Why was it stopped?

[Eastcoast]

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.

[KaL-EL]

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

[mlac]

Mlac: Why was it stopped?

*Several posters giving their opinions*

Mlac: No you you're wrong! *counters with logic*

fixed for you bud

[Elroy The Great]

his corner wanted him to live to defend his ww title.

[Xoahr]

fixed for you bud

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.

[TouchofDeath]

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?

[M Bison]

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.

[mlac]

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.

[Xoahr]

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 ***** 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?

[NateHound]

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 ****** to me.