Dawson - Hopkins: The WBC rules

I didn't have a clear view on what the correct fight verdict should have been. So I thought that it's never a bad idea to look at what the official WBC rules say...

Based on those, my conclusion is that the decision was correct and that Bernard forfeited the fight by abandonment (like Vitali Klitschko with a similar type injury in the Byrd fight; where he was ahead on all three scorecards). This is because a dislocated shoulder is not listed among the fight ending injuries in the WBC rules. The conclusion does not depend on whether the injury was caused by a foul or not.

[As an aside: this should not be implied to mean that I support boxers fighting injured, but rather that it is ultimately up to the WBC to decide: at present the WBC have not explicitly included shoulder dislocations among the potentially fight stopping ones]

Even if you think that Bernard was fouled and was really unfit to continue, the ultimate verdict is entirely the referee's discretion. The referee can either DQ Chad and announce Bernard the winner, or, alternatively, make Chad the winner with Bernard losing by abandonment. He chose the latter and there is no reason to argue / overrule his decision, I would think.

The only way you can argue for a Technical Draw (aka No Contest) is if you think the injury was fight stopping and not caused by a foul.

Detailed argument follows - looking forward to alternative views and opinions.


For reference, the rules can be found here:
http://www.wbcboxing.com/downloads/RULESFORCHAMPIONSHIPFIGHTS-SYNTHESIZED%20094.pdf

In effect there are two lines you can push I think:

1. There was an injury (possibly foul-related) which made it impossible to continue the fight
2. There was no injury (or the injury was not severe enough) to warrant stopping the fight

Key question being, whether the (real or imaginary) injury that Bernard sustained was severe enough to warrant stopping the fight?

If you go with the severe injury line, then the relevant bit of the WBC list of possible results (top of page four) states that:

• Legal Punch --> TKO
• Accidental Injury --> TDRAW Before 4 or TDEC after 4
• Intentional Injury --> DQ

Of course, no one is arguing that a legal punch ended this fight. So, since the events occurred in round 2, therefore the only possible outcomes would be a TDRAW (no contest is not a term used in the rules) or a DQ if we wanted to push the intentional injury line.

If, however, you go with the other line, then you have a problem as the official result list has no option for "quitting when fit to continue". What comes closest in that case, I guess, are the rules on abandonment in point 15:

So here you could say, Bernard was fit, Chad wasn't disqualified - fight ended by abandonment - so a Technical Decision is legit. And accidentally, even if you think that Bernard was fouled and unfit to continue, then it's still the referee's discretion whether to DQ his opponent (in which case Bernard wins) or not (in which case he loses).

An important question in this context is whether what we saw was a foul (and whether it was intentional or not).

Point 15 of the WBC rules, lists common fouls that may be committed by boxers that may be cause for penalty or disqualification. The applicable points of that list read:

Well, arguably Chad didn't shrug Bernard of accidentally - he wanted to do it and he crouched and used his shoulders (and possibly forearms - there was some contact with Bernard's leg).

Of course, you could also make the point that Bernard fouled as well. He was on top of Chad and so, if you really wanted to argue this, the clauses would be:

But back to the main question: does a shoulder injury warrant stopping the fight or is it "abandonment"? Well, if you remember the Klitschko - Byrd fight - there Vitali was ahead on all three scorecards and still lost the fight when he decided not to continue. So that would tend to support the abandonment theory...

But what do the rules say? Point 13 on injuries states that:

Interestingly, the list of injuries includes cuts, abrasions, excessive swelling - but not a dislocated shoulder (kind of in line with the Vitali - Byrd decision). So, reading the rules literally, you would have to conclude that a dislocated shoulder, to the extent that it doesn't cause excessive swelling, is not considered a fight stopping injury. If so, Bernard loses by abandonment, right?

 

I agree that the referee could have decided to DQ Dawson and give the nod to Hopkins. But, according to the rules, it is the referee's discretion whether he decides to disqualify the offending boxer (even if a foul was committed, which the referee seemed not to believe) - i.e. disqualification is not automatic.

The ref decided not to disqualify Dawson, so the verdict is legit (even though you can take issue with the official rules and argue that disqualification should be automatic).

 

Illiteracy is bliss.

 

It only ends the thread if the "unified rule of the association of boxing commissions" is materially different from the WBC rules that I referred to above (to the extent that these unified rules at all apply).

So, a link to the said unified rules, and more on why WBC rules do not apply to a WBC sanctioned world championship fight would be appreciated :hey

 

Perhaps these hold in your private rule book, yes. But what I was referring to was the WBC one. If you care to point to the relevant bits there that support your assertions, then we can discuss further... (I'll save you time, though - there are none).

 

I actually thought a bit more on whether VK vs Byrd is relevant or not. If, for a sec, we ignore the fact that the other one was sanctioned by WBO rules and not the WBC ones, then I think it really is.

The question is, was Bernard fit to fight after the incident? Becuase if you believe he was, but chose not to (despite the time to recover he was given), then he should have lost by technical decision, right?

The VK - Byrd fight is highly relevant because there VK also sustained a related injury. OK - he got injured accidentally, trying to punch Byrd or sth, but that is not really crucial (at least according to the rules; what I mean is that whether the injury was accidental or a result of a faul only has implications for whether the opponent can be disqualified or not, but not for whether the fight goes to the scorecards or not). If the referee thought that the fight cannot continue, it should have gone to the scorecards, where VK was ahead and so would have been declared a winner by technical decision (e.g. that's what would have happened had he suffered an accidental cut due to a headbutt that really impaired his vision). It is only if you think that he could have fought on, but chose not to, that the verdict in that fight makes sense.

So by that token, to the extent the injuries are comparable, BHOP was deemed fit to fight on and ultimately lost because he chose not to carry on.