Are 'British stoppages' really a bad thing?

No doubt, it was just a well known example. The outcome would have been no different but it shouldn't have been stopped at that point

 

Nah, that wasn't a late stoppage was it, it was RIDICULOUS and one of the worst instances of refereeing you'll ever see, without a doubt. Probably the worst.

But we've seen beatings that, aesthetically, are on par, with fighters that survived.

It isn't always big punchers either. Griffith, Davila and Starling, all regarded as 'light' hitters.

There are many dangers from boxing, accumulated beatings over a career the main one of course (dementia), hitting your head on the rope as you go over, but I would say death from shockingly bad refereeing, as Paret-Griffith III obviously was, is fairly low, I'd hope instances of officiating that bad can be averted by common sense, not the kind of stoppages we see nowadays.

Another thing that the older fighters didn't have was top-notch fast response medical teams on site. That is much more commonplace nowadays post Eubank-Watson II, and that's another reason why referees shouldn't be so edgy.

I think what constitutes a 'beating' nowadays is more often that not more of an 'outclassing'....you'd never see this nowadays (NO DEATH O.K TO WATCH)

3:38 onwards.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBIs09wpbIw[/ame]

 

Aye, in an ideal world the opponents would be better an give the refs more reason to let the fights continue. As it is its hard to get too bothered about a lot of the stoppagesbecause the fighs are ridiculously one sided.

 

I'm not saying if they get hurt Haha **** them its for my entertainment, just that the whole point of the sport is punching people in the face and I'm watching it for entertainment value. Maybe I worded it a bit harshly, I just hate when fights get stopped when there can be more, and full counts unless its a brutal knockout.

 

I was speaking to a poster on here who made the point that fights aren't even allowed to break out in some fights, an early stoppage (the ones that make you go atsch) can sometimes rob us of a decent contest (potentially)

Of course, Prospect Vs 2-35-12 (1) is a different matter.

 

The old "in no position to defend himself" line sums it up pretty well for me. Once that point has been reached then that's usually enough.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59Bd4mOYfpE[/ame]

 

3K Battery:

 

Is the post just to be controversial?

If not your a ****.

 

IMO... Murray - Thaxton, Mckenzie - Bellew and Groves - Anderson were premature stoppages, for my liking anyway.

 

Let's not defend British stoppages for one single second.

They are 9 times out of 10 utter bull****. Embarrassing even. On the Kell
Brook undercard last week I saw an even fight stopped after TWO clean punches landed flush...TWO!! It was utterly farcical. This is not the only one..it is becoming the norm for british refs to wave it off at the slightest hint of a fight breaking out. It's getting worse and worse and more and
more common. You will never see a brutal fight anymore in a British ring. Land 3 unanswered shots and it will be stopped even if you were competitive.

It's why British refs, judges and boxing in general are the laughing stock of the world, have NO credibility left at all and why viewers are turning off in droves

 

The fighter should have been warned in the Brook fight that unless he showed something offensvely then the fight would be stopped, then I'd have had no problem with that stoppage because the guy was doing absolutely nothing.

The problem was the lack of "or else" warning beforehand, not so much the actual stoppage.

 

Fights arnt even allowed to break out:deal couldn't have summed it up better

 

Aparantly he did tell the corner between the round

 

I didn't know that mate. I take back all (well most!) of the grief I gave the ref on fight night over that stoppage then.