Hopkins/Dawson ruled a technical draw by WBC

.

Ok, but no "Illegal shot" was thrown and that has been more than established, the referee was very clear in stating that "No Foul" occurred. So by your logic, it's a pretty clear cut idea, Hopkins quit.

 

Bernard isn't going to have any part of Dawson now after what he experienced in the Ring, he'd been avoiding him for years as it was.

 

As I already said, the only way to see it in the way you see it is to call no foul. But Hopkins is down, so theres only two way for a fighter to be down.

1- he took a knee. The ref now need to inititate a count, then if he beat the count he need to check if the fighter can continu. If he cant he loose.
2- like a slip or something like that. So he call it, no point deduce, but the ref need to check if the fighter can continu, he can ask the doctore to see if he is ok, etc. Then if the fighter cant continu he loose.

Now I know that may sound weird, but even if I think that Dawson did a foul, I can understand what I just wrote as a valid point of view. But even in this case, the ref didnt do his job correctly. Now... how do you rule it if because the ref made a mistake, a fighter lost his belt?

Even if you still think that Hopkins loose the fight, even then, a rematch would be the fair thing to do.

Just look at Pascal, he had a draw with Hopkins, no drama and even then the WBC mandate Pascal to rematch Hopkins...

 

I wish to congratulate all Dawson fans and followers. Best Regards.

 

Has anyone seen that fight when bomber Graham flips that guy about 6 feet in the air. Now thats worthy of a dq! Like something from wwe!

 

Please check out "After further Review"...:good

 

Perhaps, Hopkins avoided Dawson cause Dawson's unpopular and cannot draw women shoppers to a 50% off sale. :rofl
For Hopkins, Dawson has no belt, and has no rep. BHOP was lucky to get $1M from this fight, and I believe Dawson really has nothing else to offer Hopkins.
The only question at this point is, who's left for Hopkins to fight that has earning potential and has something to add to his legacy.

Question: with his style, how much longevity can Dawson expect in his career? I think he's almost through myself, and won't be able to go pass 35. :yep

 

From another post, I answer to you

As I already said, the only way to see it in the way you see it is to call no foul. But Hopkins is down, so theres only two way for a fighter to be down.

1- he took a knee. The ref now need to inititate a count, then if he beat the count he need to check if the fighter can continu. If he cant he loose.
2- like a slip or something like that. So he call it, no point deduce, but the ref need to check if the fighter can continu, he can ask the doctore to see if he is ok, etc. Then if the fighter cant continu he loose.

Now I know that may sound weird, but even if I think that Dawson did a foul, I can understand what I just wrote as a valid point of view. But even in this case, the ref didnt do his job correctly. Now... how do you rule it if because the ref made a mistake, a fighter lost his belt?

Even if you still think that Hopkins loose the fight, even then, a rematch would be the fair thing to do.

Just look at Pascal, he had a draw with Hopkins, no drama and even then the WBC mandate Pascal to rematch Hopkins...

 

Ref stop the action for a lot of stuff in each fight:
mouth piece, hand bandage, cuts, etc. so it was easy for the ref to stop the action, ask the doctore to come, give some time to Hopkins and if he cant continu then stop the fight. Its not what happened here and even if Hopkins do his stuff, you cant just change the rules and how things are doing because one fighter did something bad in another fight.

Even then, when a fighter spit their mouth piece for exemple, the ref just deduce a point, but he still stop the action.

 

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

This could mean one of two things: 1) Are you f****** kidding me, did you not see what just happened here, dude I'm done. OR 2) I'm ready to do battle with the 1 good arm I have left.

Bernard claims he meant #2, but his body language and grimacing meant #1. His inability to effectively communicate to the presiding official, cost him his title.

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

You wouldn't be saying that had the fight continued. The WBC can still demand a rematch, so a fight between the two is not out of the question. I believe Dawson is the mandatory challenger.

 

Had the fouls noy occurred and the fight went the distance, Hopkins would have another win.
The mandatory requirement has been fulfilled. The ruling will be a No Contest, so Hopkins can go onto another opponent, and Dawson can go on to fight a non-title rematch with Pascal. :good

 

Styles do indeed matter.
Dawson's style has gained him few fans, and the quality of opponents has also been lacking.
His reputation is a fighter lacking fire and an underachiever.

I see his career being non-eventful, with no significant sadness at his departure from the sport at the end of his career. :yep