Cnn is as close to moderate as it gets, i mean MSNBC yes. But its irrelevant, semi-intelligent people can hear (enter a Fox correspondents name) and wonder whether the person is on acid. You do the same thing with an MSNBC correspondent you think, wow what a stuck up jackass, bleeding heart piece of shit. But wait, there were actual facts and logic in what that person was saying, and there was no reliance on fireland or closet racism masquerading as a majority opinion.
I ought to stop riding the brilliant energetic outburst from the pipes heffer and start coming up with my own stuff,.. she's fixed me up for a day and a half so far.
As much as I hate Bernard Hopkins, and as much as I hate the double standards associated with him, it should probably be a NC as the injury wasn't caused by a punch and he allegedly wanted to continue. Don't really care though.
Karma had to catch up sometime Slice. Lucky it was Joe Cortez the second time Hopkins tried to buy time in the Calzaghe fight,.. because another ref would have been obligated to start the count.
Oh I agree Kauks, it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy, but just as a black and white answer to the OP, on a purely individual basis, a NC would probably have been the correct decision
Let's be clear hear - the injury does not need to have been caused by a punch for the outcome to have been a TKO. HBO mistakenly released that bit of bull-shit into the atmosphere, but it isn't true. The issue is whether or not you think Chad fouled Hopkins, thereby causing the so-called, "injury." Hopkins is lying about his desire to continue, by the way. Which is no surprise seeing as how it's his word against the referee's. Why wouldn't he lie? He needed to cover up that he's a quitter and was looking for a way out, and was seeking a bull-shit DQ win over Dawson.
Fair enough Doub, if that's the case then it's probably a fair decision. Not too bothered either way, fuck Hopkins.
Hopkins will likely continue to bitch even if it is ruled a NC, no doubt convinced that it should've been a disqualification. Things didn't go Hopkins' way. Therefore they must be unfair or unjust.
Precisely. And worst of all the bastard is an inarticulate fuck, so his complaints always have this magnificent garbled quality to them, where turtles, odd ratios and profound philosophical questions such as "who I am" are bandied about in cahoots with one another.
It was sarcasm. I bet Bernard makes his wife pick up the dog-shit at their house with her bare hands, and then scores the dog-shit-picking session for himself, on grounds of clean, effective dog-shit avoiding, and dog-shit generalship. Then he puts all the dog-shit in a safety deposit box, because that's HIS dog-shit, and he ain't going to allow anyone to take HIS dog-shit off him, not HBO, not Turtle-Shit collecting Roy Jones, not David Reid, NOT NOBODY. He then sits back for the evening and ponders...."Who I Am"??
What will be hilarious is if Hopkins with his pig-head begins feuding with G. He'll be chewed up and spit out. It's one thing to kick Bouie Fisher to the curb - it'll be another if he starts talking shit about the outfit that somehow keeps his boring ass on the screen. Actually, what will be surprising is if when all is said and done, Hopkins has NOT initiated a law-suit against G, or personnel within G.
The key with Bernard is that he is an attention whore. He's not just greedy, he's gotten hooked on the adulation too. When that goes, he'll look for some more attention, and a lawsuit might not be a bad way to effect this.
Delighted to see somebody come a cropper for this increasingly prevelant 'neck push' bullshit. If refs won't deal with it, the culprits ending up in hospital with shoulder dislocations is the next best thing.
Hopkins get championship back "The World Boxing Council will continue to recognize Bernard Hopkins as its light heavyweight champ following a vote of its board of directors on Wednesday, RingTV.com has learned. The majority of the WBC's board members disagreed with the official call of Hopkins' WBC and RING title defense against Chad Dawson on Saturday in Los Angeles. Dawson won the fight by controversial second-round TKO after shoving Hopkins to the canvas where the 46-year-old champ injured his left shoulder and was deemed unfit to continue by referee Pat Russell. Hopkins maintains that he was fouled by the young challenger and thus the bout should have been ruled a No Contest. Russell did not view Dawson's shove as foul, accidental or otherwise. Golden Boy Promotions filed a protest with the California State Athletic Commission which will review the fight and make a ruling at a Dec. 13 hearing. THE RING magazine continues to recognize Hopkins as its champ pending that ruling."
I wonder if that would be considered a foul if Dawson had gotten hurt by it? This whole thing has an eggshell plaintiff feel to it. Anyone thing Dawson intended to hurt Hopkins? Hopkins is getting rewarded for being a fragile bitch (me=don't like Hopkins) for getting hurt after Dawson reacted to Hopkins' initial foul. If Dawson had hurt his back when Hopkins crawled on, I think I would still be okay with a tko for Hopkins. These fouls just aren't the same as real fouls and I see it more like a low blow situation.
It makes a good point - and it's why the referee's decision should've been upheld. The message from the WBC is: "if you get hurt by a foul (as Hopkins supposedly was), we'll call it a foul, and even if it isn't, we'll do so after the fact. If, on the other hand, you're not hurt by the foul (as Dawson wasn't), then we'll just look the other way and pretend there was no foul." The consequence of this approach, of course, is that fighters are incented to fake injury (even if it means bowing out of the fight). We see this all the time - fighters pretending that low-blows hurt when clearly they didn't, just so the referee will call the foul and possibly deduct a point. The solution is for referees to call fouls not in response to a fighter possibly being hurt, but in response to a rule having been broken.
The solution is to have capable referees that know the rules. It would be nice to have a few fans that knew them too.
What was Dawson's foul? Is it wrestling? Is it dumping a guy who crawled on your back? Is there no discretion for the ref? This isn't a perfect comparison, but if Roger fucking Mayweather can jump into the ring and attack his nephew's opponent for a piddly low blow and the ref has the discretion to say that's not a dq offense, then a ref should have the discretion to say a tough dump of a guy on your back isn't a foul.
Another example of the ref fucking up imo. As far as I know, Hopkins had never been informed that he was gonna lose by tko could he not continue. Worst of all, and he replied that he could fight with one arm, then why not let the mother fucking man fight with one arm. It's not like if a boxer fighting injured is a precedent in boxing. it seems that referee nowaday wants to take to much spotlight for themselves.
