Rummy's Corner: Top 50 Most Spectacular KOs

Remember Chaves being DQ vs Rios? Nothing as severe as hitting a man while he was down was committed.

 

Alex, most everyone agrees a point deduction would have been fair for this unintentional foul. A DQ would have been ridiculous the way it played out.

 

This isn't a black/white thing. ****! This situation did not look intentional at all. It was more reflex. With Jones/Abraham/Bika, the shots took place after a long delay. Open your eyes and loose the bias.

Also, this...

 

Joshua be doing it to bums. Bowe did it to Buster math is jr

 

Nah, just fighting dirty as **** and doing some wrestling take downs. No big deal. :nut

 

"Victim blaming", is that some sort of argument? I would have blamed him for fabricating and exaggerating what happened to get his opponent in deeper trouble yes. So what?

 

He punched Lemieux after he visibly took a knee. I agree that these matters aren't as binary as people make them out to be but honestly - what is the difference between this scene and Bika's disqualification vs. Mendy? Other than the fact that Mendy stayed down which gave the ref no other option but to stop the fight and DQ Bika? How could the ref possibly have counted Lemieux out when he took a headshot after going down?
Let's not act like the sucker punch was part of some unstoppable combo. Golovkin punched himself in some kind of rage which is fascinating to see but which ultimately led to this unfortunate situation and it's his problem alone. Or should've been rather. I think the ref did poorly not penalizing him.

 

I thought it was a bit classless of GGG to go for the kill after he punched him while he was down. He should have let Lemieux off the hook for the rest of that round which was not a long time, he's lucky he didnt get a point deducted and Lemieux didn't get 5 minutes.

 

There's no equivalence here, these are different fouls. Dear me.

 

Excellent post. (For once BE :rofl:thumbsup)

 

I challenge you to look victim blaming up. You are doing it (or would've done it had Lemieux decided to stay on the floor) and you are being ignorant about it. There was one party at fault here and that was Golovkin. It's not up for debate, check the tapes. The fact that Lemieux stood back up is a) commendable and b) probably due to the fact that Lemieux didn't put enough thought into what potential that situation carried for himself. Lemieux is not to blame when Golovkin fouls. It's up to Golovkin to not break the rules - if he does, the outcome of the fights is not in his hands anymore. He's got only himself to blame.

I ask again - could you guys imagine the ref counting out an obviously fouled boxer out? I doubt it. The ref acknowledged the sucker punch for which Golovkin apologized, isn't that what happened?

Historically, staying down for tactical purposes is obviously a two-edged sword in terms of what it does to your reputation. The most recent example is probably Hopkins vs. Dawson 1 which turned out not a big deal for Hopkin's career. The other big one was Abraham vs Dirrell but people have to acknowledge that Dirrell was easily winning that fight and the tide wasn't exactly turning. It hurt his career a lot however. So I agree one gotta be careful about it.

In this case, Lemieux has basically manifested himself as a random tier 2 MW. This loss hurt his career more than staying down from a legitimate (or rather illegitimate) foul ever could have. Talking business exclusively, he could've chosen more wisely for sure.

 

Nope...GGG hit him while he was down..SOWWEY:hi:

 

That's why it's an example. Do you only penalize a foul if the opponent is visibly hurt? Would you not penalize a foul regardless of whether the recipient is hurt? Because that's what it sounds like you're doing; only penalize the offender if his opponent can no longer continue. A foul is a foul, regardless of the result.

Would the NFL disregard a defensive pass interefence call if the receiver caught the ball anyway? Or do you not see the relation?

In the case of Golovkin vs Lemeiux, it's a judgement call. I didn't think he intentionally fouled him so I would've stuck with a hard warning or possibly a point deduction, that's me, personally. For the sake of consistency, I would agree with a disqualification.

 

That's what I'm getting from his posts as well. Very peculiar view to have to be frank. And not backed up by the rules either so I'm not really sure what Cafe is on about other than ****riding his favourite fighter. Fouls are potentially career ruining in boxing.

 

I could've been intentional but it didn't seem like it to me. You're right though. Intentional or not it should have punished.

I was just opining that this isn't a race thing (could have been much clearer and used better examples). Guys commit fouls all the time. Mares got away with 7,000 low blows against Agbeko. Hopkins got away with fouling all time throughout his career. It was incompetent (or something far more sinister) reffing.