Could Froch have been DQ'd for Rabbit Punches?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by conraddobler, Dec 5, 2010.


Page 1 of 4
  1. conraddobler

    conraddobler Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    6,853
    147
    Mar 7, 2010
    Here I pose a question for which I already know the answer. The answer is "yes". He could have been DQ'd.

    Had the fight not been in Nottingham.

    Ladies and gentleman of the jury.

    First, a "rabbit punch" is illegal because it can be a fatal blow. Especially dangerous is a punch to the lower part of the back of the head -- the brain stem or the medulla.

    Read more here:

    [url]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rabbit%20punch[/url]

    Now, exhibit A.

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1hHNbHGegQ[/ame]

    I want you to go to 1:20 and watch.

    Take note of the following. Froch holds Direll's head down with his left hand. Then he punches straight down on the back of the neck. A clear, extremely dangerous, rabbit punch. He knows absolutely what he is doing. It is deliberate. We know he knows because he's holding Dirrell's head down with his left hand.

    To be even more precise, in case you missed it. Go to 1:24 and pause the video. Look at Froch's left glove. See it on top of Dirrell's head? Now, watch the right hand come down.

    Can a foul be any more flagrant, any more clear-cut?

    If you're still unsure, here's a still frame shot.

    This content is protected
     
    conraddobler, Dec 5, 2010
    conraddobler, Dec 5, 2010
    #1
  2. Jeff M

    Jeff M Future ESB HOF Full Member

    27,003
    132
    Nov 22, 2008
    Dirrell won either way. Disgraceful robbery.
     
    Jeff M, Dec 5, 2010
    Jeff M, Dec 5, 2010
    #2
  3. Ukansodoff

    Ukansodoff Deontay plz stop ducking Joshua. Thank you. Full Member

    10,980
    6,711
    Aug 7, 2010
    i am sorry to hear of your loss of time it took you to do this.
     
    Ukansodoff, Dec 5, 2010
    Ukansodoff, Dec 5, 2010
    #3
  4. BunnyGibbons

    BunnyGibbons Is Not About That Life Full Member

    6
    6
    Jun 9, 2010
    This content is protected
     
    BunnyGibbons, Dec 5, 2010
    BunnyGibbons, Dec 5, 2010
    #4
  5. Azmontana

    Azmontana Member Full Member

    428
    0
    Oct 27, 2010
    Froch can be quite dirty, don't know about a DQ but defo points taken off.
     
    Azmontana, Dec 5, 2010
    Azmontana, Dec 5, 2010
    #5
  6. boxingboy

    boxingboy Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,767
    0
    Sep 30, 2010
    dirrell did win that fight IMO.... i got a feeling there will be a rematch sooner rather then later..
     
    boxingboy, Dec 5, 2010
    boxingboy, Dec 5, 2010
    #6
  7. Lazarus

    Lazarus Realist Full Member

    29,937
    1
    Jan 1, 2010
    That was pretty discusting, and I would have probably defended Dirrell here but due to his injury and the advice of the great Dr Shaw-Hi, in that he had to pull out, I have not been happy.

    So I don't really care.
     
    Lazarus, Dec 5, 2010
    Lazarus, Dec 5, 2010
    #7
  8. Jack

    Jack Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,560
    67
    Mar 11, 2006
    No.

    Dirrell is intentionally ducking below the belt, which is illegal in itself. If a fighter turns his back and gets hit on the back of the head, the rules say it's his fault. By ducking so low, Dirrell broke the first rule of boxing - Protect yourself at all times. There's a reason fighters aren't allowed to duck below the belt and this is why. It's impossible for the opponent to not land on the back of the head.

    Dirrell broke the rules first, which is the crucial point. Froch did what he was supposed to do.
     
    Jack, Dec 5, 2010
    Jack, Dec 5, 2010
    #8
  9. conraddobler

    conraddobler Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    6,853
    147
    Mar 7, 2010
    He supposed to hold Dirrell's head down with his left and punmch with his right on the back of Direll's head.

    He was supposed to do that?

    Holyfield was head-butting Tyson. Was Tyson supposed to bite Holyfield's ear off?

    Because that's your logic.
     
    conraddobler, Dec 5, 2010
    conraddobler, Dec 5, 2010
    #9
  10. conraddobler

    conraddobler Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    6,853
    147
    Mar 7, 2010
    just a little respite from the "Andre Ward is a cheater" threads.
     
    conraddobler, Dec 5, 2010
    conraddobler, Dec 5, 2010
    #10
  11. Jack

    Jack Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,560
    67
    Mar 11, 2006
    No, Froch is supposed to keep punching. If a fighter turns his back and gets hit behind the head, who gets the blame? The fighter who turns his back. Ducking below the belt is the same thing, which is why Dirrell is to blame.

    The idea that it's comparable to Holyfield/Tyson is ridiculous. You can't think that's a valid point.

    Anyway, the most important point, is that of Dirrell wasn't breaking the rules by ducking low, he wouldn't have been hot behind the head. End of discussion.
     
    Jack, Dec 5, 2010
    Jack, Dec 5, 2010
    #11
  12. o_money

    o_money Boxing Junkie banned

    11,894
    1
    Apr 8, 2006
    Have you ever seen anyone get DQ'ed for Rabbit punching??? Never seen that....so I'd have to say no...besides if you are hitting a guy up side the head and he turns away from you thats not called Rabbit punching that's just called punching.
     
    o_money, Dec 5, 2010
    o_money, Dec 5, 2010
    #12
  13. conraddobler

    conraddobler Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    6,853
    147
    Mar 7, 2010
    First, he didn't turn his back. Review the evidence. He dipped his head, which is legal. Froch proceeded to take his left hand and push Dirrell's head down. That's the key point here.

    He then punched to the back of the head with his right hand while holding Dirrell's head down with left.

    That's illegal.

    But even if he did turn his back. A fighter is not then licensed to hit his opponent with potentially lethal rabbit punches. Are you kidding?
     
    conraddobler, Dec 5, 2010
    conraddobler, Dec 5, 2010
    #13
  14. conraddobler

    conraddobler Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    6,853
    147
    Mar 7, 2010
    true, DQ's are actually rare. I said he "could have" been DQ'd.


    Second, Dirrell did not turn his back. He ducked, which is legal. The rabbit punches occurred when Froch held Dirrell's head down.

    Look at the tape! 1:20!
     
    conraddobler, Dec 5, 2010
    conraddobler, Dec 5, 2010
    #14
  15. Big Left

    Big Left Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,243
    20
    Dec 12, 2009
    pretty much sums it up. Most of the rabbit punches can as a direct result of Dirrell clinching too much or ducking too low (below the belt). Dirrell was using negative tactics and he got the point taken off, rightly so.
     
    Big Left, Dec 5, 2010
    Big Left, Dec 5, 2010
    #15
Page 1 of 4