So I just watched Wardley vs Parker. That stoppage was terrible

And then looked completely knackered and finished

 

The bell saved him if I remember rightly

Regardless I can see both sides of the argument
Mine just lies with it not being a good stoppage but a justifiable one at the very least

 

I still haven't seen the fight in its entirety, I found a good comprehensive extended highlight

I dont like the stoppage. I get Parker was hurt in the tenth and started the eleventh not throwing back. I understand that normally prompts a ref to stop it in the context of overall punishment

That said Parker looked ok to continue and I feel should be given the opportunity

I also dont love when a ref gives one guy a ton of leeway to weather a storm but when the other guy gets hurt just dives in

Parker may very well got beaten down in another 30 seconds but I think he earned a right to continue

 

The people saying "Well, it's on Parker for not factoring in Howard Foster and anticipating a british stoppage after 11 hard rounds of fighting!" aren't getting it. We're not saying that Parker used perfect situational street savvy in this exact moment, we're saying that him being required to is absurd and stems from a regional collusion to get hometown fighters W's.

 

As a Parker fan

clearly Parker came in heavy and did not adapt his gameplan. He can do better.

But that was a bad stoppage and a rematch is warranted

 

Fury was far more hurt, not throwing back AT ALL and still got a standing count.

 

Yeah we need it to happen at some point to see this beatdown folk were talking about that Parker was going to dish out!!

 

And as I said Parker got beat up in the round prior to that where as Fury didn't.

The sustained beating Parker took in rounds 10 and 11 led to the stoppage and Parker clearly hadn't recovered.

 

But throwing the punch itself kinds of hits the reset button. The time to stop it would have been the long sequence when he didn't.

 

Wardley missed with the majority of punches he threw on the 11th, where Parker was still defending himself and deflecting shots.

The majority of the boxing community consider it an early stoppage, and rightfully so.

 

Parker took a beating in round 10.

Then took a 40 second onslaught from Wardley in round 11 getting hit with 20+ punches without landing a single punch back.

The majority of those boxing fans aren't getting their head smashed in by a 6'5 240+ pound KO artist with a 95 percent KO ratio

So it's easy for them to say quick stoppage when their health is not in danger sitting comfortably in their armchairs.

 

Are you suggesting that boxing be banned or that we get our heads smashed along with the boxers. Who are getting paid BTW .

Quick stoppage. Full stop.

 

No I'm suggesting people shouldn't jump on bandwagon claiming "terrible stoppage" when a fighter has taken a beating in previous round then took a 40 second onslaught in the next round without landing a single punch back.

All this against a huge puncher with a 95 percent KO ratio.

Quick stoppage in your mind not mine.