Could the Hopkins result be overturned?

What book do you use? Local I hope. Most of the online books will not return your money. I learned this during Toney-Rahman.

 

Unfortunately an online book as Hopkins went from +110 to +147.

I felt those odds were enticing, so I bet $500 on +147.


Lesson learned. :smoke

 

hey , can anyone tell me about william hill, paid by card, not online, thanks very much

 

Hopkins is always rushing in or behind and this time it backfired

 

Nope. Hopkins leaps forward with his right leg while Dawson's torso is still moving backwards. Dawson only started moving forward when he realised what Hopkins was doing.

 

But before any contact between the 2.

 

Hopkins clearly fell in. I'm surprised he let himself get that far off balance but I guess he was sure he would land the punch. Watch the feet. Dawson's feet don't move.

 

When contact was inevitable. After Hopkins jumped, Dawson moved forward.

It's a good thing he did, otherwise they both would have gone down, with Hopkins on top. Then it is more likely that Dawson would have been injured by Hopkins cheating. If Hopkins has to cheat, it is a better outcome that he is the one who gets injured for it.

Either result is a direct outcome of Hopkins jumping.

 

Nah, it wasn't a fall. He allowed his own momentum to carry him into a jump forward. He had time and enough balance to stop himself. But he would have been exposed as he was overextended. So he made a decision to jump onto Dawson to stifle Dawson's ability to capitalise on the overextension.

It was a stupid and illegal thing to do, and it left Chad with not much choice.

 

I'd like to see the medical report. If Dawson did nudge B-hop a bit I can't say I blame him. But it looked like B-hop fell because he was off balance.

 

It should not be overturned.

It would not only be the wrong call, but would set a very dangerous precedent. Very slippery slope.

 

I may be wrong but I think you gave the definition for 'falling in' quite well.

Here is how Jack Dempsey describes his “falling step”:

“Let your arms dangle loosely at your sides; you won’t need to use [them yet]. Bend your body slightly forward as you shift your weight forward onto your front foot so that your [rear] foot is resting only on the ball… Now without any preliminary movements take a long, quick step forward with your front foot toward the object at which your front foot had been pointing at. I emphasize ‘no preliminary movement’ before the step. (You unquestionably will be tempted to shift some of the weight…NO PRELIMINARY MOVEMENT!) Just lift the foot and let the body fall forward in a long, quick step.”


Now days 'falling in' usually indicates an 'over reaching' when doing this. Hopkin's was too committed to the punch and 'fell in'.

​

 

Calling a TKO when no punch has landed and the injury is the result of a throw would likewise set a very dangerous precedent. Guys could simply try to cause such "fluke accidents" against their opponents to get the win.

 

Valuev-McCline. Many others throughout history, but that one's freshest in memory.

 

So should Bailey-Ouali also have been a TKO?