When should the ref stop the fight?

I've always thought it's the corner's job to stop the fight and the ref's job to officiate. I think the ref should only step in when a fighter's immediate health appears to be at risk. I understand I'm in the minority. What are your thoughts?

Posted this because unfortunately I think it could be relevant for tomorrow...

Gumby wrote:

I've always thought it's the corner's job to stop the fight and the ref's job to officiate. I think the ref should only step in when a fighter's immediate health appears to be at risk. I understand I'm in the minority. What are your thoughts?

Posted this because unfortunately I think it could be relevant for tomorrow...

In theory yes I agree with you. The problem is the corner's do not do their job and you end up with a fighter dead.

i agree but there arent tons of bad stoppages. most of the fights i see that are stopped end up being stopped when the fighter is just taking unnecessary punishment.

Gumby wrote:

I've always thought it's the corner's job to stop the fight and the ref's job to officiate. I think the ref should only step in when a fighter's immediate health appears to be at risk. I understand I'm in the minority. What are your thoughts?

Posted this because unfortunately I think it could be relevant for tomorrow...

I think the criteria should vary wildly depending on the experience of the fighters, what is at stake and the history of the fighter in trouble. For example, a ref should wait a long time before stopping a comeback artist like Chacon, Saad Muhammad or Gatti in their prime years while he should stop a couple of inexperienced younguns far more quickly. Roy Jones oughtta be stopped as soon as he grimaces.

Right or wrong the ref's first job is to ensure fighter safety.

When a figher's hands are down and he's catching hard shot after hard shot. Also, if a fighter is being dominated for the first 5 rounds, as in the victim of a methodical slaughter, he should be allowed one more round to get in the fight. If a fighter cannot protect himself against a barrage of headshots round after round, I think the fight should be stopped. One variable which I think refs overreact to is blood. Especially, a cut on the head. Head cuts are notorious for bleeding profously but 9 out of 10 times are not that serious. (See Hagler - Hearns)

[quote="4445Frank"]When a figher's hands are down and he's catching hard shot after hard shot. Also, if a fighter is being dominated for the first 5 rounds, as in the victim of a methodical slaughter, he should be allowed one more round to get in the fight. If a fighter cannot protect himself against a barrage of headshots round after round, I think the fight should be stopped. One variable which I think refs overreact to is blood. Especially, a cut on the head. Head cuts are notorious for bleeding profously but 9 out of 10 times are not that serious. (See Hagler - Hearns)[/quote]

I nearly stroked out that night when Richard Steele took Hagler to see the doctor. I thought WTF are you DOING??????????

when it is clear

A. The fighter is completely outclassed

B. The fighter is defenseless and taking unneeded punishment

C. Their is something visibly wrong with the fighters mental state i.e. cCall Lewis 2 or Filho vs Soennen (MMA example)

D. Not inteligently defending themselves for good stretch

E. The eyes start rolling

http://www.maxboxing.com/news/main-lead/an-appalling-end-to-foreman-cotto1

I still think Cotto-Foreman continuing was good for the sport and not out of line, but this article raised a lot of good points.

When the fighter is unable to defend himself, or when he's far behind on the cards and is receiving unnecessary punishment.

Kenny Bayless should have stop the Cotto vs Pacquiao fight during the 8th or 9th round.