# When would you have stopped this fight?



## Tez3 (Jan 11, 2012)

Bearing in mind we weren't in the cage etc etc at what point on the clock shown would you have stopped this fight? For me 3min 34sec.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkNInJwv3ZA&feature=player_embedded


----------



## Cyriacus (Jan 11, 2012)

Timeout at 3:55, as the guy on his back wasnt resisting. Which to Me, is a sign that the Ref should at least take a closer look. I dont mind the GnP - I mean, He was resisting. But when He stopped resisting? Thats not usually a good sign. Because He was clearly trying to, but either He took a hard hit, or he was tired out, or some such thing.
Id have stopped the Match at 4:42, for the same reason Id have called a timeout, as a result of the lack of the timeout.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 11, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> Timeout at 3:55, as the guy on his back wasnt resisting. Which to Me, is a sign that the Ref should at least take a closer look. I dont mind the GnP - I mean, He was resisting. But when He stopped resisting? Thats not usually a good sign. Because He was clearly trying to, but either He took a hard hit, or he was tired out, or some such thing.
> Id have stopped the Match at 4:42, for the same reason Id have called a timeout, as a result of the lack of the timeout.




You've confused me with timeout. A ref has to stop the fight when a fighter is not intelligently defending themselves, which to my mind was at 3.34. he couldn't have gone on taking punches to the head for nearly a minute longer. You can't have a timeout to check the fighter, there's no count, it's stop the fight or not.
The ref is taking some flak for this, in that she didn't stop the fight sooner even from the winner , he is clearly not happy.


----------



## MJS (Jan 11, 2012)

I'd say at the 3min mark.  Larkin wasn't doing anything on the ground, IMO, other than holding.  I'm not sure of the Strikeforce rules, but the UFC will stand you up if you're not active on the ground, active, IMO, defined as actively doing something, ie: striking, trying to escape, looking for a sub.  Basically, anything other than just holding the top guy.  Of course, the top guy also needs to be doing the same.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jan 11, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> You've confused me with timeout. A ref has to stop the fight when a fighter is not intelligently defending themselves, which to my mind was at 3.34. he couldn't have gone on taking punches to the head for nearly a minute longer. You can't have a timeout to check the fighter, there's no count, it's stop the fight or not.
> The ref is taking some flak for this, in that she didn't stop the fight sooner even from the winner , he is clearly not happy.


Well, thats probably largely Me mistaking terminology. I will concur that I was probably confusing Rulesets there 
I stand by the first Time as for when to stop, since whilst He wasnt resisting, theres a variable of doubt. For about the first 10 seconds at least, He may have been trying to do something, or specifically nothing. 3:30-4:00 were all good times to stop. And thats a big gap, and there are no excuses. I mean, maybe 3:40-4:00 since the Defender started struggling a bit around there, and the Ref may have mistaken that for Him coming to His senses. But even then, a Good Referee should have stopped it.

EDIT: To MJS, I was going to suggest Standing Up. Theres even less excuse for that. But I chose to answer the Question as it was. That said, now I think I probably should have just brought it up.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 11, 2012)

MJS said:


> I'd say at the 3min mark. Larkin wasn't doing anything on the ground, IMO, other than holding. I'm not sure of the Strikeforce rules, but the UFC will stand you up if you're not active on the ground, active, IMO, defined as actively doing something, ie: striking, trying to escape, looking for a sub. Basically, anything other than just holding the top guy. Of course, the top guy also needs to be doing the same.



I'm not sure either of how long it is on Strikeforce before they stand you up, the fighters are told at the rules meeting but they should still be given a warning to work before being stood up. 
No one has a problem with the ground and pound, just leaving it too long before stopping the fight. He was taking some hefty punches to the head there.


----------



## MJS (Jan 11, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not sure either of how long it is on Strikeforce before they stand you up, the fighters are told at the rules meeting but they should still be given a warning to work before being stood up.
> No one has a problem with the ground and pound, just leaving it too long before stopping the fight. He was taking some hefty punches to the head there.



Yeah, he was taking some hard shots.  I found this on Wikipidia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strikeforce#Rounds

According to this, after a verbal warning, the ref can stand the fighters back up if they reach a stalemate.  I dont know if a warning was given.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 11, 2012)

MJS said:


> Yeah, he was taking some hard shots. I found this on Wikipidia:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strikeforce#Rounds
> 
> According to this, after a verbal warning, the ref can stand the fighters back up if they reach a stalemate. I dont know if a warning was given.



Warnings are useful because if they can get it working again it saves a break in the fight to stand up. A lot of people are questioning her judgement now, it's not just the normal ref bashing, from this end it's coming from well respected figures. From what I've read from American sources the winner of the fight is also critical of her. 
http://www.mmafighting.com/2012/01/09/nsacs-keith-kizer-had-no-issues-with-kim-winslows-stoppage-of/

It's not the first criticism of her reffing either. I haven't seen much of her to be honest and I wouldn't want to criticise another ref, it's easy to be critical after all but when the guy inflicting the damage is concerned and he's on top I'd want to know her thinking behind it.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 11, 2012)

In my opinion, that is the type of call a ref hates to make.  I rewatched that part several times (For those that haven't watched it, the stoppage occurs in Round 2) and I don't think it was an overly slow.  Again, armchair quarterbacking and trying to look at everything.  Here is my breakdown...

1)  At 3:40 seconds of the round, he is still defending with his arms and also moving his right leg up high trying to get a better guard position
2)  At 3:37 seconds, he is posting his right arm across his face and trying to intercept the punches with his left hand
3)  At 3:33 seconds, he stops using his hands and then tries to roll over and doesn't actively defend himself.
4)  At 3:30 ref starts to move in and at 3:29 seconds, the fight is stopped

We have seen several fights where a fighter is able to get out of those positions and keep fighting.  Again, this is the hard part of the job to let the fighters do their job and fight and still stop it when they can't anymore.  I personally, would have stopped it a second or two faster but it did not go on long enough to really say YES it was too long.


----------

