Hopkins Dawson rematch ordered by WBC

Both Dawson and Shaw knew the decision to be overturned was still up in the air. Even Dawson's trainer John Scully thought the fight should be an NC. You fail to mention that Hopkins said he wanted a rematch, than flip flop in other interviews that he wasn't interested in a rematch FACT. Of course you're a dumb nuthugger so you can't see that. atsch

I'm not the who thinks Dawson doesn't deserve a rematch. If you weren't a dumb nuthugger, you would be in favor of a rematch and believe that Hopkins would beat Dawson cleanly in 12 rounds.

Of course Hopkins has a tenancy to overreact or fake an injury when he believes he is fouled. The referee didn't think Dawson committed a foul and he clearly stated that Hopkins was on top of Dawson's back which caused Hopkins to be lifted. So to say Dawson blew it is simply not all true, Hopkins deserves some of the blame. And if Hopkins is really injured he wouldn't heal so quickly. As Dawson's trainer pointed out, it takes around 6 months for a dislocated shoulder to heal yet he's ready to train in January?

 

So if they knew there was a possibility that it would be ruled a NC why did they both insist that they would not give Hopkins a rematch and were willing to vacate any titles they did have to make sure it didn't happen :think

Styles make fights and Hopkins and Dawson just don't match up well and thats the truth of the matter and Hopkins does not have long to go maybe 1-3 fights at the most and I don't want to see him in another **** fight against a undisciplined bottlejob like Dawson when he could be fighting Cloud, Bute or even Cleverly.

Oh dear where to start with this pathetic sham atsch

1. FACT Dawson lifted Hopkins leg and that's not boxing, it was a foul intentional or unintentional (unintentional according to the CSAC and the WBC) but a foul none the less.

2. Hopkins milking low blows for all they're worth against Calzaghe doesn't change the fact Dawson commited a foul (again intentional or unintentional it doesn't matter)

3. Dawson did blow his chance, his post fight reaction spoke volumes. One minute he's running around celebrating the next he's looking all upset then finally he's angry.

4. Is John Scully a doctor? did John Scully have the exact same injury as Hopkins? do recovary times for injuries vary or does everyone with a similar injury take the exact same amount of time to heal? are you really this stupid? really?

The first time you try and reply to my post as a whole and you prove yourself to be an utter disgrace and to think i've spent time on here refuting and educating you about the facts. :verysad

 

1. You are one dumb persistent ***** aren't you? Hopkins leaned onto Dawson's shoulder while Dawson ducked a punch, as Dawson went up, Hopkins was lifted. If you watch the replay you can see Hopkins literally on top of Dawson before Dawson's arm was wrapped around his leg, FACT. I don't know how many times this has to be repeated.

2.There was no foul committed by Dawson. Cotto shoved Clottey almost in the same manner, the referee didn't penalize Cotto and the referee was right not to penalize Dawson. Same thing happened in Chambers vs W.Klitschko. Throws and slams happen all the time in boxing. It's just that 99% of the time most boxers continue fighting, well except for Hopkins.

3.Dawson was pissed, I'm pretty sure if you were in his position, you would be pissed too.

4.According to Scully he discoclated his shoulder in 1999 it took him six months to fully train, and during his injury he can barley move his arm. Look what happened when Pascal fought Diaconu in the rematch, it took him quite a while to recover. If Hopkins was seriously hurt, he wouldn't be able to train in January.

The only disgrace here is you, you blind nuthugger. Of course they will eventually will fight again, so I don't know why you even bothered mentioning that Dawson doesn't deserve a rematch. atsch

 

Hopkins should just retire. There are two possibilities 1) Hopkins did not want to fight Dawson and took an easy way out or 2) He was legitimately injured. I will give Hopkins the benefit of the doubt and say 2 is accurate.

My problem is if #2 is true then Hopkins should no longer be a professional athlete. Having done Judo for years I know what a hard fall looks like and the fall Hopkins took was not hard by any means. It is true boxing is not Judo or MMA or anything like that but I have watched the Hopkins fall many times and the only way it is truly damaging is if Hopkins is truly fragile. So fragile he needs to exit the game.

 

CSAC seems to think otherwise :deal the replays seem to show otherwise :deal you can go over it as many times as you want but the facts support what i'm saying, it was the hooking of the leg that was the main point of defence for Hopkins and GBP to base their appeal off, something they did successfully.

Yes it was a foul that's why the result was overturned dumbass atschthrowing/shrugging/hook leg suplexing is NOT boxing and the Cotto Clotty fight is irrelevant as Clottey was not injured as a result of Cotto's shove.

Maybe he should have controled himself and not bottled it during the fight then

What a ****ing dingleberry you are :nut i've already explained this to you previously well atleast I tried but it seems you're thicker then I previously thought you were.

You're just butthurt because i've been laying down icey cold irrefutable facts that demolish your bull**** blinkered version of reality. Everyime you've attempted to address individual points in response to my post(s) you've shown your own ******edness point in case 'John Scully said it takes 6 months so that's that' (BTW I really wouldn't mention that again if I was you )

 

This is the beginning of the end for B-Hop.

 

You don't know **** about boxing do you? The ruling was overturned because Hopkins wasn't knocked out from a punch. A TKO can only result from a punch, Hopkins wasn't knocked out from a punch, he was shoved to the ground. Get your facts straight *******.atsch The referees statement was that Dawson did not lift or suplex Hopkins, Hopkins rammed into Dawson which caused him to be lifted, and Dawson shoved him, THAT'S A FACT. I mean what would you do if you had a 175lb guy on top of you?

None of what you mentioned is a fact, all you did was spew out your blind love for Hopkins.:deal When Pascal dislocated his shoulder (which required surgery) he was out for a year, and if Hopkins was SERIOUSLY hurt he would have required surgery. Again where is the MRI results? You don't need to be a doctor to figure that out. Read the topic title, you are a whiny dumb ass nuthugging fool who's complaining over nothing. :tired:tired

 

if someone is unable to continue, its always a TKO. unless the injury was caused by a foul. if someone attemps a foul and injures himself in the process, its a tko. regardless of a punch been thrown, if someones knee gets ****ed or if someone just collapses, whatever, punch thrown or not, its a TKO..
the decision was overturned because that fraudulent referee took some checks and changed his mind in return, thats the only reason

 

Let me quote you what Gary Show said;

"The commission took a vote that it was an unintentional foul"


Now let me quote you Richard Shaefer;

""[The CSAC] ruled it was a foul by Dawson, which we already knew because that should have been obvious to anyone, but that it was unintentional,"

Looks like the ruling was overturned due to a foul something i've said to you over and over but you seemed to think it was worth mentioning it was because there was no punch thrown :nut you really don't make this easy on yourself.

It's all facts son, I provide references and source everything when backing up my points :deal you on the other hand follow me around from thread to thread hoping Sad Chad get's a mention so you can get all emotional and kick up a fuss

Your avatar captures the pinacle of Dawson's career perfectly.....going life and death with a close to 40 Glen Johnson atsch

 

Yes you are right it was unintentional. Keyword unintentional, it wasn't a deliberate foul, there is a difference between the two :nut (You are so dumb). If it was an intentional foul Dawson might have gotten a DQ. Based on all the evidence and the referee's statement, it was ruled an NC which I was trying to point out.

The only person getting emotional here is you, as a matter fact in your first post you were complaining that Dawson didn't deserve a rematch. And no I don't follow you around dumb ass. If you were another poster I would have replied regardless.

 

A foul is a foul that's why it was ruled a NC because it was a foul weather it was unintentional or intentional.

He doesn't deserve a rematch not a complaint just my own opinion, and yes you love following me about :deal where else are you going to get to defend your hero and get educated all in one go? :smooch

 

If you are going to explain what is a foul try and separate what is unintentional and intentional. It would clear things up.

Educated? lol, you don't even know the difference between an unintentional and intentional foul. It seems like I'm the one educating you here. I knew it was an unintentional foul, my point is the ruling was changed based on all the EVIDENCE. I thought you were smart enough to realize that an unintentional foul means NOTHING. And I don't follow you around dumb ass, I didn't even know it was you until I saw your user-name. I thought you were some other blind Hopkins nuthugger :deal.

 

I can see either winning in a rematch, though I want to say it'll most likely be Hopkins if it does come to pass.

 

Seems like B-Hop vs Dawson II is the most likely scenario.