or are Gareth Davies

Spencer Oliver and Davies both agreed it was a correct stoppage (I managed to watch them watching the fight on TalkSport Youtube )

My opinion on Davies, a very experienced boxing journalist, like Adam Smith, is how can he be doing the job so long and know so little.
When you have the likes of Simon Jordan or Kugan, they have their roles to play, controversial or fan boy, but I'm never left feeling they have no idea what they are talking about.

Coco wrote: ↑21 Apr 2025, 09:09

golden_labrador wrote: ↑21 Apr 2025, 08:43

Coco wrote: ↑21 Apr 2025, 08:33

I'm sure none of these sorts were at the fight, or are Gareth Davies

Spencer Oliver and Davies both agreed it was a correct stoppage (I managed to watch them watching the fight on TalkSport Youtube )

My opinion on Davies, a very experienced boxing journalist, like Adam Smith, is how can he be doing the job so long and know so little.
When you have the likes of Simon Jordan or Kugan, they have their roles to play, controversial or fan boy, but I'm never left feeling they have no idea what they are talking about.

yeah I certainly don't see him as someone to listen to re: boxing. I think if we look around at for example governments as well, it's clear that it's not really the cream of the crop are not getting to the top! yes men, sociopaths and who you know.

And as much as I respect Spencer Oliver, he is a company guy who does tend to tow the official line

My yardstick for questionable stoppages is whether the ref would have done the same if the roles had been reversed.

No fecking chance would he have. Therefore it was a biased decision.

deadpan wrote: ↑21 Apr 2025, 10:20 My yardstick for questionable stoppages is whether the ref would have done the same if the roles had been reversed.

No fecking chance would it have. Therefore, it was a biased decision.

Yes, amazing how many (all?) of these controversial stoppages are in the favour of the promoter’s fighter

deadpan wrote: ↑21 Apr 2025, 10:20 My yardstick for questionable stoppages is whether the ref would have done the same if the roles had been reversed.

No fecking chance would it have. Therefore, it was a biased decision.

This is probably the yardstick everyone should use.

JamesPhilips wrote: ↑21 Apr 2025, 10:22

deadpan wrote: ↑21 Apr 2025, 10:20 My yardstick for questionable stoppages is whether the ref would have done the same if the roles had been reversed.

No fecking chance would it have. Therefore, it was a biased decision.

Yes, amazing how many (all?) of these controversial stoppages are in the favour of the promoter’s fighter

Yep this is definitely a thing, Fury was given more chances than most, the cut against Wallin, the heavy knockdown vs Wilder and being smacked around by Usyk all examples where had the roles been reversed the other fighters would have likely been stopped.

One of the best examples in a big fight of the house fighter getting looked after....the turnaround happening...the away fighter getting stopped.

No.

Camerons legs went and the ref jumped in.

What's the point in another 10 unanswered punches to convince the crowd it's over?

Compare rounds 3 and 8. Home cooked British refereeing par excellence.

MasterG wrote: ↑21 Apr 2025, 11:09 No.

Camerons legs went and the ref jumped in.

What's the point in another 10 unanswered punches to convince the crowd it's over?

So they buy tickets for the next show. It's prizefighting, the lads are getting paid so the crowd can see a tear up and ideally a knockout.

Not for me.

Whitaker did a job on Cameron. Another 5-10 seconds would have been 5-10 seconds of more unanswered punches IMO, from a fresh, faster guy.

I was gutted that Whitaker got to have an easy night after that bottle job last time, but he turned up and delivered.

Whittaker did nothing wrong, was sharp and was winning the fight on the outside, he then hurt Cameron and then jumped on him. You can't criticise his performance

The fight was just stopped too soon, after a round an a half.

JamesPhilips wrote: ↑21 Apr 2025, 10:22

deadpan wrote: ↑21 Apr 2025, 10:20 My yardstick for questionable stoppages is whether the ref would have done the same if the roles had been reversed.

No fecking chance would it have. Therefore, it was a biased decision.

Yes, amazing how many (all?) of these controversial stoppages are in the favour of the promoter’s fighter

100% Just said this on RBR thread. No chance both Clarke and Whittaker both get stopped if the roles were reversed.

15 unanswered punches, sagging in the ropes and clearly hurt.

At least throw something back or move - Else the ref has all the ammunition they need to step in.

Yes but not as egregious as some British stoppages

golden_labrador wrote: ↑21 Apr 2025, 08:04 how many voted Yes because they wanted to see Whittaker lose?

I wanted him to win. Cameron's overly humble "I shop in Aldi, I do" routine, with his hair-plugs and whatever, was already starting to grate on me a little bit. He's obviously a nice lad but if he's really like that then he's not got the meanness to be a top fighter and that showed when he accepted being waved off Sunday night so easily. He's just happy to be paid, isn't he?

Like other people have said, people have paid to be there, it's the main event. It's the second round. The ropes held him up, so give the lad a count. It was a surprisingly big event considering it was all at a pretty low level, so give the people an actual fight. Cameron might well have been laid out, he might have had a couple more rounds in him. Fury got bashed harder by Usyk and still lasted the distance, didn't he?

We all know what will happen when we see Howard Foster in the ring. This is what these young blokes give everything training in the gym for and he habitually robs them out of their best shot time after time. He should be in prison.