Help me understand this theory sherbros quote often use

[filthynumber1]

So it's when fighter A is hurt, wobbled, dropped, etc and fighter B pounces on fighter A. Fighter A weathers the storm and comes back to ktfo fighter fighter B. End of story right?
.....
Hmmm guess not for some....
Many people on here think that fight should have been stopped and fighter B should been awarded victory yet fighter A came back and won which would end all arguments for fighter B??. Like, fighter A won right, ya understand ??! So why should it have been stopped ?? This theory I don't understand

Ex: magny/hector
EcoReem/Browne
As well as many others

the better fighter (on those particular nights) won

 

[GrantB13]

We've seen lots of fights stopped when those weren't and often for less.

 

[Alejo]

I agree 100%. If fighter A was able to recover and come back to finally win the fight, then by definition, stopping the fight when fighter A was rocked, hurt, etc. would have been an early stoppage.

 

[riitzni]

Either fight you listed could have been stopped and no one would have complained. Niel was turtled and taking extreme punishment. Travis was literally screaming. Both cases the other guy had an always questionable tank and undoubtedly spent most of it pursuing a finish they were a hair's breadth away from.

It should be stopped for fighter safety, not on the off chance he wins.

 

[ortizgnp]

The best one is when they try to explain the destruction of Anderson Silva by "he's clowning every fight before he wins, it was a matter of time, so fluke"

 

[cumafish]

 

[tenniswhiz]

Watch Sakuraba vs Smirnovas.
Saku won, right? What's the problem?

That's the problem.

 

[filthynumber1]

We've seen lots of fights stopped when those weren't and often for less.

Well every fight is different and every situation is different I agree but when the fighter comes back to win i think it should end all arguments. The better fighter won
All in my humble opinion

 

[McGeezle]

The best one is when they try to explain the destruction of Anderson Silva by "he's clowning every fight before he wins, it was a matter of time, so fluke"

Wouldn't that be a reason to say it isn't a fluke?

 

[skombolis]

Just because a guy comes back to win doesn't mean the ref didn't cut him a ton of slack where the fight normally would have been stopped. The comeback helps justify the decision not to stop it for the most part but that doesn't change the fact that on most nights, with most refs, the fighter who came back would have never had the chance.

Plus most times the ref gives a guy way too much time he just ends up losing later after taking more punishment. The exceptions don't necessarily prove it was the right call, even if someone can recover after and come back.

You just gotta look at each fight separately and decide based on the situation when the ref held up to see if it appeared to be the right decision. I don't think it's completely black and white because of a comeback. But generally speaking I'd lean towards the ref if someone did.

 

[filthynumber1]

I

I agree 100%. If fighter A was able to recover and come back to finally win the fight, then by definition, stopping the fight when fighter A was rocked, hurt, etc. would have been an early stoppage.

This is my thoughts as well.

 

[phys_therapy]

Sometimes it's a fine line between giving a guy a chance to win, and preventing unnecessary brain damage.

 

[waldywaldy]

 

[filthynumber1]

Either fight you listed could have been stopped and no one would have complained. Niel was turtled and taking extreme punishment. Travis was literally screaming. Both cases the other guy had an always questionable tank and undoubtedly spent most of it pursuing a finish they were a hair's breadth away from.

It should be stopped for fighter safety, not on the off chance he wins.

Travis grunted/yelped or whatever for a split second after receiving a knee and 60 seconds later overeem was ko'd
This is the fight business not accounting. Refs have to realize this as well as fighter safety.

What bothers me is when people discredit victories like magny and Browne saying they should have lost and it's the wrong outcome and blah blah blah
It's fucken ridiclous

 

[DorianGray]

It's basically that the fight could have been stopped depending on the ref and their mood that evening coupled with the desire to see a certain fighter win. If you were a carwin fan you were probably pissed they didnt call the lesnar fight in the first. And vice versa.

 

[Drake]

We've seen lots of fights stopped when those weren't and often for less.

Pretty much /thread

 

[Feynman]

I don't think you really want to understand the theory. I don't think you want to understand it at all...

 

[airic_15]

I agree 100%. If fighter A was able to recover and come back to finally win the fight, then by definition, stopping the fight when fighter A was rocked, hurt, etc. would have been an early stoppage.

Well how would we know if every fight that the ref stops the other guy couldnt have come back to win? Thats the whole point, you cant give some guys more chances then others because its unfair

See you can say see they didnt stop this fight to early because magny came back and won

But will never know if rothwell could have come back because they stopped it

Im sure there are better examples these are just the ones i thought of

 

[Buster C]

Those bitching that the fight wasn't stopped are fans of the guy that lost.

 

[Andy Capp]

Either fight you listed could have been stopped and no one would have complained. Niel was turtled and taking extreme punishment. Travis was literally screaming. Both cases the other guy had an always questionable tank and undoubtedly spent most of it pursuing a finish they were a hair's breadth away from.

It should be stopped for fighter safety, not on the off chance he wins.

The OP was nearly incomprehensible, but I presume this is in reference to Neil Magny's last fight. Could have been stopped in the first, sure, but only by an incompetent referee. Magny was actively defending and improving position at every opportunity and his recovery was evidence of that. Lombard was statically getting his bell rung and even though he had the full 2nd round break to recover, he was in no way recovered by the start of the 3rd round. The 2 situations are entirely different and the referee was wrong to let it go on as long as it did. Mind you, it was Lombard, so I won't hold it against him.