Let's discuss some controversial stoppages

Apart from Chavez-Taylor, that has been done to death.

For example I have always disagreed about the outrage of Tyson-Ruddock I, I think the stoppage was a plausible one. That situation itself was not that dramatic, but Ruddock had been taking a hellacious beating and Steele watched him closely for a long time. I think he saw the damage Tyson had done and was right to call it off.

One stoppage which I always found wrong and I am surprised doesn't get mentioned more often is Mayorga-Forrest I. Forrest got up and seemed ok. Marty Denkin then holds up the index fingers of both hands and pulls them to different directions and then stops the fight since apparently Forrest's eyes had appeared dizzy. How was he supposed to look in that situation?

What do you think of thee + come up with others

 

Chavez-Taylor I

 

Forrest looked pretty out of it to me.

 

Thought Vazquez-Marquez II was a pretty suspect stoppage.

Not outrageous by any means, but the call on Casamayor-Katsidis was touch-&-go.

How about Echols-Grant?

 

Weaver-Tate.

Wasn't it Weaver who was stopped early? It prompted a riot.

It was caused by the referee having been the same referee who had reffed the Mancini-Kim fight. He later committed suicide.

 

Disagree on Tyson Ruddock but completely agree on Forrest-Mayorga.

I'm in the minority but I have always thought that the followng TWO were premature stoppages:

Lewis-McCall 1
Forrest-Mayorga 1

 

U Must Mean DOKES-Weaver I, Because John Tate was FLAT on his Face for about 10 Minutes, After Getting Dropped by Weaver....



REED:hammert:

 

Judah-Tszyu

Judah was the recipient of a harmless flash knockdown and got up immediately and made a very intelligent and coherent observation to the Ref: "Don't ever play with matches"

I mean...how can you think a man is in trouble when he's offering such good advice to the kids watching on TV?

 

I don't know about the Lewis-McCall one. Seems to me people are pretty split on that, at least of what I've seen. I thought it was on the money, but I know a lot of people who feel otherwise. I do feel Tyson-Ruddock I should've been allowed to persist longer than Steele thought.

Ottke should've been permitted to continue beating on Mundine...

 

It's funny how you watch time change perceptions in the mainstream. That's one such instance. After the fight, a lot of people were arguing one way or the other. Now, I don't know when I last saw someone contest that stoppage --- but it was happening plenty at the time, with just as many people defending Nady's decision.

I can't imagine this will put me in your best graces, but I felt Lyle got a raw deal against Ali...

 

The Rock vs. the Tuaman I especially after that punch after the bell debacle

 

Yeah thats it. Started a riot anyways. Referee was mentally shot from the Kim affair.

 

Well, I think McCall-Lewis was a bit early...I mean, compare it to the condition Joe Cortez allowed Holyfield continue in eight round of the third Bowe fight, when he was knocked down and on the canvas for about 9-10 seconds, and when asked to take a step forward he stumbles trying to get his feet under him, moves about every direction before going forward, which he barely does, and Cortez waives for the action the continue.

 

That's really an aside, though. If you go the route of, "Compare it to X," you'd be listing contradictions all day long. You can only judge what happens in the fight, in your opinion. I wouldn't say Lewis couldn't have continued --- there was clearly room for that to be a possibility. What I take issue with is some people who call it a robbery. Myself, I would have stopped that fight. I know a lot of people understandably disagree, but I can't fathom how people can look at it & say there was no way the fight should be stopped. A lot of people talk about his legs, & the way he was wobbling, but you can also instantly see how glazed Lewis' eyes were.

Regarding Cortez, he said more than once he had great respect for Holyfield's recuperative abilities. It's true that he let Holyfield go on with insufficient response, but as I say, using that logic, we'd be here all day.

 

:atu: casamayor damn near killed that boy

 

Don't start using words like "robbery"...you said you thought it was on the money, I said I thought it was a bit early...and gave an example of how another referee handled a similar situation.

Maybe Lewis only lasts as long as Holyfield does - which was until Bowe threw his next punches - but I would've liked to have seen that happen.

 

Lewis-McCall

 

LEONARD - BENITEZ.

Padilla must have had a bet on Ray winning by stoppage.

Karl

 

You are talking Richard Green/e Irish. He did one more fight after Ray/Kim and then offed himself about 8 months later. He never did Tate v Weaver or either Dokes fights. Steele did one of them.

How about Dib vs Yamaguchi?

 

Lewis-McCall is a good one. That was way too early IMHO- Lewis was up and ready at eight and the HW title was on the line, FFS.

MTF

 

Pacquiao-Hatton. Ricky was hurt but he was just taking a breather.

I thought Lewis-McCall 1 was an early stoppage.

 

::

Yeah, I though Jackson-Graham was a bit early too...

MTF

 

OH NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Ray Robinson vs Turpin II.

Of course the Yanks think that one was perfectly legitimate.

Ray was bleeding and behind on the cards. Never fight in America...:nono:

 

I think Lyle was getting battered. Now he may have been able to continue...but when a man is teh recipient of one way traffic for almost 30 seconds you have no choice but to stop it.

 

Lewis was an undefeated champion at the time and should have been given the opportunity. All lewis would have had to do was hold his man and stink it out for a few moments and his head would have cleared.

 

Yes. Or maybe the referee would have just "counted to ten and stopped the fight".

 

Excellent call - I was going to mention this one but you beat me to it.

I also strongly agree with the Tua-Rahman being wayyyy too premature, even completely removed of the (imo) blatant cheap shot by tua after the bell in the previous round which rahman didn't get time to recover from. I also loved Merchant's agast call right after "I....think.... that.....was....... a very..... BAD STOPPAGE!"

RE: Lewis-McCall and Tszyu-Judah, I think those are fights where the ref was WELL within his rights to stop, but in both cases I don't think he should have stopped them.

 

This is something that has intrigued me. I think there have been times when the fight was stopped early, but the media/fans never made anything of it because they figured the "stopped" fighter was going to get mashed one way or the other.

In the Judah fight, the idea was that Judah had looked so bad that even if the referee had let it go on, Tszyu would have found him again anyways. It doesn't make what happened OK, of course.

Johnnie Whitehead came onto Secondsout moments after the fight had ended and said that Judah was beaten, and what Nady did made no difference to the eventual outcome, that once Tszyu smelled blood it was over, and that he had figured out Judah regardless.

I think this mentality, whilst correct, should not be used to define whether the stoppage is early or not. An early stoppage is an early stoppage.

Another good one: Benvenuti vs Monzon. Bloody hell.

 

well said - and I definitely think both Lewis-McCall and Tszyu-Judah were early stoppages.

Another one that we have mentioned before in a different context is Corrales-Casamayor 1. Brilliant fight with back and forth, both guys down, good exchanges and it is stopped for one of the most bigus reasons i have heard from a ringside physician... the laceration in his mouth was going to cause asphyxiation? Come on!

 

Was that Margaret Goodman?