If Mitchell was stopped, why wasn't Mayweather vs Mosley?

Mitchell didn't have to cling on for dear life, Mitchell never looked like going down, he ate some big shots, but Mayweather ate the same and clung on for dear life, yet was allowed to continue.

Someone explain why Mitchell was stopped and far less hurt than Mayweather was in round 2 vs Mosley?

 

There are some ****ing idiots on this forum.

 

Because Mitchell didn't hold on, he turned away and didn't try to defend himself when it was stopped.

If he was as experienced as Mayweather then perhaps he would have held to get his senses back.

 

A scouser alias, Hi Max :rofl

 

That is the most ******ed statement ive ever seen on ESB. You've set the benchmark, congrats :tired

 

Why was mayweather allowed to hold as long as he did? usually refs make people break, Mayweather clung on for a good 40secs, now I think Mitchell was prematurely stopped, he more turned into a big punch than turned away, but I don't eblieve he was finished, however, Mayweatehr was out of it compared to Mitchell.

 

This content is protected

 

Ignored, one ***** down.

 

Wow, I always knew you were an idiot. Someone should sticky this thread so whenever some doubts it you can link to it and prove how stupid Anglosaxon is.

 

Because Shane only hit Floyd twice and 30 seconds later Floyd was back hittin Shane in his ****n face.

 

You're lucky you have the best signature on the internet.

Otherwise I'd call for your banning.

 

1 Shane shot was enough to Keep mayweather parading up and down looking for a shaft on ***** street for a good 40secs.

 

mitchell lost, katsidis won end of, stop trying to look for something that just clearly isn't there,u just look like a tit!

 

hes winding you up guys

 

Mayweather had hold of Mosley's arm for about 5 seconds more like.

The ref could have let Mitchell carry on but I don't think he was going to see the round out as he didn't seem to know how to save himself in that situation.