It's a tricky one. Lewis was on unsteady legs so based on that alone the ref was right to stop the fight. But a second after being stopped Lewis seemed clear headed again so with hind sight you can argue that Lewis was fine to continue and may have even gone on to win the fight. But the ref didn't have the advantage of hindsight and could only go off Lewis' condition at that time, so understand fully why he stopped it. I personally have no problem with the stoppage.
Lewis didn't have his the full use of his legs back. Though I don't think anybody could complain, if he had been allowed to continue.
The least the ref could have done was let Lewis fight on with one eye on stepping in if it looked like he could no longer defend himself. Holmes was given that chance vs Shavers, and there wasn't a whole lot of difference in the state of their legs at the time they got up. I can understand why the ref stopped it when he did, but I can't help but feel that Lennox was potentially robbed of a chance to turn things around.
I can see why people think it was fair, he was clearly hurt. I personally think it's borderline. From the fighter's standpoint that is a heartbreaker. It's an early knockdown in a title fight. The champion should be given the benefit of the doubt and given a few seconds to continue on. If I was the referee, I am 100% certain I'd have allowed Lewis to continue, but I'd have been looking REALLY closely at how he handled the follow up. I'm not arguing that he wasn't badly hurt, but I would have to say it's a bit unfair he wasn't allowed the chance to at least try to deal with what Ollie would have sent at him right afterward. I've never been in that situation, but I totally get Lennox's anger.
Agreed. It was judgment call, that could have went either way. He was a little wobbly, but it seemed his head was fairly clear. I tend to give the referee the benefit of the doubt on those close ones. But as you say, seeing how Lennox would have responded and possibly bounced back from that would have been interesting.
Larry holmes was hurt more against Shavers and one or two other fights and the ref let it go so yeah he should have maybe continued but it wasnt a bad stoppage
If they stopped a fight every time a fighters legs were gone then Hearns would have been ****ed. It was a dodgy ass Don King/WBC stoppage.
It was a tough call .. he had the right to stop it but he could have let it go on and carefully watch it ..
I think that LL was deprived of a chance to prove , with those long arms, height advantage, and the ever present "Plan B" style of cautious boxing that he's capable of, that he could have fended off McCall's follow up charge. I've always thought that it was a premature stoppage. It was, IMO, a cop-out by a Don King sellout referee.
It's a good stoppage, but it's also true that the men Lewis is generally compared to, for example Holmes against Shavers, would have been allowed to continue.
I think it was a questionable stoppage. Not outrageous, but look at fights from similar times: Golota vs Lewis, Tyson vs Berbick, Lewis vs Grant, Holmes vs Snipes, Holmes vs Shavers II, Frazier vs Foreman, Holyfield vs Bowe III, etc etc. They were all given the benefit of the doubt, as traditionally is the case for championship bouts.
THIS. As you say it was questionable, but certainly not outrageous. Well no more outrageous than anything else that toe rag King had any influence over.
Lewis was in trouble. Even if no stoppage, I think mccall might have been able to finish him because LL was really wobbly
lewis gay face let him down. a meatier expression might have convinced the ref that his legs were recovering, and as champ he deserved that benefit of the doubt.
