Anyone read Thomas Hauser's awful summation of the Hopkins debacle?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by klompton, Oct 17, 2011.


Page 1 of 4
  1. klompton

    klompton Boxing Addict banned

    5,667
    38
    Jul 6, 2005
    For a guy who idolized and made his career by riding on Muhammad Ali's back (who in turn invented or at least popularised leaning on opponents) he basically says that Pat Russell made the right call. I dont get it. How do you TKO a guy who couldnt continue based on an injury sustained from an action in which no punch was thrown??? Even if you believe Hopkins was faking (which I dont) throwing someone to the canvas, whether intentional or not, is a foul (intentional or accidental). If that action stops the fight its either a ND or NC (depending on which state you are in). Frankly I think blame rests squarely on Pat Russell. First off, opponents leaning on each other is common in the sport. The referee is supposed to be right there in order to break the two fighters. If its excessive a warning is issued and then points are taken. However, there was nothing in less than two rounds of fighting to suggest that Russell should have done anything but break the fighters apart. It is absolutely unacceptable for one fighter to throw another. Which is where Pat Russell screwed the pooch a second time by saying there was no foul (either accidental or intentional) and awarding a TKO (which in essence suggests Hopkins refused to continue, which he didnt do, which he has no history of, and which there was no evidence of any intention or reason for such action in less than two completed rounds). The fight should have clearly been called a No-Contest or No-Decision. Frankly, in the old days one or both fighters would have gone unpaid and they would have been banned until they came back for a rematch. I think given the circumstances, and with enough fault to go around, Both fighters should be paid no more than expenses, refunds should be issued (less expenses and some kind of prorated fee for the undercard bouts), and both fighters should be obligated to a return match which is fought on its merits.
     
    klompton, Oct 17, 2011
    klompton, Oct 17, 2011
    #1
  2. Bummy Davis

    Bummy Davis Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,639
    2,093
    Aug 26, 2004
    Hopkins should have gotten up to fight, This is not the first time he faked a foul for his own benefit he did it vs Calzage to catch a rest....Cheap for a guy who fouls so much to cry so hard...all Dawson did was stand up it was Hopkins pushing Chad down with his elbow...Hopkins should not get paid, Dawson should
     
    Bummy Davis, Oct 17, 2011
    Bummy Davis, Oct 17, 2011
    #2
  3. Guyfawkes

    Guyfawkes Than who was phone?! Full Member

    1,446
    8
    Jul 18, 2011
    Idk, the whole situation is bull****
     
    Guyfawkes, Oct 17, 2011
    Guyfawkes, Oct 17, 2011
    #3
  4. itrymariti

    itrymariti Cañas! Full Member

    13,728
    44
    Sep 6, 2008
    Monzon would have beaten that faker easily!
     
    itrymariti, Oct 17, 2011
    itrymariti, Oct 17, 2011
    #4
  5. Flea Man

    Flea Man มวยสากล Full Member

    82,423
    1,447
    Sep 7, 2008
    Hauser is crap, didn't he write that 'Floyd Vs The Great Welters' in The Rig a year or so back where he only picked Robbo to beat him :patsch

    If he didn't I apologise. Still, rarely impressed with Hauser the Hack.
     
    Flea Man, Oct 17, 2011
    Flea Man, Oct 17, 2011
    #5
  6. Azzer85

    Azzer85 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,283
    463
    Mar 13, 2010
    Chad IMO, did the right thing. Maybe he did go a bit OTT
    But if you rewatch the fight, everytime BHop throws, Chad ducks, Bhop then jumps on Chads back....Chads whole style is based on slipping and ducking...i guess it was pissing him off.
    Plus he was fired up anyway, he didnt fall for Bhops mind games. Hops knew this and tried to look for an easy way out......
    Dawson was bigger, younger, stronger and up for a fight, and Hops last line of defense (his mind games) didnt work on Dawson. Hops had no way of winning this, IMO
     
    Azzer85, Oct 17, 2011
    Azzer85, Oct 17, 2011
    #6
  7. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    Yeah, not even two ronds of fighting give you a great clue on how about what would happen ... not.

    Should have been a NC and both fighters should have gotten a fine or something.
     
    bodhi, Oct 17, 2011
    bodhi, Oct 17, 2011
    #7
  8. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,553
    Nov 24, 2005
    I argued something similar regarding LaMotta v Cerdan, and I seem to remember you being among those who wouldn't accept my reasoning.
    The only difference being I was NOT arguing that LaMotta didn't deserve a "W" over Cerdan - just pointing out that the injury resulted from an action that was not strictly legit.

    Did Hopkins want to get up and fight on like Cerdan did ?
    I don't think so.
    He wanted to haggle an "NC" out of the situation at the FIRST SIGN of trouble.

    It was a legit TKO. It looked to me like one guy quit, absolutely.
    Fighters should know that lying down on your back is NOT the way to carry on.
     
    Unforgiven, Oct 17, 2011
    Unforgiven, Oct 17, 2011
    #8
  9. klompton

    klompton Boxing Addict banned

    5,667
    38
    Jul 6, 2005
    The difference is Cerdan COULD continue. Hopkins could not. Its immaterial whether you THINK Hopkins could continue because A. He actually said he would fight with one arm if need be (which he has done before). and B. It was the referee and doctor who determined that Hopkins could not continue. Both of these points are clear on the film. The referee also admitted, when rendering his decision, that it was "inadvertint" and that Dawson "lifted him up" thus even by the referee's own admission the circumstances are clearly indicative of a ND/NC. Period. Hopkins didnt quit, he was stopped by the ref and doctor on an injury caused when Dawson inadvertintly picked him up and tossed him to the canvas. I understand some dont like Hopkins and thats fine but when you start going along with garbage like this because you dont like a single fighter that hurts the sport.
     
    klompton, Oct 17, 2011
    klompton, Oct 17, 2011
    #9
  10. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    59,154
    42,077
    Feb 11, 2005
    This is how I saw it. Hopkins was pulling the same tired bull**** he has for the last half decade. He lept on top of Dawson's back. And I would say, had Dawson not hooked Bernard's right leg with his arm, it would be an easy TKO in my opinion, as he merely stood up otherwise. However, Dawson did use that arm which makes it more of a throw, but a throw which Hopkins essentially initiated by launching himself onto Dawson. I'm not shedding any tears over this one.
     
    Seamus, Oct 17, 2011
    Seamus, Oct 17, 2011
    #10
  11. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,553
    Nov 24, 2005
    It makes absolute no difference to me whether it's a TKO or a NC. It was garbage either way. It's a mere technicality for the record books.

    OK, I take back what I said about Hopkins quitting. He didn't actually.

    Cerdan would have won your respect if he'd had stayed down in the first round pointing at his shoulder then ? And he'd be entitled in that case to an NC (and retain his title) ?
     
    Unforgiven, Oct 17, 2011
    Unforgiven, Oct 17, 2011
    #11
  12. Maxmomer

    Maxmomer Boxing Addict Full Member

    7,373
    39
    Jun 28, 2007
    You articulate my feelings on the topic perfectly.
     
    Maxmomer, Oct 17, 2011
    Maxmomer, Oct 17, 2011
    #12
  13. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    260
    Jul 22, 2004
    Supposedly what was said 'Can you fight on' 'My shoulder, my shoulder' - that's effectively indicating that no he couldn't fight on. The only reason for Hopkins pulling that would be if it was dislocated or he couldn't that arm. He has an injury but it wasn't a dislocation, I'm not sure if he could fight on with the injury.

    If the ref says it isn't a foul then that's his call and in which case he's justified in calling the TKO. He wasn't in a position to see Dawson pulling Hops leg but he could see Hops fouling Dawson - that's a foul what Hopkins did when pushing Chad down.

    A TKO doesn't need to be caused by a punch, ie if a fighter dislocates their shoulder throwing a punch, then it would still be a tko

    Hopkins is the boy who cried wolf 1 too many times and he lied in his interview
     
    PowerPuncher, Oct 17, 2011
    PowerPuncher, Oct 17, 2011
    #13
  14. El Bujia

    El Bujia Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,744
    71
    Apr 4, 2010
    :good
     
    El Bujia, Oct 17, 2011
    El Bujia, Oct 17, 2011
    #14
  15. ChrisPontius

    ChrisPontius March 8th, 1971 Full Member

    19,404
    275
    Oct 4, 2005
    Based on what, solely the fact that Hopkins refused to get up? :) Hopkins CHOOSE not to get up and to remain on the canvas. It's a slippery slope; what if Ali vs Liston was ruled a NC because the injury (just like the official verdict on Hopkins-Dawson) was not caused by a foul?

    If this was an NC, then bet your house next time on Hopkins quitting the first time he gets a low blow (or not even a real one), going down, crying that he can't continue, and get a free ticket out without the L. He was already trying that **** against Calzaghe, and even against Jones' corpse when he was easily winning. Utterly pathetic, he deserves every bit of derision he gets.
     
    ChrisPontius, Oct 17, 2011
    ChrisPontius, Oct 17, 2011
    #15
Page 1 of 4