Let's discuss some controversial stoppages

Sloppy/Mitchell

 

Mitchell was going out regardless. I think that's a good example of a fight where we like to think we know what was going to happen, and ignore the early stoppage regardless.

 

Right. And I think those account for most of the stoppages that should be considered bad, but are not.

In this case, Sloppy himself had just been badly hurt and was able to come back and hurt Mitchell. So why doesn't Mitchell get the proper chance to come back? And hurt Sloppy again?

 

That's her

 

A bunch of people on this very board were upset about the Corrales vs Castillo 1 stoppage. About the whole mouthpiece thing and the fact that the fight was stopped with Castillo still standing.

 

The mouthpiece was very controversial, I don't really think the stoppage of the fight was.

 

Well, in the Tszyu-Judah fight, didn't Jay Nady stop the fight when Judah went down a second time?

That's a little bit different. I mean, Judah got up stumbled and fell down again...and then started complaining before he even got to his feet...or even showed he could, and it was Nady holding him helped him regain his footing, so we don't really know if Judah could stand on his own.

 

Yes, that could have happened, it just so happened that Mitchell had done his worst at the center of the ring. He was clearly hurt and under fire when the fight was stopped, so much so that, as I said, people form the opinion, right or wrong, that the guy was going out, one way or the other.

 

Good point.

 

irish, your sig is ruining my fightbeat experience

 

How so? A bully getting bullied is always satisfying :crafty:

 

Yes he did. Judah got up, told Nady not to play with matches, and then collapsed again. But Judah was undeniably in better shape after the second knockdown than he was after the first, even though Nady had to hold him up, the Chicken Walking was over, and the bell had either rung or was about to. Judah, who had recovered enough to start a post-fight brawl all of his own, may have been fully recovered by the end of the minute....but the common belief is that he was simply going to get timed again, this time for good.

This perception, coupled with Judah's post-fight rioting, allowed people to gloss over what could have been classed as a poor stoppage, although on a point of technical importance, there is some rule which allows a referee, in fact obliges a referee, to stop a fight where a fighter collapses after rising for the first time.

 

I think it's the opposite, that Judah's protests (which began when he was on the floor) actually added to the controversy of the stoppage...and I think that's something that is true for a lot of stoppages...which is that a fighter's reaction to a stoppage impacts how it is viewed.

If a fighter protests the end of a bout the way Judah did, or the way Vitali did of his stoppage against Lewis, it becomes more controversial, not less.

And I don't think anybody glossed over the stoppage at the time...the stoppage was the reason given how upset he was after the fight (which led to the stool, the gloves to Nady, etc.). How could the stoppage be "glossed" over when a fighter's reaction to it gets him suspended?

 

Bottom line is, no responsible referee would not have stopped the fight. I think that's what made Judah's post-fight reaction so objectionable.

 

Why don't you ring the Broadband company, explain to them that you are set for 8 months, and are all ready for their new 1 Meg line.

 

Because the press/media has the ability to dis-join related incidents and view them in a vacuum. In fact, Jose Sulaiman even went one better, claiming, erroneously, that Judah's post-fight frolic was as a direct result o the concussion he suffered by way of being floored and banging his head.

When people are able to make up things and utter them as if they were pure fact, you get what we had with Judah, a dis-joining of related incidents.

 

You type like you read about the fight before you watched it...the stoppage was discussed thoroughly at the time, and there was criticism of Nady at the time.

Nady was also criticized for his stoppage of Corrales-Gainer.

 

In a way you are correct, as I was online following conversation, 2nd hand versions, as the drama unfolded, and it was playing out pretty much as I am playing it out now.

Guys like Johnnie Whitehead came right out and said that Zab was fucked, and if Nady didn't stop it, Tszyu was going to butcher him in the next round, regardless.

The way I see it:

* The stoppage, ultimately, was good, yet still early. In otherwords, it could have been better for Nady to let Judah go on and get done in the 3rd round.

* It was controversial because a lot of people are ignorant of the rule which Czyz quoted about the two knockdowns from the one punch. In fact, Judah was on the way down for a 3rd time until Nady held him up.

Of course, people then took liberties with the truth afterwards, with some claiming that Zab was concussed and therefore not liable for the aftermath, and others claiming that he should have been allowed to carry on, that he was recovered etc.

The truth is that Zab had been badly hurt, was not recovered fully as Nady held him up {which would have resulted in another count if Nady let go and allowed Zab to lecture him on the dangers of playing with matches} and would have gotten fucked up anyways in the next round.

 

:atu:

 

It was a long, long way from reaching that point.

 

Nady, however, stops the fight as Judah hits the deck a second time. Not after he assessed him following Judah's second rising from the ringmat.

 

I know, Czyz pointed that out.

I think Nady basically got it correct because he complied with the ruling pertaining to multiple knockdowns, and as it happens, as improved as Judah was upon rising for the 2nd time, he continued to fall backwards and had to be held up.

If Nady had let him go, Judah would have gone down three times from one punch and then, really, there would have been no argument.

The only reason he didn't go down again was because Nady held him up, albeit briefly.

All of this is rendered academic by the simple reality that Nady had his hands tied by this ruling on knockdowns and the fact that Judah was, by now, going to clearly get smashed in the very next round.

For me, a great source of premature stoppages is the three knockdown rule. What a load of old shit.

The three knockdown rule would have meant Wladmir Klitschko was one trip to the canvas away from losing by TKO in the 5th to Sam Peter, who basically won one more round {the 10th} and was nearly stopped in the 12th.

The three knockdown rule also terminated the last chance Herol Graham had of winning a recognized world title, in a fight he was more than "in" at the time of the stoppage, with Charles Brewer.

Another source of premature stoppages is the consulting of ringside doctors who, whilst medically competent, do not have the requisite degree of interest in boxing to see how a fighter might not be as badly affected by the injury as they think he is.

For instance, fighters with broken hands are basically down 50% on their power, and 50% on their defence, and nobody knows so nobody stops it.... but a guy with a gashed eye or a split-lip who is still in the fight get's stopped because there "is a lot of blood".

Meldrick Taylor swallowed a pint of his own blood and when they finally stopped it , it was for all the wrong reasons.

 

I've never had any problem with the stoppage in Tzysu-Judah fight. When a fighter goes down twice from the same punch and falls the way Judah did the second time, I don't see an issue with the stoppage. It's not the ref's job to decide what the fighter's condition might be a few minutes later.

 

This was Dokes-Weaver. And the ref was Joey Curtis, who wasn't the ref of Mancini-Kim (Richard Green), but he was instructed by the Nevada Commission to error on the side of the fighters' safety.

 

On a sidenote to this - I have always disliked it when people brush off stoppages and justify a stoppage by pointing out that the fighter didn't argue the call. You hear it all the time and it's said as if it settles an argument about the stoppage: "well the fighter didn't seem to mind that much." So what? By that same token you have to question every stoppage where the fighter DOES argue or throw a fit, etc.

Always bugged me

 

Good point! Not to mention, there's lots of practical reasons a fighter wouldn't protest a stoppage, depending who he's fighting. For example, Mitchell didn't protest his stoppage loss to Calzaghe at all. Why would he? Mitchell spent more than half of his profitable career fighting abroad. You think he wants to endanger his status as a Euro-opponent by being a, "sore loser?"

 

mosley-stone

 

If you don't lose that signature, I'll have to put you on ignore.

Karl

 

Cleve Williams is the hardest-hitter in HW history?

 

Who else?

Shavers? I saw more than several men get off of the floor to stop Earnie.

Did you see any fighter rise from the deck to KO Big Cat?

Karl