Hopkins tried to have it both ways, by telling the ref "Sure I can fight on. With one arm" That's the verbal equivalent of a fighter who "wants out" getting up at 9.9 of the count and claiming he wants to continue. He wanted out, he want the NC, and he wanted another payday.
if I separated my left shoulder I'd want to quit too. A fighter (orthodox) can fight on with a bad right shoulder but not with a bad left.
word. This is a case where the ref should be overruled. How can a person win a title when he shoved the other one to the canvas causing a fight ending injury? I mean, think about it?
I have thought about it. And as I see it, Hopkins initiated the grappling by climbing on Dawson's back, and it was perfectly natural for Dawson to react as he did. I already said a NC would not have been unreasonable. But as shitty as the outcome was, I find some vindication in the ruling as it stands. I think Hopkins either needs to retire or be sent the message that his antics, of breaking every rule he can possibly get away with breaking, and then faking injury anytime his opponent decides he doesn't want to be fouled, need to be dealt with. And my only regret is that I didn't get to see the beating that Hopkins surely would've been subject to had the fight gone on. But now that Dawson has the belt, and was awarded it by TKO, I'm perfectly happy to never see Hopkins again, and to look forward to seeing Dawson redeem himself against Pascal, and reassert his dominance in the division. It's ironic that Hopkins considers himself the victim of a conspiracy to have him removed from boxing, because although it's a ridiculous notion on his part, there is much to be gained from his exit from the sport.
The fact there was no foul called, doesnt change the fact that there was, indeed, a foul. That is why most people are saying it will be overturned.
Ok. Well, that doesn't explain why someone posted the ABC rules. I really think some people are confused as to what occurred and why. But Musze is correct - there is precendence for over-turning decisions like this and the most recent example I can think of is Bradley/Campbell. But whereas the presence or absence of a head-butt is cut and dry, a ruling on whether or not Dawson fouled Hopkins is subjective. So I wouldn't be surprised if the decision is upheld, especially considering Hopkins' history as not only a dirty fighter, but a moaning faker too whenever someone stands up to him.
Plus the fact he was faking like a bitch the whole way through. No way did he break or seperate his shoulder from that little fall. plus he grabbed onto Dawson's head AND hit the ropes on his way down helping break his fall. He's not a frail old woman.
It is a foul to climb on your opponent's back and attempt to ride him side-saddle Bernard got what he deserved. He has been doing that shit constantly, draping himself on his opponent's back to make any type of boxing-related response impossible Dawson did what fighters before him should have done - reply in kind to shameless cheating
Hopkins is the worst sort of cheat. Cheat-him-back, and he tries to get you DQ'd or cause a controversy to get the fight stopped or called-off. He's the hollowest "legend" for some time.
Yup Bernard got what he deserved. But if a fighter repeatedly rabbit punches you and you respond by kneeing him in the bollocks, the rabbit puncher gets what he deserves as well. Doesn't change the fact that the knee is a foul.
Lennox Lewis made a habit of leaning on fighters. Chris Eubank too. Many have done it and gotten away with it.
You actually made this post, defending Hopkins's behavior because others have gotten away with it, and posted it it seconds after a post in which you've written, "Two wrongs don't make a right?" This is unbelievable.
What was subjective about Dawson grabbing the back of Hopkins' leg before shoving his shoulder into him? Can someone fucking address THAT detail.
no. I'm not defending what Hopkins did. I'm saying that he's FAR from being the only dirty notable fighter in history. Should opponents have fouled all the other guys too and won by TKO as a reward for their revenge?
word. It was a move which signified Dawson's intent to throw him over. Any way you look at it..it was a clear foul.
well, to be fair, the same level of subjectivity that resulted in Hopkins not being called out for climbing on Dawson's back numerous times also resulted in Dawson's grabbing Hopkins' legs not being called.
But as BOSS pointed out, you would be singing a different tune if it was a fighter you liked. Should be an NC.
You can say you're not defending it. But bringing up Lewis and others was certainly intended to excuse his behavior. Plain and simple. And actually, I wish someone had succeeded in combating Lewis' leaning, for example. The difference of course would've been that Lewis would've continued fighting.
Nope. Not excusing his behaviour, just pointing out the hypocrisy in those jumping on Hopkins' back (excuse the pun) about it.
Yes. From both fighters. Neither of which were called as such. Unlike the sound that a tree makes in the forest, whether someone is there or not, a foul is not a foul if it isn't called one.
Double foul. Hopkins jumping on Dawson's back and Dawson taking Hopkins down. They'll probably overturn it, I hope (and assume) it will a be a NC and not a DQ, even if Dawson intentionally fouled him (you don't accidentally grab a guy by his leg and shoulder him down). I don't want Dawson to get DQ'd for responding in kind to Hopkins's tactics. As much as I respect Hopkins's abilities, he is a fucking whiner and actor to the highest degree. He embarasses himself with his antics.
He didn't 'grab' the leg,.. at the full pace of sequence,.. Dawson's arm slid behind Hopkins leg and slid back again,.. but he didn't GRAB it at all.. :nono:
"Slid behind" when you're wearing boxing gloves is the same as grabbing. What...you think grabbing is only when you're using your fingers!! :wack:
