Sometimes fights are stopped too early and sometimes too late. In a perfect world, of course, all fights would have been stopped exactly on time. But realistically judges usually have to decide (in a split second) between stopping the fight or letting it continue when the fighter seem to be really hurt but might still be able to continue.
The upside of stopping the fight at that point is that of the protecting the safety of the fighters, while the down side is that of stopping a potentially intriguing and important fight, robbing the fans of it’s entertainment value and maybe changing the rightful outcome of the fight, thus disrupting the whole true rankings and future fight schedule.
When should a judge, then, err on the side of caution and should he let the fight continue to a more definitive outcome?
The answer, in my opinion, primarily depends on the significance of the fight.
Yes, we all think that all fights should be judged exactly the same, like we think all fighters should be treated the same. But this is not the reality. Top fighters earn differently and get different treatment from promoters and athletic commissions, and main events get 5 rounds even when they are not title fights. The point is that top fights are much more important than all other fights. These are the fights that the fans care about the most by far, these are the fights that are most important for the sport and these are the fights that are most important for the fighters.
So while in most fights, when difficult to decide the exact moment in which to stop a fight, I agree that early stoppages (rather than late ones) should be the rule, in order to protect fighter safety and let them fight another day, in top fights judges should be aware that these are the fights everybody want to see, and stopping them too early might ruin it for everybody.
Stopping a fight too early in most regular fights won’t have such serious consequences for the sport, and most fans won’t care about it too much. but in the few top fights controversial stoppages upset too many fans and are much too significant factors for them to happen too often.
Another factor to consider is when that potential stoppage happen in the fight.
If the fight has already lasted a round or two, and one fighter has been pretty dominant and he then gets the other fighter in a bad spot, there wouldn’t be much uproar if the judge would stop the fight then, even if the losing fighter wasn’t going out or not protecting himself intelligently. but if the fight has only lasted a minute or two, the crowd would still want to see how the fight would play out, and if the losing fighter could change things around.
Besides, how many times have we seen fighters get really hurt because the stoppage was too late? it is usually not much worse than after any other stoppage. of course there are long term effects for all this violence, but it is very hard to measure.
I’m not saying it should be taken lately, but considering the importance of those fights, which are just a fraction of all the fights taking place, I think judges should be a little more patient in those fights, and wait a little more before stopping the fight, while in most other fights they can stop the fight much earlier.
Applying it to last event’s stoppages, I think Marc Goddard’s stoppage wasn’t too late. it was a very important fight and I think most fans would have liked to be sure Gustafsson wasn’t on the verge of popping up, just before the stoppage.
Henderson’s stoppage, on the other hand, was a little too early, considering it’s a fight between two top fighters, it was the beginning of the fight and Henderson is well know for his ability to take a punch.
While Ogle’s stoppage, which was quite similar to Henderson’s in it’s controversiality, was good, because it was not one that too many fans cared about, and so there was no reason to allow the fighter to sustain more than the minimal amount of damage necessary for a stoppage.