Are fights stopped too early in our days

[sonnyboyx2]

Do you feel today's boxing fights are stopped to early compared to back in the 70s & 80s..

Matthew Saad Muhammad would have lost most of his fights from 1977-81 stopped by the referee in his opponents favor after the punishment Saad took before, coming back from down and out to win by KO.

Fighters like Saad Muhammad, Arturo Gatti, Boom Boom Mancini, Bobby Chacon, Jerry Quarry Kill-or-be-Killed Fighters seem to be a thing of the past in today's sport.

[TBear]

On this one I definitely say yes!

[Mr.MojoRisin']

They do that to prevent brain injuries in the future. In the rare cases that the fighter did comeback to win after getting the **** beat out of them, I don't think it is worth the brain injury. Also, I think it somewhat indirectly encourages the increase of skill and out boxing your opponent over brawling.

[Tom Cruise]

Sometimes for sure. Especially over here.

A lot of the time its due to panicky and incompetent refereeing.

Saying that I, and most people, would rather be b*tching about an early stoppage than talking about another Michael Watson or Gerald Mcclellan incident.

[Cyberspace]

No less injuries in boxing even tho refs waive it off when a fighter is knocked down once or takes two punches. So yes I'd say so.

[nivek535]

british refs dont kno how to count to 10

[soul_survivor]

Most definitely but we've also seen a drop in brain injuries and in ring deaths, something which was a massive problem 50, 40, 30 years ago. Fights getting stopped earlier are a part of that.

What we have to realise is, as boxing fans, we love this blood sport, the violence intrigues and excites us and someone getting pummeled and maybe having a last gasp comeback excites us even more. We jump out of our seats for that type of violence. It's our own lust and desire for those moments which make us say, "oh that fight was stopped too early". The reality is, in many cases, no that fight was stopped just in time before someone could be seriously injured.

Yes, there are moments when a fight could go on a little longer, especially in a world title situation, where a challenger or champion has dedicated months and years of his life for that one moment. George Groves instantly springs to mind. He had dropped the champion, had him in trouble and was up on most people's scorecards yet the fight was stopped without Groves even hitting the canvas.

Or maybe that's just the blood lust in me speaking.

[The Old LefHook]

I believe only ex professional boxers should be trained as referees. Fans and orgs. are continually lamenting we should do something for ex boxers, they should have a pension fund, etc.

Thousands of jobs for which retired boxers are emminently qualified are awarded to milquetoasts who often do the job poorly and whose only boxing experience is in refereeing.

Down and out boxers are often of the famous variety and would probably jump at the chance to once again become respectable members of the boxing community which is always talking about helping them and then doing nothing to help. An Aaron Pryor or Leon Spinks as the third man between the ropes might actually enhance viewership, as well.

You might say, well, that is not very many jobs. To which I would reply that there is really no need any longer for the sevices of likes of Howard Lederman and his ilk, either, thank you. We have some referees and judges in mind who know what they are looking at, for starters.

Personally, I would have more trust in a deciision rendered by Mickey Ward than I would some of these so-called boxing experts who so often seem to get it wrong.

In the past, boxing often used famous ex-boxers who were not in need of the respectability or the money. That is all right, too. But I say give the majority of judging and refereeing jobs to ex boxers who really need them. If this were allowed to happen, I think we might see boxing change in a magnificent way that would not even be subtle. The transformation would become obvious and could be a major selling point and facelift for the sport and something to boast about.

[Ben Bolt]

What we have to realise is, as boxing fans, we love this blood sport, the violence intrigues and excites us and someone getting pummeled and maybe having a last gasp comeback excites us even more. We jump out of our seats for that type of violence. It's our own lust and desire for those moments which make us say, "oh that fight was stopped too early". The reality is, in many cases, no that fight was stopped just in time before someone could be seriously injured.

Do you feel today's boxing fights are stopped to early compared to back in the 70s & 80s..

Matthew Saad Muhammad would have lost most of his fights from 1977-81 stopped by the referee in his opponents favor after the punishment Saad took before, coming back from down and out to win by KO.

Fighters like Saad Muhammad, Arturo Gatti, Boom Boom Mancini, Bobby Chacon, Jerry Quarry Kill-or-be-Killed Fighters seem to be a thing of the past in today's sport.

During the decades mentioned, the 70s and 80s, the safety and protection of boxers' health were still very much ignored by referees and boxing commissions. They knew fighters got severly damaged, but didn't care a lot.

As onlookers, we often get angered of what we think are premature stoppages.
And we are ready to sacrifice guys like Muhammad, Chacon and Quarry (as we did) to get our reptilian brains satisfied.

When a referee calls a halt to a fight - even though I had wanted to see more of it - and showing concern about a fighter's future health, I have to accept it. The gladiators in the ring that entertain me, shouldn't be denied a good living in old age. (But, the truth is, every fight - even the first one - can put that in jeopardy. "No good, boxing" - Saad Muhammad.)

[Suckmedry]

British stoppages are fcuking ridiculous. I love how strong their boxing scene is over there, but the stoppages are so quick its pathetic. You get rocked twice in one round and they stop it. Basically like junior amateur bouts where they stop it after 2 8 counts.