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

Who gives a ****? They'd be wrong, just like those justifying the current TKO ruling are.

 

Look at the Hopkins fan giving him the benefit of every doubt.

If it had've been Roy Jones rolling around on the canvas clutching his nuts from a borderline low blow or collapsing from a tap to the back of the head that wouldn't have dented a grape instead of Hopkins when they fought that second farce, then I can almost see the scorn and vitriol you would have poured on him for his faking and cowardice.

Yet Hopkins does this time and again and you buy it as legit and get all pious about how we shouldn't judge him on what we believe to be the severity of his injury and comparing it to the Benn- McClellan situation (a ridiculous call as the fight was in the second round, Hopkins had taken no punishment and the fall itself didn't look at all heavy as opposed to the battering McClellan took, Pacheco's stupid comments not withstanding).

As for not setting precedents I'd say Hopkins tactics of constantly maybe or maybe not (depending on how far up Hop's arse you are) faking perceived fouls is in itself unprecedented behaviour at championship level by a supposed ATG fighter and the result reflects the suspicion that Hopkins actions have brought upon himself amongst boxing fans and officialdom.

I'm not shedding any tears about him now having a TKO loss on his record that's for sure.

 

i love bhop but i think some of his past behavior caught up with him. i could go either way on how this fight could be called. if dawson would have hit bhop with a low blow, he would have gotten 5 min to recover. after the 5 min if you can't continue, you lose. if they rule it like this, the decision may stand. the one thing that can't be overturned is how the fans got it up the butt again. glad i didn't pay a cent for this crap.

 

This seems to sum it up well.

 

Does anyone want to admit that Bernard initiated this sequence of fouling by leaping like a bridesmaid after a bouquet onto Dawson's back? What the **** was Chad supposed to do? One foul begat another, tit for tat, last man standing wins the fight.

 

I agree, The Ref's need to draw the line...Hopkins is notorious for subtle fouls but cries,wines and acts when he thinks he can steal something. Clotey tried the same thing vs Cotto. The Ref's need to put a stop to this and the message last night was get up and fight...Shame B-Hop did not care about the fans...he tried to steal a fight from Dawson but he wound up stealing from the fans and from his own legacy...

 

That´s basically all there is to say. Thank you.

Of course he did. And yeah that was a foul but it´s not Dawson´s job to foul back, it´s the ref to prevent that from happening and if not beeing able to, to punish him. Dawson´s foul had a fight ending injury as a consequence and as such should be treated accordingly.

 

True

 

To be honest if Roy Jones got tossed to the ground and acted hurt, I'd believe him. With Hopkins, it's rather suspicious as you say. I do think the referee should have explained to him that he would lose if he did not get up though.

 

Dawson's foul was merely an escape from Hopkins' foul. He was in no position to defend himself with punches. He did nothing gratuitous in his response.
Hopkins caused his own injury.
In such a case, a TKO is as good as an NC.
Boxers who elect to wrestle should learn a lesson from it.

 

I actually hope that a rematch is made...

It was as inconclusive an ending as I can imagine to a short fight that was virtually a stalemate.

I personally think it should be overturned, as Dawson did nothing legal to win by TKO, but I can see both sides of that argument. Hopkins did initiate the sequence that got him injured, though I would argue that Dawson merely shed him. The referee, based on what is on camera, did not do a great job communicating in there.

What is clear is the fight had no winner. If I were Dawson, I'd want to take a rematch to beat the old man with punches, and if I were Hopkins, I would want to make it to erase the bad taste he left in some mouths.

As it stands, I don't know who the best 175er on the planet is.

 

Yes it was but not the right one. Like already written that´s the ref´s job.

Yep, caused he just jumped on his shoulder. :nut

No, it isn´t. Dawson did not beat Hopkins. An injury resulting of a foul and the action of the ref stopped the fight despite Hopkins saying he would continue. That´s not a TKO.

Sure, that´s the ref´s job though.

Exactly! So, how can it be a win fo either fighter.

I hope it get´s turned into a NC and a rematch is ordered. Hopkins didn´t cover himself in glory here (again!) neither did Dawson though.


I think it´s funny how people think Hopkins wrestling is something awefully bad but Dawson throwing him is okay. Double standards.

 

Bodhi,

Dawson has every right to wriggle free, or lift Hopkins off him. Why should he wait until Hopkins has leaned on him as many times as he can get away with ? By that time, Hopkins might have gained a serious advantage.
What you're saying is like saying a fighter should not attempt to push his way out of a clinch because "pushing is illegal". But fighters push and wriggle their way out of clinches and leans all the time.
Or it's like saying a fighter can't defend from a headbutt with a hold or a forearm or elbow, even if he's got no other choice at that moment in time.

Being manhandled as a passive sucker waiting for the referee to look out for you is unrealistic. Also, it you allow a man to lean on you like that you are vulnerable to other fouls. If you can wriggle free, do so.

An NC or a TKO for Dawson are both fair results. Hopkins fought a reckless undisciplined manner and got himself hurt.
Dawson was in there ducking punches AND having to defend against fouls.

 

As already lined out a TKO is not a fair result. It´s a boxing fight. Did Dawson beat Hopkins by boxing? Answer: no, he didn´t. Thus it should be a NC. Simple as that.

And yeah, of course Dawson can chose to defend himself like that but then he has to life with the consequences. You can´t critizise Hopkins fo wrestling but not Dawson for throwing. That´s called a double standard. And that´s everything but fair.

 

klompton is absolutely right. Despite Hopkins's distasteful tendency to maul and manipulate, that bout should have been declared an NC. Those cheering about the manipulative mauler finally getting what was coming to him are missing the point. Those saying they could care less about a TKO on Hopkins' record are missing the biggest point of all -That bout was for the real championship.

Hopkins has been sitting on the legitimate throne since he defeated Pascal who beat Dawson when both Pascal and Dawson were the top two Ring- ranked fighters in the division.

If this bout isn't appealed and the TKO stands, then Dawson takes that throne based on an error. And though that is bad for Hopkins and that may be good, it is also bad for history and that is never good.