Sometimes now a man doesn't tap just because he's taking punishment and still some people argue that the round should be stopped anyway. Brock vs Carwin is a good example in round one. I prefer the phlosophy behind the early UFCs which was a man has the right to decide when to say he has had enough. Under that philosophy there is no such thing as a round "should have been stopped." A round should only be stopped when the fighter taps or is unconscious. Lesnar proved that philosophy to be superior because despite some people saying it should have been stopped, he didn't tap because he knew he was still alright and still had enough left to win and he did. The proof is in the pudding. If a man says "don't stop this because I can still win" and then he proves himself right by winning, you can't argue against that. The same philosophy dictates that there is no such thing as a man not deserving a title shot even though he beat the champion. If he beats the champion than the former champion doesn;t deserve to still be champ when there's a new guy that can beat him and did. People said Brock didn;t deserve his shot against Couture. Well, he beat Couture, so how could he have not deserved the shot when he proved he could beat the champion? The champion is supposed to be the best. If someone proves he can beat the champ, then that man deserves to be the new champion. Otherwise the champion isn't the best fighter in his division.