Could Froch have been DQ'd for Rabbit Punches?

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


  1. conraddobler

    conraddobler Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    6,853
    147
    Mar 7, 2010
    so it was A-OK for Froch to hold Dirrell's head down with his left glove and punch with his right?

    Did you at least watch the video?
     
  2. Jared

    Jared Active Member Full Member

    1,428
    1
    Apr 17, 2010
    Nothing wrong with the first one...he wasn't holding Dirrell, he was being pushed backwards by him.

    Second one was naughty, but he got warned for it. Dirrrell was ducking too low even before a punch was thrown.
     
  3. conraddobler

    conraddobler Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    6,853
    147
    Mar 7, 2010
    The first one? The one on the ropes?

    There were actually three separate rabbit blows between 1:17 and 1:28.

    In the entire fight there were perhaps 15 or more.

    A rabbit punch doesn't magically become legal because the other guy is pushing you backwards.
     
  4. TheChump

    TheChump Active Member Full Member

    1,492
    0
    Aug 19, 2010
    Note how you aren't making any Andre Ward using potentially fatal headbutting tactics.
     
  5. conraddobler

    conraddobler Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    6,853
    147
    Mar 7, 2010
    a headbutt to the back of the head could be fatal, that's true.

    I didn't see any rabbit-headbutts from Andre Ward, though.
     
  6. Jack

    Jack Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,560
    67
    Mar 11, 2006
    I know he didn't turn his back but the reason ducking below the belt is banned, is because it's the direct equivalent of turning their back. It's the exact same thing.

    You say dipping your head down is legal and it is, but that far down? That's illegal because it was below the belt.

    In cases where one fighter hits an opponent who has turned his back, he isn't penalized. The fighter who turned their back is.

    Like I said, if Dirrell wasn't ducking too low, which is an illegal tactic, Froch couldn't have hit him in that position. Fault Froch for going through with it, sure, but he was just punching. It was Dirrell who caused the 'illegal' punches because he was ducking illegally low. Had he not been doing that, Froch wouldn't have been able to rabbit punch him, so it's not Froch who should have been penalized.
     
  7. dendy

    dendy no easy way out Full Member

    2,515
    0
    Apr 10, 2010
    **** happens! froch can be dirty for sure..

    Dirrell never did enough to get the decision and take the belt anyhow! I scored it a draw and gave dirrell zero for aggression shown and being a big girls blouse.. World titles are not won in this way.
     
  8. conraddobler

    conraddobler Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    6,853
    147
    Mar 7, 2010
    You fault him for "going through with it"?

    Dirrell ducked, Froch took his left hand and pushed it down and held it there. Then he "went through with it" and pounded Dirrell on the back of the head. Straight down.

    Do you see the significance of Froch's left hand pushing Dirrell's head down?

    Are you really arguing that Dirrell made Froch use his left hand to push Dirrell's head down and pound down on the back of his head with his right hand?

    This is far-fetched even from you, Jack.
     
  9. conraddobler

    conraddobler Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    6,853
    147
    Mar 7, 2010
    absolutely. **** does happen.

    But in Oakland when **** happens it's: Dirty, illegal, cheating, and DQ'able.

    When **** happens in Nottingham it's just **** that happened.

    This thread is about making that distinction clear.
     
  10. Jack

    Jack Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,560
    67
    Mar 11, 2006
    The assumption that you're making, is that Froch held Dirrell down. We don't know if that's the case because you can't see clearly enough. Froch often holds his left arm out to time the right hand, so it may have just been that. If he was holding Dirrell down, he could have easily moved out of the way and the referee would have warned Froch about it.

    It's unlikely that Froch was holding him down. I think he was just holding the arm there, like Froch does.
     
  11. conraddobler

    conraddobler Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    6,853
    147
    Mar 7, 2010
    let see if this helps:

    This content is protected
     
  12. miketysonko

    miketysonko Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,366
    309
    Dec 29, 2006
    :rofl
     
  13. dendy

    dendy no easy way out Full Member

    2,515
    0
    Apr 10, 2010
    Coolio... I wasn't even thinking about ward within the context of this thread but since you mention.. Froch doesn't have a name as a dirty fighter. He fights like a man and sometimes his style lends itself to rough house tactics.

    Ward seems to be getting a distinct label as a dirty fighter and i must admit he does seem to be borderline more than most fighters. no smoke without any fire and all that. Froch meanwhile gets respect for being a no nonsense warrior.
     
  14. conraddobler

    conraddobler Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    6,853
    147
    Mar 7, 2010

    Even better.

    This content is protected
     
  15. Jack

    Jack Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,560
    67
    Mar 11, 2006
    Yeah, he's obviously not holding Dirrell down. No way does he have the leverage to push Dirrell down there. It's clear Dirrell could move away if he wanted to.