Glazjov vs Martin, why not a no contest?

Good point. I can't find anything on the IBF website :think

Edit.: If an injury is not caused by an illegal tactic it's a TKO for the other guy. Not fair IMHO but that's how it is. Pretty much like IB said: precedent.

 

No. If you are unlucky enough to sustain ANY kind of injury during a fight, whether or not it had anything to do with anything your opponent did, you lose by TKO. Plain and simple, those are the rules. If you can not continue a match for any reason, once started, you forfeit the match and lose by TKO.

Only in the case of an injury from accidental fouls and within the allotted time window per the local commission (usually 3 or 4 rounds) does it become a No Contest instead.

Not hard to understand, really.

If you come in with a preexisting injury and it flares up and you are unable to continue because of it, you lose by TKO.

If you sustain a fluke injury during a match and you are unable to continue because of it, you lose by TKO.

If you are injured because you are accidentally fouled by your opponent and you are unable to continue because of it, the match is declared a No Contest - provided you are within the allotted time window of 3-4 rounds, as the case may be, varying by region.

If you are injured because you are intentionally fouled by your opponent and you are unable to continue because of it, you win by disqualification.

 

Hopkins vs. Dawson I fulfills the criteria for a No Contest. There was a foul (Dawson slamming Hopkins onto the mat) that was ruled accidental (which is fair, in the sense that Hopkins did climb Dawson's back and it was an instinctual reactionary thing, not premeditated by Dawson beforehand) occurring in the 2nd round, within the allotted time window. Same deal as with the more frequently seen case of a cut from accidental headbutts making it a No Contest if occurring within 3 or 4 rounds, and going to scorecards for a technical decision if after that point.

ANY INJURY other than one caused by accidental fouling that stops a fight results in either a TKO or disqualification. The latter if there was a flagrant intentional foul, the former in just about every other case imaginable.

 

You need to come into the ring 100%. If you come in with preexisting injuries, your opponent isn't at fault if you end up having to withdraw in the middle of the contest. That is never and should never be called a No Contest. That is appropriately ruled a TKO. You're the one that can not continue, so the fair thing is that you lose.

Same, unfortunately, though it may seem a tad bit less fair, in the case of sustaining a brand new fluke injury during a match. That isn't your opponent's fault. You're the one that can not continue. That isn't their problem. You signed a contract to fight, and you are unable to see it through - so you lose. There's no built-in sympathy for your bad luck. That is for the best. Otherwise you could argue that someone 'got unlucky' if the lights over the ring shone in their eyes, causing them not to see a punch coming that kayoed them. Still a knockout. Your bad luck isn't and shouldn't be the problem of anybody else. It sucks, and it may not be the definitive result everybody always wants and doesn't prove necessarily who the better man on the night was, but if something happens that makes you need to stop fighting, then you lose. Simple as.

 

If a guy gets a random injury, from slipping or perhaps dislocating his shoulder from throwing a punch etc, then thats just hard luck.

Ive always believed that a no contest is something that happens from an injury from a foul etc

 

You're correct. You don't get a No Contest handed out sympathetically just because you copped some bad luck.

Bad luck = sorry, you lose. Them is the breaks, friend.

 

Dawson threw hops to the ground which gave hops his opportunity to QUIT, which he did but it was caused by a "foul"

Truth is, hops really purposely jumped to the ground exactly like cintron jumping through the ropes.

Both should've been tko losses for quiting, they both took full advantage of the rules. Lost most of my respect for both after that.

Quiting is the biggest biaaaaatchhhhh move ever. Take your loss like a man and prepare better for the rematch

 

It's ****ogous to Vitali-Solis. I'm not sure if the Martin actually landed a punch leading to the knockdown, but the ref thought so.

Besides, it's better for boxing that the belt isn't tied up. Glazkov likely will get a rematch if he heals quickly or wins an eliminator next year. He's obviously in good graces with the IBF.

 

:deal

 

Martin v Arreola
Fury v Wlad
Wilder vs Povetkin
Joshua v Haye

That's what the division needs in the next 6 months or so.

 

And the winner is..........

Correctly or not, the ref thought a punch caused the KD.

Ref made the call, doesnt have a replay to change his mind, nor could he if it were available.

If we had this overturned, we'd have to give Khan the win over Peterson, recount the seconds of Corrales and Castillo and rule the fight Castillo KO10 Corrales. Etc etc etc. :good

 

solis Klitschko

 

To be fair, Khan-Peterson should've legitimately been reversed. I hate that it can be revealed that fighters juice yet the result doesn't change. Same with Mosley-Oscar II.

 

Better yet - Charr vs. Saglam, or Abraham vs. Bozic, as these are cases where the guy that lost (despite coming in as the big underdog) was actually kicking the favorite's ass before getting injured. Doesn't matter, they still ran into bad luck, and couldn't go on, so they lose - and none of the work they put in means a damn thing. Just how it goes.