Why wasn't Kirkland given the same chance JMM got vs. Pac??

Kirkland could have avoided the whole situation by not getting knocked down three times.

I think not. Oh yes he could, because a stoppage is up to the discretion of a referee. If the knockdown was bad enough, which I'm not saying it was, then he could have waived a count and stopped it. There is no three knockdown rule, but there is the referee's discretion. Besides, if there was a fourth knockdown and Kirkland was put in a coma, Cortez would be facing far worse criticism.

There was a clear difference, Marquez was getting up unhurt, Kirklands eyes were crossed, all you needed was some stars circling round his head, and the announcer to shout "FINISH HIM" Right Marquez was fighting. Pac landed a few clean shots, but he wasn't catching flush combos and flailing against the ropes...

Kirkland was completely rocked. He was getting ruined by every punch and there was more than a minute left. The fight was over, Kirkland got exposed.

I watched the fight and I think it was alittle too early to stop the fight. Kirkland was more just stunned and not completely hurt. Someone here has a gif of Kirkland trying to get up and Cortez just jumps on him and falls on him. Of course hes not going to be able to get up. He should have been given his chance to get up and try and put on a show, especially with his power, he could have changed the fight with one good shot.

If Cortez wanted to, he could have stopped it after the first or second knockdowns. I think not.

The difference was, I feel, that Marquez was the champion and got the champion's benefit of the doubt. I also think that Kirkland isn't known for his technical ability and that the likelihood was tat he was on his way to getting caught and dropped again with something big. And a fourth knockdown could have caused serious damage. It wasn't a bad stoppage, and it had nothing to do with a three knockdown rule. If Cortez wanted to, he could have stopped it after the first or second knockdowns. Kirkland showed a complete inability to defend himself and that's what halted the fight.

What kind of question is that? Why wouldn't I? I don't develop girlie attraction to fighters like your typical pactard/flomo/klit licker, etc... I love the sport of boxing. Period. That was a bad stoppage and I'm simply commenting on it. I didn't bet on the fight and I had no favorite. Maybe you wouldnt but the majority of guys complaining about an early stoppage wouldnt have said anything if it was the other way around. imo the stoppage was fine and Kirkland was on his way to be kod violently. After hearing the excuses from Kirkland and many fans i would rather that have went down now so that Ishida would get the credit he deserves.

Lamps over exaggerated that to the point yall believed it. If he couldnt get up because of Joe's crotch then Cortez definitely made the right decision. The dude just got knocked down from a punch and was trying to get up. While trying to stand up the ref jumps on top of him ground and pound style. WTH was Kirkland supposed to do? LOL! Cmon man...

Most of the time, when a fighter gets knocked down 3 times in one round, the fight is going to be stopped. Complaining about it is comical. If you don't want the referee to stop the fight because you got knocked down 3 times, then display a little defense, and don't get freaking knocked down 3 times. I agree that Kirkland's defense is azz!!! With that said, if there is no three knockdown rule then so what if he goes down three times? As long as he's not visibly hurt, unbalanced and still has his mental awareness then the fighter deserves the chance to keep fighting.

Then I don't know what you saw. Clearly you can see Marquez CALMLY getting up, his legs still there, that was not the case with Kirkland. Kirkland's legs were jut not under him, I don't know what else to tell you other than it's right there in the video. If Kirkland would have gotten up the way Marquez did, and his legs would have reacted the same, I would agree. I have nothing against Kirkland and for the record, if Cortez stopped the JMM v Pac fight, I wouldn't have been upset, I would have completely understood but I see where Cortez was coming from. I'm now officially convinced that you're either BLIND, or a typical NATIONLISTIC Mexican. Which is it?

He should have been given the chance to continue instead of being forced back down to the canvas by Cortez's crotch. I did find that a bit strange :D

I thought it was a fair stoppage before you posted this. Funnily enough after looking at those two videos side by side they are more or less identical. They both get knocked down quickly, get up quickly and are completely clear headed. The only difference is the way they fall. Kirkland's falling is a little more exaggerated. As for Kirkland not being able to defend himself and being on shaky legs. Watch that Marquez round again. He is on shaky legs himself and gets nailed several times by left hands. And that's the reason this thread was created...

You gotta remember that in a championship bout there is a silent rule that they get that extra chance. He's young and it wont crush him. I'm cool with a silent rule as long as its CONSISTENT. I wish Meldrick Taylor would have been able to reap the benefits of the "silent rule" you speak of.

Most of the time, when a fighter gets knocked down 3 times in one round, the fight is going to be stopped. Complaining about it is comical. If you don't want the referee to stop the fight because you got knocked down 3 times, then display a little defense, and don't get freaking knocked down 3 times.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE 10 COUNT???????? Where is the consistency?? You have Montiel on the ground conlvusing and twitching and given a 10 count and allowed to get up. You gave the example of JMM-Pac. This is somewhat similar to what I saw in the Daniel Jaobs-Pirog fight. Jacobs get cracked and put down to a count of 7-8 and seems to suddenly realize he is on canvas and attempts to hop up quickly like Montiel did, but Robert Byrd litterally pushes his chest down to hold him there - stopping the 10 count. They're arguing as it's called off. All of these examples happened during the first 2 rounds, except for Pirog-Jaobs which wasn't exactly a war to that point. This is not me criticizing particular referee's or ignoring the importance of the health of the boxers , just asking the question of why there seems to be such inconsistency with 10 counts? I'm with you, man. Montiel-Donaire was another excellent example as well.

He never recovered from the first kd he looked terrible whats wrong with that guy? This was only his second fight in like 2-3 years. Also, he seems to lack focus and discipline. He may never become a star in boxing. Maybe he's mentally screwed up. I dunno what his life story is.

I don't think there is such thing as a bad stoppage when a fighter has been dropped 3 times in the first round. Could it have gone on? Maybe but at the end of the day the refs job is to use his better judgement to protect the fighter and thats what he did. If you get dropped 3 times in a round its 50/50 the ref will stop it the 3rd time. I agree with that as well. My only gripe is that there is no consistency with these stoppages. JMM was in worse condition against Pac in their first fight. Corrales was also in worse condition when he got dropped by Castillo in their first fight. Gatti was always near death in most of his fights. These guys are LEGENDS because they were given the chance to continue.

How can you say Kirkland's legs were gone when the ref never gave him a chance to stand up? He was already given two chances, his legs were rubber. With no 3 kd rule, he should've been given one more chance, not pinned down with a knee by a hack ref.

That's not why I would have stopped kirklands fight though, if Kirkland would have gotten up the same way i just showed JMM to get up in the post above, I would have said it was a bad stoppage. He was seriously hurt man, his legs weren't there. There is a difference in the TYPE of knock downs they were. You just can't classify all knock downs as being the same. What you're saying doesn't make sense. And here's why: when JMM got up from the second KD, he slowly began walking backwards. When JMM got dropped the third time, he laid on his back and covered his face up. When Kirkland got dropped the first two times, he got up and calmy looked into the refs eyes and told him he's okay. How in the heck can you rationalize that JMM was in better physical/fighting condition than Kirkland was????