Dawson\Hopkins changed to a NC!

ACTUALLY,

What I argued at the time was that there is precedent - whether we like it or not, whether we agree with the previous instances or not - of a TKO ruling when one boxer is randomly injured in the course of his own actions (or while doing nothing at all - basically, when not the result of a foul, nor of a legal blow).

NC is the ruling that makes the most sense, but there is precedent for a TKO ruling when bizarre fluke injuries that are nobody's fault injure and incapacitate one boxer (Valuev-McCline, for instance...although I see it's now changed on Boxrec to RTD, but back in October when we were debating this it still read TKO3 :think Anyway, it still says TKO here: http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/WBA_Heavyweight_Title_Fights and that's what it was officially ruled as at the time, not a corner retirement but a TKO due to self-sustained injury).

Back when this debate was still hot it was my position that either TKO or NC were acceptable, but that the then-official ruling of TKO was not expressly wrong and didn't require changing as there was precedent. It got changed from one technically acceptable ruling to the other (more popularly favorable) acceptable ruling.

What has always been incorrect is the view held by many that it ought to have been a disqualification. Dawson did not foul Hopkins. He did absolutely nothing "illegal". He did not throw him. He did not slam him. He shrugged him off his back.

Morally, it always ought to have been a No Contest/No Decision - as no decision was reached between the two in a sporting manner; no natural conclusion came about in their contest...so, No Contest. Not a TKO, nor a DQ - but a clear cut and dry No Contest. That's in Ideal World, where little things like rules and technicalities don't get in the way. Technically, however - there was/is an argument for the original TKO ruling having been correct as there have been cases where injuries not sustained from a foul or a legal blow have led to the injured fighter being ruled as losing by TKO. If we're cool with the CSAC changing this, then Jameel McCline shouldn't be in double digit losses...and any other boxer who's ever been ruled TKO'ed due to a non-foul/non-punch injury should have the TKO loss removed from their records as well. :deal Unless you want to take the hypocritical view that McCline and others in his predicament got a "legal boxing ending" whereas Dawson & Hopkins didn't prior to the ruling. That's just playing favorites.

 

Bull****. Everybody knows it was a punch that destroyed McCline's ankle because Niko actually hits that ****ing hard.

 

Hate this decision. Now Hopkins for sure will never give Dawson a rematch. It also sets a precedent where any boxer who gets injured in a fight and can't continue from anything other than a clear legal punch can have a loss changed to NC.
Kessler should appeal to the CSAC for the Ward TD loss to be changed to a NC since the cuts were deemed to have been caused by headbutts.

 

I think the rule is within 4 rounds.

 

yeah its hopkins' fault he got lifted off his feet and thrown to the canvas! :good

 

hopkins better give Dawson a rematch, or he's forever a punk.

 

Neither of those things happened.

He climbed Dawson's back and was shrugged/rolled off. Not lifted, and not thrown.

 

Got what he deserved. Dont lean on another fgihters back. And Hopkins is the dirtiest fighter in the game and fakes injuries all the time.

 

Can't believe people call Chad dirty when Hopkins has had a history of this crap see below:







[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8x17qxhdLo[/ame]

 

That's right eh, I overlooked that. Can't think of any other fights right now that happened that were stopped in under 4 due to an inury, maybe Vitali Solis, though that was after he took a punch. Oh well, still hate it. It gives fighters a legit out for fights where they suffer an injury from say a headbutt early or a shot to the balls or back of the head. They can simply quit and get the NC later and still collect their pay check. Zab Judah would have loved this ruling.

 

I don't recall you hedging anywhere near this much when it came to the TKO vs. NC debate, and the argument wasn't just that precedent exists for a TKO ruling in cases like this, but that the existence of such a precedent made the TKO ruling the right decision (as should have also been the case in Williams-Cintron). Thus,

 

Didn't Dawson duck down as Hopkins was coming in? That kind of thing happens all the time in boxing; the message shouldn't be sent that a violent shrug can get you a TKO win should the guy fall hard enough not to be fit to continue.

It still boggles my mind that people think Hopkins can get dropped twice against Pascal and get up to dominate the rest of the fight, and train for months with the dedication he's known for, and regardless, he was so unbelievably scared after two fairly close and ugly rounds with Dawson that the minute Dawson shrugged him, he would tarnish his legacy by faking not being able to continue. Not whining for a break, not pleading a foul, but stopping the fight for no reason after all that training.

 

To be fair people were saying Hopkins didn't want to fight Dawson before those two rounds and it was said by many he was ducking Dawson.. Then that happens in the fight.. Doesn't mean it's true, but funny how he was said to be avoiding Dawson and soon as that happened he couldn't continue... Then gets his belt back.. We'll see if he gives Dawson a rematch.

 

Got to agree with Bigbone and Purephase here.