I'm tired of seeing all these bull**** stoppages in fights. I have no desire to see a fighter get punished when he is out on his feet and can't defend himself, but stopping Murphy because he wasn't throwing punches for the first time in the fight? Please. He was just tired! How many times do we see these idiotic decisions in fights over here? It's a complete farce. Off the top of my head, the Enzo Mac one recently was bull****, Kell Brook's last bout was stopped unfairly, as was Fury's and I could go on and on. I'm really annoyed at this ****. When a fighter has fought as hard as Murphy has, he deserves to be given a chance. He could have ****ing won the fight! Yet the referee robbed him of that. Had Murphy won, he'd have a name for himself, be a British champion, fight for bigger money and this could be the start of his career. However, the referee robbed him of that. Absolutely useless. You can count the good British officials on one hand, and I say that as someone who usually defends referees and judges.
It's all because of 'UK's best' Howard ****ing Foster. He's dire. He ALWAYS stops fights early. Hate him with a passion. Piece of ****.
TBH Jack I didn't have problem with any of the 4 stoppages you mentioned. The Brook one was probably the most questionable but even that the ref had apparently been over to the guys corner and told him he was going to stop it unless the guy started throwing punches.
the Enzo fight the guy was mega outclassed, the fury fight the guy was badley hurt hes was going to have to be saved from his own bravery, his legs were gone from an uppercut that land 30 seconds or so before if you go down from punches round the side in a clinch then something ups I do think british ref stop fight to quickly - but everytime a guy is stopped on his feet we get its a bad decision if the guy is tired and cant throw back then its dangerous - i do wonder what Steve Smoger would do if he was refing british fights
Howard Foster is a 'serial soft stopper' . Watched him do it on undercards and title fights he likes to stop things a bit to early. I don't think he's got the timing down well and you could see he wanted to stop it. I believe when Murphy was wobbled at end of round, Foster contemplated the stoppage. Personally it was gonna get stopped sooner rather then later but it's the timing that bothers people IMO. It's a shame Eames didn't know scorecard he could of told Murphy to ease off for a round in middle rounds to conserve energy.
More of the problem was the judges having Murphy 4 or 5 ahead on the cards?? It was a bad stoppage, but Murphy was totally gone
That was not a poor stoppage tonight. Murphy was done, he took this fight at short notice and poured a lot into the early rounds. He'd slowed down terribly, was taking a lot of punches and had not complaints about the stoppage.
They're just overly cautious. I dislike it to be honest because these stoppages are way too biased BUT after some of the things that have happened abroad over the last few weeks, I think I'd rather them be like that to be honest. Better safe than sorry as they say.
I can understand why people would disagree with me because I think that Theophane had a good chance of fairly stopping Murphy, Fury would likely have stopped his man, Brook was easily going to win and Maccarinelli was easily going to win that fight. If people think it's ok to stop them early because the result is inevitable, then I see where they're coming from but I don't think it's an excuse to end the fight as the first chance. Think about the guy tonight. If he won, he'd be British champion with a win over a guy who is certainly European level, maybe higher. Murphy would be making much bigger money and he'd have a name for himself. Now though, nobody will touch him with a bargepole. I think you could argue that the result would have been the same whether the fight would have gone or not in all the fights I mentioned, but I don't think that excuses stopping the fight when they did. Fighters deserve a chance to win and a lot of our referees are far too eager to end the fight early because the 'name' fighter needs it.
Yeah, he'd slowed down but he wasn't hurt, he was just tired. Would he have been stopped later in the round or the 12th? Possibly but he deserved that chance. The referee stole that away from him.
To me Jack tonights stoppage was like the Fury one, the guy was hurt, tired and looking dispirited. I'm both fights maybe a extra few seconds/punches would have made sure but why take the chance?
that was horrific, i wasnt far away and i thought enzo was in a lot worse state than he (thankfully) turned out to be in, but for the while it took for him to come round it was horrible......thats why im not keen on enzo being back in the ring at all
Yeah, I can see where you're coming from, mate. The thing is though, I'm not sure if Murphy was hurt. I think he was just tired and on top of that, he was against a guy who couldn't punch his way through wet toilet paper, so I can't imagine how he'd have got hurt. If Theophane was a hard puncher, I'd probably agree with the stoppage but I think it was solely because Murphy was tired, which I can't agree with. The Fury one was a bit more debatable to me and I think Fury would have stopped him in that round or the next one. However, I think all fighters deserve the chance to stay in the fight. Pajkic had, what, 10, 15 seconds to go in the round? I think he deserves the chance to see the round out, especially considering Fury was tired himself. I usually defend referees because I think they have a very tough job. However, I don't think the possible risk to Murphy and Pajkic was great enough to stop those fights.