Pretty sure it means the opponent had been taking a beating throughout the night without offering nothing back, in which case there really isnt anything wrong with those stoppages (if that was the case). In a same way Vitali-Briggs should have been stopped even if Briggs didnt really look like he was going. Edit: just watched the first one. That was dubious no matter how you look at it.
The first one was horrible. The guy was practically laughing his ass off at Joe's pot shots and was in the process of firing back just as the referee intervened.
i posted a thread about this a while ago. 20 people voted less than 8 were legit while 16 voted at least 25 were legit. some people are just groupies http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=296375
Doesnt matter what he was known for. If the other guy is being completely outclassed, repeteadly getting punched in the head and offering nothing back the ref has a right to stop it.
The funniest thing about the Manfredo stoppage is that the referee gets hit by one of Joe's shots as he steps in, and he doesn't even flinch or react to it.
*facepalm* complete and utter madness refereeing funny as **** though i literally just said "what the ****" to myself whilst laughing at the first one Saturday nights at their best.
I think its mainly due to the Mclellan and Watson tragedies but these stoppages were never going to be that bad and im a Calzaghe fan.