Rummy's Corner: Top 50 Most Spectacular KOs

Three examples don't equal "consistency". Two, I don't agree, in cases such as this you need to see the aftermath in my opinion to judge appropriately what action to take depending on the severity of it. I don't think every foul should be treated in the exact same manner.

 

I don't think every foul should be treated in the exact same manner either unless it's the same foul. But I also don't think fouls should be brushed off or ignored because it wasn't as severe. That was the point of my examples, just fouls in general, shouldn't be ignored because of the severity.

 

I'm not saying it should be ignored, I think he should have had a point deducted and five minutes rest, I don't agree with the action taken. But because Lemieux was able to continue and the punch didn't seem to have caused a significant effect, it shouldn't have resulted in a DQ.

 

The OP isn't race baiting and neither are most of the people involved in this thread so far I think. You can make a case either way. I just found the other poll result to be very biased and not realistic at all (something like 90% believe Golovkin should've NOT been disqualified). This was definitely a very controversial scene that could've gone either way for Golovkin especially when Lemieux had decided to lay down after being fouled. I just can't fathom how the ref, who acknowledged the foul, would start counting Lemieux out after taking a sucker punch. That just wouldn't have happened. The fact that the fight was pretty lopsided plus Golovkin's popularity make for one-sided polls but this was a 50/50 situation. At best, for Golovkin.

I for one believe he would've been disqualified had Lemieux stayed down. N/C tops.

 

Fair enough, I think boxing deserves a "league" with more consistent refereeing across the board to avoid, or at least decrease, debates like this.

 

Yes but I don't agree this was an example of inconsistency when compared to the examples given in the OP and other posts. If you can find an example which was similar to this (as in the fighter didn't get KO'd) and resulted in a disqualification then the debate would be more interesting.

Edit: Although you can argue it's inconsistent in terms of Golovkin getting scot free, it would be interesting to see what normally happens in these cases.

 

I've only watched the video once, but I didn't think it looked intentional, but it is very subjective. And that's not really the point anyway. The intent doesn't matter. Anyone can lie and say they didn't commit a foul on purpose. What's not up for bait is that he did hit him after he was down. Had he stayed down, then the proper action would be to DQ Golovkin.

Well Sir, I'm not in disagreement with you. I do not find fault in your logic. Perhaps I read too much into the comments and started arguing a supposition. My bad.

Good Day. I'm pretty high right now.

 

"Victim blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act is held entirely or partially responsible for the harm that befell them"

Well, if you dive and pretend that harm that didn't actually befall on you, did. That's a different case altogether.

 

The dive is not the focal point. It's in Golovkin's hands to refrain from fouling. If he does not abide to the rules, it's simply not in his hands anymore. If Lemieux stays down, you can't fault him for exploiting an obvious mistake by Golovkin. It's not Lemieux's task to clean up Golovkin's mess.
Think Hopkins for a fairly similar scenario against Dawson in their first fight. Hopkins was doing badly, was fouled, stayed down. Legitimately or not, it's not for us to judge because none of us are doctors. The only thing that was not debatable was Dawson's body check. Fight was ruled a No Contest since Hopkins was not stopped by a punch. All according to the rules. Things like "dignity" and "honor" are foolish and immature concepts that usually speed up your career rather than prolong it. A huge portion of the most successful boxers shares mostly one trait: being smart.

You are putting more emphasis on a potential dive of the fouled than on the one who committed the foul and could've potentially inflicted severe damage. Your sense of justice and balance is awfully clouded by your preference of one party involved which is why you revert to victim blaming. Please understand what you are implying: diving is a worse offense than throwing a punch after one has taken a knee. There is literally no physical harm in staying down after a foul as opposed to actively fouling where whole lot can go wrong. These two things are not even in the same ballpark when it comes to their degree of offence.

Unless I am misunderstanding you? Correct me if I'm wrong or if you feel I'm wrongfully putting words in your mouth.

 

Why can't I fault him? If he stays down to pretend that he can't continue when he very well can to further exploit a situation by falsifying the circumstances I can very well fault him for that. :blood

You're arguing some non point with walls of gibberish, that's all I get from your posts.

 

I honestly find little pleasure in talking with a neanderthal. Let's agree to disagree, shall we?

 

My answer: NO.

Jones, Abraham, Bika, would have not been DQ'd if there opponents didn't go down like that. If David had fallen over and acted KO'd then GGG could have been DQ'd. David is a better man than most for not doing that.

 

You mean you don't enjoy having your arguments being exposed for what they are: trash.

Yes, we can certainly end our "argument" on this note.

 

Dirrell was clowing Abraham. It's been years of discussion and I haven't heard a single valid point as to why Dirrell should've taken a dive to get out of a fight he was in control of. As I said, it's not like the tide was turning in Abraham's favor. The skill gap between those two boxers was shocking.

So be it.

 

Should have had atleast a point taken away and arguably DQ'd.