2 Seconds from Glory.....

Problem is, he wasn't saved by the bell because there was still time left. If you don't respond and the ref thinks you're done, it's your fault for not responding.

 

If Meldrick was trapped on the ropes taking flush headshots with 2 seconds left in the fight, then fine, stop it. That's a good stoppage. Chavez, in position and with his feet set, might get off 10 damaging blows in 2 seconds, any of which could have fatally damaged the weakened Taylor.

But stopping it with 2 seconds left, with Chavez having to cover the distance involved, re-set, and start again....nah...I ain't buying it.

 

He didnt respond... fight over... this has been argued for 20 years... I still back Steele... I have seen stoppages A MILLION TIMES more questionable

 

ARE YOU OK? ARE YOU OK?

NO RESPONSE

Fight over... the time is completely irrelevant... rounds are scheduled for THREE minutes... not 2, not 2:56 or 2:58... THREE minutes

 

That's a fantastic point if Richard Steele practiced this same methodology in all the fights he worked. Again I point to him letting Hearns-Barkley 1 continue after Tommy barely wobbled back to his feet and was still in lala land.

If you give Hearns a chance to take a few more shots, the same luxury could have been afford to Meldrick who 1) was up much quicker 2) much steadier on his feet 3) and didn't look like he just woke up from a 20 hour hangover.

Inconsistency is my only issue with Steele and the stoppage.

 

I don't really get this point of yours. No referee judges every situation exactly the same and every fight is different. For example based on fighter's styles a referee could allow more clinching than another time. Also when he decides about the stoppage, the beating a fighter has been taking naturally has an affect on what the ref decides to do. If a fighter goes down early, it is only logical to give him more chance to recover than to a guy who has been taking a terrible beating for several rounds.

furthermore, just maybe Steele learned something from the mistake he did in Hearns-barkley. Surely you can't expect a ref who lets a fight go too long so that one guy dies to do it every time to be consistent? Steele was correct, and he was one of the best refs ever

 

Well, you don't get my point but you just nailed it. Steele had to be wrong in one of these situations. Either he stopped Meldrick too soon or he let Hearns go too long.

You can pick which was wrong, but one of them was a mistake by Steele. Maybe he did learn from the Hearn's mistake, but then it would be a mistake. And that, in a nutshell, is my only point.

 

I disagree that one of these stoppages had to be wrong. It is not just about whether or not fighter can walk straight after the knockdown, everything that has happened so far should affect. Had Chavez knocked Taylor down with similar punch in the second round, Steele probably would have checked his condition a bit longer. Now that Taylor went down after 12 rounds of brutal battering and could not respond to Steele anymore, there was no question, the fight needed to be stopped

 

So you're saying that allowing Hearns to continue despite his condition was OK because it was only the 2nd round and he really hadn't taken much of a beating to that point.

OK. We'll just have to disagree. In my opinion, regardless of the round or what has happened to that point, when a guy barely gets up and looks as badly as Hearns did, you stop it. If a guy clearly looks like he can't defend himself if allowed to continue, you stop it.

What I really find amazing is that you say Steele would have checked Meldrick's condition longer if the KD happened in the 2nd round. So in essence he would have given Meldrick longer to regain awareness. And some how that seems fair to do it in the 2nd while the fight is fairly even but not in the 12th when Meldrick clearly had a points advantage? Wow.

I guess I'm just a bit odd in my thoughts on this one.