Why was it stopped?

You seem incapable of understanding simple points, you appear to be a bit simple so ill try and explain in simple points for you: With hindsight it was a good stoppage At the time it was a bad stoppage. You dont appear to know what hindsight means. Everyone involved the HBO team, brook's father and members of his camp, the fan's, were all bemused to why it was stopped and were questioning Ingle for several minutes after the fight was stopped, Kell himself turned with his arms out asking why to Ingle..he then pointed to kells eye. But hey YOU claim it was not ' weird ' at all....right? apparently you knew better than bernard hopkins and kell and kell's own father, who at the time was shouting at Ingle to not stop the fight. Ingle did not know it was a serious injury at the time... agreed? If he knew the extent of the injury the fight would be stopped in the 2nd. agreed? So we can conclude he stopped the fight because of the swelling. right? Swelling is not enough for a fight to be stopped. Especially considering Brook seemingly wanted to continue, (which is the most important fact) he was having success, it was not a one sided beat down and he had a share of the rounds on the scorecards. Hopkins: ' do you feel the stoppage was warranted, could you of fought on'? Brook: ' absolutely, with a fight of this magnitude, it should of carried on' I have watched the fight 3 times now. As people are re-writing the fight as some kind of terrible beat-down in the last 2 round's, i will briefly summarise: 4th round, is golovkin's, but not totally one sided, brook landed several flush hook's which caught golovkin's attention and he nod's in acknowledgement, when the bell sound's, between the two men GGG appears to be more gassed, he takes several huge deep breaths, Hopkins notices this and also makes the point that the steam has gone from his punches and he is landing 'arm punches' and appears tired. 5th round, Golovkin comes out and starts throwing alot of punches, but missing many Brook is riding with most of the semi landed ones and the only flush shot landed is a jab which snaps brook's head back Brook then motions to say ' is that all you got '? whilst smiling, he is using head movement and seemingly unhurt and moving well. He paw's at his eye, Brook lands several jab's, clinches then throws another 6 punch combination. This is 1 second before Ingle throws the towl in: Golovkin land's a body shot, throw's 3 more shot's, one land's partially the rest miss. *Ingle Throws the towl in* Golovkin then throws several more shots, 1-2 connect out of around 10. during the peroid Ingle is waving the towl, all of which are irrelevant as ingle already want's to stop it. Now we have already made the logical conclusion the Ingle does not know it's a serious injury So concluding, Ingle stop's the fight based on what? A) Brook wanted to continue, he already stated his should of been allowed especially considering the magnitude. B) Brook was not badly hurt nor was he taking a sustained beating, he was throwing shortly prior to ingle waving the towl C) Brook was doing better than we all expected, was not losing 5-0 on the card's and had golovkin's face looking more marked up than his own. D) Golovkin was the more tired of the two, appeared to be arm punching and was missing alot of his shot's This is what im basing the 'weird' stoppage on.....OK? Im going on fact's, not opinions, maybe you should give it a try instead of writing an essay on totally irrelevant ****e about obama? Brook himself let his corner in the 2nd he was struggling. Clearly his corner, like you said, decided to give him a chance. They likely already knew he was risking his eyesight, but knew there was a lot riding on this fight. Much like you said they should, they let the fight go on for 3 more rounds. I don't know more than Hopkins, but he didn't and probably still doesn't know as much as Brooks team does. Likewise, a boxer is going to save face as much as he can. If Brook said "No, they were right to throw in the towel my eye was ****ed" his stock would go down. It's his job to be a fighter, and that's what he did. Here's the 5th round and immediate aftermath: https://streamable.com/fdrw there's 10 seconds where Brook fights back, but none of his power shots connect. Immediately before and after this, Golovkin is going for the kill, and 30 of his punches, 12 of them power shots, connect. Brook only connects 6 jabs in that time. For most of that video, Brook is on the ropes and getting pummeled. Once the towel is thrown, Brook puts his arms up, but he doesn't contest the decision, he doesn't immediately argue with Ingle or the ref, he walks back to centre and touches gloves with Golovkin. He knew it was time himself to give up.

Absolutely, i have said a dozen times now, in HINDSIGHT it was a good stoppage. However i made this thread before the injury was made public, when it was clearly a bad stoppage. I guess it depends how familiar someone is with that type of injury. I've seen quite a few orbital bone and cheekbone fractures so I called it as soon as it swelled in the manner it did. Like I say though Ingle's call seemed to made on more than the injury. Good thread though. Definite topic for discussion.

This is it for me. Ingle knows his fighter, every move, every nuance and what they signify. The stoppage was about more than the damage to the eye. Kell's offense starting looking weary in the forth, by the fifth as you state, it was a token gesture. On the stool in between rounds, Ingle told his man, "I'm watching every move, trust me, I'm watching every move. As soon as I don't see Kell Brook, that's it!" Brook gave what I'd interpret as a look of resignation. He opened the round by initiating a clinch. He grabbed the top rope after gesturing. He pawed at his eye rather than being ready to defend himself. He got on his bike, had a small rally, got hit with a straight right, then when he was again maneuvered to the ropes he expelled a large lung of air, dropped his hands and allowed himself to get hit. That's when Ingle started waving the towel. Brook was ready to go out on his shield, he said as much afterwards "me as a fighter, a warrior, I wanna carry on, knock me out, knock me out!" For me that's what the hand gestures were about, he was goading Golovkin to stop him. Ingle made a good call. He's knows Brook better than anyone. He protected his fighter as he should. Absolutely, i have said a dozen times now, in HINDSIGHT it was a good stoppage. However i made this thread before the injury was made public, when it was clearly a bad stoppage.

It was a great stoppage by a considerate corner. Golovkin's power is the one of the most known quantities in boxing and he'd already essentially succeeded in breaking Kell's face. I reckon Kell could possibly have muddled his way through another round or so but his offence was gone in that round. This is it for me. Ingle knows his fighter, every move, every nuance and what they signify. The stoppage was about more than the damage to the eye. Kell's offense starting looking weary in the forth, by the fifth as you state, it was a token gesture. On the stool in between rounds, Ingle told his man, "I'm watching every move, trust me, I'm watching every move. As soon as I don't see Kell Brook, that's it!" Brook gave what I'd interpret as a look of resignation. He opened the round by initiating a clinch. He grabbed the top rope after gesturing. He pawed at his eye rather than being ready to defend himself. He got on his bike, had a small rally, got hit with a straight right, then when he was again maneuvered to the ropes he expelled a large lung of air, dropped his hands and allowed himself to get hit. That's when Ingle started waving the towel. Brook was ready to go out on his shield, he said as much afterwards "me as a fighter, a warrior, I wanna carry on, knock me out, knock me out!" For me that's what the hand gestures were about, he was goading Golovkin to stop him. Ingle made a good call. He's knows Brook better than anyone. He protected his fighter as he should.

Stop trying to be intelligent when you are incapable of it. People form their opinions from evidence. People see things, hear things, or read things, and develop their opinions from that. In this case I saw Brooks face swelling up and him tapping at his eye, and heard him say in his post fight interview he was seeing 3 Golovkin's, and heard him say, in that interview, "I think he broke my eye socket". All of these pieces of evidence I used to create an opinion. Notice how I didn't come up with an opinion then use evidence to make it fit, which is what you're ignorant ass is saying. You clearly never went to university because making a hypothesis fit your conclusion is really frowned upon. You can't have an opinion which amounts to evidence, which is why you're ignorant. Answers can be opinions. "Do you think Obama is a good President?" And the answer "No, because he didn't shut down Gitmo." Is both an opinion and an answer. You're ignorant. Facts can also be answers, but are distinguished because facts can be verifiably true. On this topic you have made, it is impossible to give you a verifiably true answer because we're not part of the team who subjectively decided to throw in the towel. Subjective is important because then there's no objective truth, ie, Ingles would have thrown in the towel due to his own opinions, not facts, anyway. Maybe it wasn't stopped in round 2 because Brook had - as you said earlier - put Golovkin on the back foot and thought he could keep up the pressure. I don't know. It's an opinion based on what I saw. I thought the stoppage was good at the time, and using hindsight, I think it was even better. That is an incredibly professional corner who are really looking out for the health of their boxer. As Brook said in the post fight interview, after round 2 he said to his corner "I'm seeing double of Golovkin." His corner, which would include a doctor, would likely be of the opinion the most likely cause was a break, or detached retina. Those are the most likely causes of seeing double, other than being blackout drunk. Tapping at your eye isn't normal either, even if it hurts. A broken socket causes uncontrollable blinking, and that's possibly why he was tapping it. I dont think it was weird at the time at all. You just seem incapable of objectivity and seeing the fighter you adore was having the stuffing knocked out of him in round 5. It's funny how you say "you cant use hindsight to say the stoppage was good" then go on to say "Listen, with hindsight I agree with the stoppage." which one is it? You can't even stay consistent in what you say. Did you even pass high school? Tell me then, what made you change your mind? And surely if you now agree with the stoppage, with the benefit of hindsight, what makes it a weird stoppage at the time? Or do you think you know more about Brooks health than his corner does, and did, during the fight? You seem incapable of understanding simple points, you appear to be a bit simple so ill try and explain in simple points for you: With hindsight it was a good stoppage At the time it was a bad stoppage. You dont appear to know what hindsight means. Everyone involved the HBO team, brook's father and members of his camp, the fan's, were all bemused to why it was stopped and were questioning Ingle for several minutes after the fight was stopped, Kell himself turned with his arms out asking why to Ingle..he then pointed to kells eye. But hey YOU claim it was not ' weird ' at all....right? apparently you knew better than bernard hopkins and kell and kell's own father, who at the time was shouting at Ingle to not stop the fight. Ingle did not know it was a serious injury at the time... agreed? If he knew the extent of the injury the fight would be stopped in the 2nd. agreed? So we can conclude he stopped the fight because of the swelling. right? Swelling is not enough for a fight to be stopped. Especially considering Brook seemingly wanted to continue, (which is the most important fact) he was having success, it was not a one sided beat down and he had a share of the rounds on the scorecards. Hopkins: ' do you feel the stoppage was warranted, could you of fought on'? Brook: ' absolutely, with a fight of this magnitude, it should of carried on' I have watched the fight 3 times now. As people are re-writing the fight as some kind of terrible beat-down in the last 2 round's, i will briefly summarise: 4th round, is golovkin's, but not totally one sided, brook landed several flush hook's which caught golovkin's attention and he nod's in acknowledgement, when the bell sound's, between the two men GGG appears to be more gassed, he takes several huge deep breaths, Hopkins notices this and also makes the point that the steam has gone from his punches and he is landing 'arm punches' and appears tired. 5th round, Golovkin comes out and starts throwing alot of punches, but missing many Brook is riding with most of the semi landed ones and the only flush shot landed is a jab which snaps brook's head back Brook then motions to say ' is that all you got '? whilst smiling, he is using head movement and seemingly unhurt and moving well. He paw's at his eye, Brook lands several jab's, clinches then throws another 6 punch combination. This is 1 second before Ingle throws the towl in: Golovkin land's a body shot, throw's 3 more shot's, one land's partially the rest miss. *Ingle Throws the towl in* Golovkin then throws several more shots, 1-2 connect out of around 10. during the peroid Ingle is waving the towl, all of which are irrelevant as ingle already want's to stop it. Now we have already made the logical conclusion the Ingle does not know it's a serious injury So concluding, Ingle stop's the fight based on what? A) Brook wanted to continue, he already stated his should of been allowed especially considering the magnitude. B) Brook was not badly hurt nor was he taking a sustained beating, he was throwing shortly prior to ingle waving the towl C) Brook was doing better than we all expected, was not losing 5-0 on the card's and had golovkin's face looking more marked up than his own. D) Golovkin was the more tired of the two, appeared to be arm punching and was missing alot of his shot's This is what im basing the 'weird' stoppage on.....OK? Im going on fact's, not opinions, maybe you should give it a try instead of writing an essay on totally irrelevant ****e about obama?

If Ingles let that carry on and Brook carried on say a couple more rounds you might be looking at a fighter who likely might not ever fight again I think you'd probably agree with that. Well I don't agree with Brooks making 147lbs he can make it but he shouldn't make it he's far too big for that. This. Brook was saved a public execution, he'll go on and fight Khan and Canelo in PPV fights after this. As should have been all along, Brook vs Khan or Brook vs Alvarez.

I thought Brook was done, it wasn't pretty. I'd be extremely gutted if I'd paid for that fight, at first I thought it was a fix the way Ingle was whispering in his ear before playing to the cameras. This was likely the plan all along, make it look like a bs stoppage so it doesn't damage Brook's PPV marketability going forward. Before I was convinced Brook's PPV days were over as soon as this fight was signed but reading the British reaction is astounding, Brook will be able to go on and do many more ppv's.

Are you Amir Khan or one of his fans by the way? Lol, I kid I kid. But on a more serious note, Kell was done. You can tell from a boxers body language, Kell was taking a beating in the last round, no need to destroy his already shorten career by giving GGG more shots at a stricken boxer.

He was starting to look like a rag doll on the ropes. They can still milk some fights out of Brook from the gullible public

If Ingles let that carry on and Brook carried on say a couple more rounds you might be looking at a fighter who likely might not ever fight again I think you'd probably agree with that. Well I don't agree with Brooks making 147lbs he can make it but he shouldn't make it he's far too big for that. Exactly. And that was why it was stopped.

Opinions equate to evidence now? incredible logic. Isnt that exactly the basis of 'creationism' The religious nut's have opinions that equates to evidence, therefore it must be true. Do you not understand irony? Answers cannot be opinions, answers are facts. You seem rather dim good fellow. If Brook really said that in round 2, why was it not stopped there and then? The FACT is it WAS a bad stoppage. You cannot use hindsight now to say well we now know the injury he sustained was bad therefore it was a great stoppage. The corner had NO IDEA it was an injury of that nature at the time, all they knew was that his eye was bruised and he pawed at it several times, is that reason to stop the fight? OBVIOUSLY NOT. So that lead's me to believe they had no intention of A) trying to win the fight and B) Most likely always intended to stop the fight after a few rounds anyway and the injury was the get out clause. Conspiraloon maybe, but perhaps there was always an agreement that he would go a few round's, promote his stock and check out of the fight before thing's got out of hand. Listen with hindsight i agree with the stoppage, im a fan of brook and im glad he will live to fight another day.. before people accuse me of wanting blood/a highlight reel KO. But you cannot act like during the moment it was not extremely weird. Holy **** dude you are horrible. You're the guy who puts his fingers in his ears and shouts "na ah". You realise some opinions are clearly better than others? Having the opinion that the fight was about to get very brutal for Kell is about as solid as an opinion one can have without it being fact. Seriously keep denying it and you make it very clear how little you know about a sport that you are on a forum about... that seems very stupid to me.

Opinions equate to evidence now? incredible logic. Isnt that exactly the basis of 'creationism' The religious nut's have opinions that equates to evidence, therefore it must be true. Do you not understand irony? Answers cannot be opinions, answers are facts. You seem rather dim good fellow. If Brook really said that in round 2, why was it not stopped there and then? The FACT is it WAS a bad stoppage. You cannot use hindsight now to say well we now know the injury he sustained was bad therefore it was a great stoppage. The corner had NO IDEA it was an injury of that nature at the time, all they knew was that his eye was bruised and he pawed at it several times, is that reason to stop the fight? OBVIOUSLY NOT. So that lead's me to believe they had no intention of A) trying to win the fight and B) Most likely always intended to stop the fight after a few rounds anyway and the injury was the get out clause. Conspiraloon maybe, but perhaps there was always an agreement that he would go a few round's, promote his stock and check out of the fight before thing's got out of hand. Listen with hindsight i agree with the stoppage, im a fan of brook and im glad he will live to fight another day.. before people accuse me of wanting blood/a highlight reel KO. But you cannot act like during the moment it was not extremely weird. Stop trying to be intelligent when you are incapable of it. People form their opinions from evidence. People see things, hear things, or read things, and develop their opinions from that. In this case I saw Brooks face swelling up and him tapping at his eye, and heard him say in his post fight interview he was seeing 3 Golovkin's, and heard him say, in that interview, "I think he broke my eye socket". All of these pieces of evidence I used to create an opinion. Notice how I didn't come up with an opinion then use evidence to make it fit, which is what you're ignorant ass is saying. You clearly never went to university because making a hypothesis fit your conclusion is really frowned upon. You can't have an opinion which amounts to evidence, which is why you're ignorant. Answers can be opinions. "Do you think Obama is a good President?" And the answer "No, because he didn't shut down Gitmo." Is both an opinion and an answer. You're ignorant. Facts can also be answers, but are distinguished because facts can be verifiably true. On this topic you have made, it is impossible to give you a verifiably true answer because we're not part of the team who subjectively decided to throw in the towel. Subjective is important because then there's no objective truth, ie, Ingles would have thrown in the towel due to his own opinions, not facts, anyway. Maybe it wasn't stopped in round 2 because Brook had - as you said earlier - put Golovkin on the back foot and thought he could keep up the pressure. I don't know. It's an opinion based on what I saw. I thought the stoppage was good at the time, and using hindsight, I think it was even better. That is an incredibly professional corner who are really looking out for the health of their boxer. As Brook said in the post fight interview, after round 2 he said to his corner "I'm seeing double of Golovkin." His corner, which would include a doctor, would likely be of the opinion the most likely cause was a break, or detached retina. Those are the most likely causes of seeing double, other than being blackout drunk. Tapping at your eye isn't normal either, even if it hurts. A broken socket causes uncontrollable blinking, and that's possibly why he was tapping it. I dont think it was weird at the time at all. You just seem incapable of objectivity and seeing the fighter you adore was having the stuffing knocked out of him in round 5. It's funny how you say "you cant use hindsight to say the stoppage was good" then go on to say "Listen, with hindsight I agree with the stoppage." which one is it? You can't even stay consistent in what you say. Did you even pass high school? Tell me then, what made you change your mind? And surely if you now agree with the stoppage, with the benefit of hindsight, what makes it a weird stoppage at the time? Or do you think you know more about Brooks health than his corner does, and did, during the fight?

No, you've been given the answer - because his corner was concerned for his well-being. You then ask why his corner was concerned for his well-being, and people answer that too - because jn the 2nd, Brook said he was seeing double of Golovkin, which is usually a detached retina or broken orbital. You then say, why didn't the referee ask Brook if he wanted to continue or call a doctor. Well, he would have called a doctor if Brook wanted to continue, but all Brook did was hold his arms out. He didn't have a word with the ref, or shout at his corner. it looked like he was saving face. After all these points, you then say they are opinions, which is true, they are opinions of most likely why the fight was stopped, but you're asking something only Brooks corner knows for sure, so all we can do is assume on the available evidence. You then ignore the fact that pretty much everyone has said the same thing - that in the 5th Brook was taking a lot of damage, and had a medical issue to worry about. I wonder if you're also a creationist or flat earther because you really seem to love avoiding trying to understand evidence. Opinions equate to evidence now? incredible logic. Isnt that exactly the basis of 'creationism' The religious nut's have opinions that equates to evidence, therefore it must be true. Do you not understand irony? Answers cannot be opinions, answers are facts. You seem rather dim good fellow. If Brook really said that in round 2, why was it not stopped there and then? The FACT is it WAS a bad stoppage. You cannot use hindsight now to say well we now know the injury he sustained was bad therefore it was a great stoppage. The corner had NO IDEA it was an injury of that nature at the time, all they knew was that his eye was bruised and he pawed at it several times, is that reason to stop the fight? OBVIOUSLY NOT. So that lead's me to believe they had no intention of A) trying to win the fight and B) Most likely always intended to stop the fight after a few rounds anyway and the injury was the get out clause. Conspiraloon maybe, but perhaps there was always an agreement that he would go a few round's, promote his stock and check out of the fight before thing's got out of hand. Listen with hindsight i agree with the stoppage, im a fan of brook and im glad he will live to fight another day.. before people accuse me of wanting blood/a highlight reel KO. But you cannot act like during the moment it was not extremely weird.

When I say he is not a middleweight, I mean it in the sense that his ideal weight is not 160 lbs. Brook can make 147 lbs, Golovkin cannot. That makes it quite evident that Brook is naturally smaller and not a true Middleweight. Both Brook and GGG himself agree on that. Golovkin is a SOLID middleweight, it is clear that Brook isn't. As said before, the decision from the corner was correct. Fighter's safety is first. Not fans' enjoyment. After four rounds Kell had a broken eye socket and say 4 Golovkin's in the ring. Now a question, how severe do you think Kell's injuries would have been if I carried on? If Ingles let that carry on and Brook carried on say a couple more rounds you might be looking at a fighter who likely might not ever fight again I think you'd probably agree with that. Well I don't agree with Brooks making 147lbs he can make it but he shouldn't make it he's far too big for that.

-removed

If I weigh 160lbs and fight a 160lber no matter how small I am I am regarded as a middleweight also after Kell Brook likely rehydrated from the weighin he was probably at 170lbs maybe a bit more he was either equal in weight or heavier than GGG. Dunno how you work things out but that is equal in weight and both made the middleweight limit on the weigh in. When I say he is not a middleweight, I mean it in the sense that his ideal weight is not 160 lbs. Brook can make 147 lbs, Golovkin cannot. That makes it quite evident that Brook is naturally smaller and not a true Middleweight. Both Brook and GGG himself agree on that. Golovkin is a SOLID middleweight, it is clear that Brook isn't. As said before, the decision from the corner was correct. Fighter's safety is first. Not fans' enjoyment. After four rounds Kell had a broken eye socket and say 4 Golovkin's in the ring. Now a question, how severe do you think Kell's injuries would have been if I carried on?

fixed for you bud :boxing: No, you've been given the answer - because his corner was concerned for his well-being. You then ask why his corner was concerned for his well-being, and people answer that too - because jn the 2nd, Brook said he was seeing double of Golovkin, which is usually a detached retina or broken orbital. You then say, why didn't the referee ask Brook if he wanted to continue or call a doctor. Well, he would have called a doctor if Brook wanted to continue, but all Brook did was hold his arms out. He didn't have a word with the ref, or shout at his corner. it looked like he was saving face. After all these points, you then say they are opinions, which is true, they are opinions of most likely why the fight was stopped, but you're asking something only Brooks corner knows for sure, so all we can do is assume on the available evidence. You then ignore the fact that pretty much everyone has said the same thing - that in the 5th Brook was taking a lot of damage, and had a medical issue to worry about. I wonder if you're also a creationist or flat earther because you really seem to love avoiding trying to understand evidence.

Mlac: Why was it stopped? *Several posters giving their opinions* Mlac: No you you're wrong! *counters with logic* fixed for you bud :boxing:

Mlac: Why was it stopped? *Several posters giving their answers* Mlac: No you you're wrong! *makes excuses* Should have added "give me an answer I can agree on" to the title

The point is they didnt know it was a serious injury as in hindsight we know now it was. So why stop it.....because brook was pawing at it a few times and there was a bit of bruising? He told his corner his eye was gone and that he was seeing double out of it.