I never said I was going to get Richard Shafter to get his biro out. I never threatened anyone, did I? Bernard and his bitch-made whore, Kellerman, they got the biro out. They went a-writing, they went a-righting, they will compose a letter, for the perusal of the pertinent 'torities. Yes they will-ah, yes they will-ah. "WE, the undersigned, hereby DEMAND that Bernard Hopkins be IMMEDIATELY re-instated as the UNDISPUTED 175lb champ of the WBC on grounds that the REFEREE fucked up and that Bernard, a Black man in a white world, can't get a fair break and that this is not the UFC yo". Yours, Richie Shafter DeLaHoya.
Its time for Frochs Son and Grand-Son to get it on at the expense of Calzaghes Son. Family disputes are always bitter, but life goes on.
Why fuck Dawson? See. As unfortunate for everyone as last night's outcome was, it'd be even worse if people are careless enough in their judgement of events to attribute any blame whatsoever to Dawson. As I see it, there's already enough misfortune: 1. Fans lay down their cash to see Hopkins take his beating and he squirms out of it 2. Dawson is robbed of the chance to reassert his dominance with an impressive win, one he surely would've pounded out in my opinion. 3. Insult to injury, as fans hadn't fully recovered from the disappointment of PBF/Ortiz ... And you want to tack on, "Fuck Dawson?" And hold him accountable somehow?
A NC happens if there's a cut caused by a head-butt (committed by the other fighter, which is technically a foul whether it's intentional or not). But if it's the first round, and a fighter dislocates his shoulder, either because he fell, or missed with a punch, and there's no foul called, he's lost the fight. It's as simple as that.
Wrong. This will be overturned. From the ABC website. B. Accidental fouls. 1. If an accidental foul causes an injury severe enough for the referee to stop the bout immediately, the bout will result in a NO DECISION if stopped before four (4) completed rounds. Four (4) rounds are complete when the bell rings signifying the end of the fourth round. 2. If an accidental foul causes an injury severe for the referee to stop the bout immediately after four (4) rounds have occurred, the bout will result in a TECHNICAL DECISION awarded to the boxer who is ahead on the score cards at the time the bout is stopped. a. Partial or incomplete rounds will be scored. If no action has occurred, the round should be scored as an even round. This is at the discretion of the judges. 13. A fighter who is hit with an accidental low blow must continue after a reasonable amount of time but no more than five (5) minutes, or he/she will lose the fight.
You're wrong. Well, you're missing a major point, which is that there was no foul! None! Everything in the list you've printed pertains to a foul. There was no foul. This isn't all that complex, actually, once you remember there was no foul.
Personally as much as I dislike Hop I would have DQ'ed Dawson. Hop could argue that the only reason he was on Dawson's back was because the momentum of the punch carried him hence no intent there. Dawson clearly and intentionally threw Hop to the canvas = Intentional foul (warranted or not doesn't matter it's a clear foul) Second thing. Hopkins was not informed to my knowledge that he would lose the fight by dq if he couldn't continue (common sense would suggest no contest or dq hence you can't say Hop should have known) In no way should Dawson be awarded a TKO win here. The only reason you all are applauding this is because you hate Hop. Try and eliminate the bias. Picture your favorite all time fighter missing a punch and his momentum draping him over the opponents back only to get picked up and violently thrown to the canvas thus injuring him. How would you look at it then? Be honest with yourself.
First, it wasn't a DQ. It was a TKO loss. There was no foul called. So you're saying because Hopkins has, in your estimation, a solid excuse (lie) for why he was on Chad's back, that Dawson should've been DQ'd? And you're calling me biased? And you also say that because to your knowledge Hopkins wasn't informed he'd lose if he couldn't go on, that he should've won by DQ? Is that really what you're saying? Hopkins claims to have injured his shoulder such that he couldn't fight on. He did not hear a foul called (because there never was one). But he insisted he couldn't go on. Now. Either he doesn't know the rules (which is very likely since half the people on this board don't seem to), or, he mistakenly assumed there was a foul when there wasn't one, or he simply did not want to continue at all cost. Either way, there was nothing unfair going on. News for Hopkins and everyone else tempted to believe his bull-shit version of the truth: just because things didn't go Bernard Hopkin's way doesn't mean it was unfair. Of course, Hopkins doesn't see it this way. According to him, this is a conspiracy against him to get him out of boxing. Do you believe this also? Fact of the matter is, Hopkins must be very ignorant indeed for this to have occurred to him as an explanation for his misfortune last night. Be clear. Hopkins capacity to break the rules, twist the truth, and manipulate people is not an indication of his intelligence (toddlers in fact are every bit adept at telling lies and manipulating others to get what they want), but rather of his anti-social mentality, the very one that landed him in prison. At best, Hopkins can hope for a NC, which is what results if a ruling is somehow orchestrated stating that Hopkins went down as the result of an unintentional foul. There's no way in hell Dawson will be found to have committed an intentional foul, which is what would be necessary for the decision to be that Dawson loses by DQ. So, yes. Dawson stupidly let his emotions get the best of him by reacting as he did to Hopkins' grappling. And so technically speaking, a ruling last night of a NC would not have been unreasonable. At the same time, consider the extreme case of Santana/Norris, in which boxing's rules were manipulated for financial gain, and the history Hopkins has (he's been vocal about the fact we should not let ourselves be influenced by what he's done in the past - that's unrelated to the matter at hand), of faking injuries, not to mention the PBF/Ortiz debacle, and suddenly, a referee exercising some subjective interpretation of events sits okay with me. So I guess I reject all together the premise that objectivity is what is called for in a case like this. It's not a legal trial. It's not as if any malice or wrong-doing will go unpunished. Rather, we as fans just might find ourselves with a lesser chance of getting ripped off next time we're gullible enough to cough up $60. As a fan who shells out money for every major PPV event, I'm starting to see the wisdom in adopting a no-Hopkins, no-PBF policy when it comes to whose fights I buy and whose fights I don't.
Leave bias aside. Guy A was thrown to the ground by Guy B and Guy A says he's injured = DQ or at the very least No contest (if you believe the throw down was justified by Hop being on his back. I do not think it was justified)
Hopkins is a pussy. Danny Williams dislocated his shoulder against Mark Potter in 2000 and still beat the guy.
The commission will overrule Pat Russell and call it an accidental foul. That's fairly obvious. It's no different than Nate Campbell initially losing to Tim Bradley by TKO then the commission overturned the decision to a TD. The ref blew the call and the commission overturned it. The same will happen here.
There is one problem; the ref didn't blow the call. Not arguing with you, but the sheer "inevitability" that people expect from this is most depressing. Its like we expect to get fucked, and welcome it when it comes. "Ah they fucked us and made it an NC. I'm relieved" :doh:
Was not near as bad as Williams' from what I remember. Hopkins was able to throw his right, where Williams wasn't.
Altho i'm not taking away the fact that Hopkins dislocated his shoulder and won. Fair play to him for continuing. Last night just seemed very suspect, imo.
So now we're talking about what will happen? I thought we were talking about what the rules are. So we agree the rules were properly enforced Saturday night, given the calls made? Specifically, that since there was no foul, it was rightfully deemed a TKO loss.
I was told I was wrong about the rules. But I was not. The fact there was no foul called means that Hopkins' inability to fight on meant his losing by TKO. Period. I was responding to those in the thread claiming the fight should've been a no contest, like it would've been in the case of a head-butt. We can debate about whether or not an unintentional foul should've been called, but that's a separate topic.
For me..whether the ref deemed it a foul or not should be irrelevant. A fighter couldn't continue because of an injury sustained from a non-boxing agressive move. According to the spirit of the law that's the definition of a no-contest.
So in this case, you're okay with ignoring the rules? It sounds like you don't care whether or not the referee called a foul, but think the fight should be ruled a NC regardless?
