Lennox Lewis Should've Been DQ'ed For This

Changing the narrative now, h?
This is what you says, and why i literally gave you the first 2 clip in Youtube when you write Boxing DQ. I told you to use the search, as i won't waste my time on something which is obvious. This videos were just the first 2, and a plain example, not a hard evidence of something obvious.

This is what you said, now you change the narrative to the if the fighter have stayed down. And that is 100% irrelevant in the situation.
And again i counter your infringement argument with the rules, as there is fouls and fouls.
Again you are ignoring the rules, and what they says, and the key word flagrantly, which is exactly the foul in Lewis case. You can be DQ straight away if you make a "bad foul". Just like i give you example with football, which you also seems to ignore.
But again, there is a foul and a foul. For one you can get warning, for another you can get yellow, and for another you can get a straight red. Just as the situation on here.

I also mention that the fight should have been overrule after it, and that should have been a DQ. Just because a referee being bias or make an obvious mistake doesn't mean they can't overrule the fight after the fight is over and they see the situation clearly once again.
Even though that DQ was obvious for miles away.

A disqualification (abbreviated DQ) is a term used when a bout is stopped short of knockout or judges' decision because, intentionally, one or both contestants have repeatedly or flagrantly(key word here) fouled an opponent or violated other rules. The disqualified boxer automatically loses the bout to the opponent. If both are disqualified, (termed a double disqualification) the result is usually declared a no contest regardless of round.

Bro i literally found the first 2 video on youtube. I wasn't searching, and if i do you c

But here it is on my 1 sec. search without using my brain at all:

This content is protected

Another straight up DQ, where the opponent is able to continue. After the bell shot, blatant, obvious > DQ.
Exactly what should have happen to Lewis. Straight up DQ.

 

That guy didn't want to fight. The punches he threw after the bell were bull**** punches with nothing on them though, just going for DQ. To be fair, Nikita should have been DQ'd too. He threw the most blatant rabbit punch with full power behind it. Bull**** imo.

 

Yeah, but that's not the point at all. And again i'm not even bother searching for relevant videos, just pick the first ones on youtube, as again that's not the point.

What Lewis did was 100% intentional and he throw 3 100% hard blows, and should have been straight DQ for it.
There is fouls and fouls, and some fouls obviously are not going to be penalized so hard, while other, depends on how hard the foul is can lead to a straight DQ, which was my whole point.

 

Makes me laugh when I hear "was about to be stopped anyway" or "he was going to win anyway". That's not what rules are in place for. It's a blatant disqualification. I hadn't seen that before. Thanks for posting.

 

I agree it shouldn't matter. Do you and @lordlosh know how to read? I was explaining why it probably wasn't, not arguing they should have allowed it to continue. Roy Jones' DQ was legit as well, even though he had Griffin in serious trouble. You just can't do that.

 

Plus, he never to touched the floor with his gloves, it’s even questionable if he touched the floor with his knee.

After watching it in a few times I’m not even sure a point deduction is needed.

 

I haven't changed my narrative at all, you just misunderstood my initial post. You claimed I said DQ's don't happen which is obviously BS, but that was never my position we all know DQ's happen is boxing all the time. But you assumed I have changed my narrative when it was simply me trying to clarify my original position but you took that as changing my narrative once I had made it clear what my original position was.

1 - DQ's do happen, sometimes without a warning.
2 - But usually there is a warning from the ref first or a points deduction.
3 - When a DQ happens without a warning or a points deduction it's because the DQ directly effected the outcome of the fight putting the referee in a position where he has to make a decision to either DQ the fighter or not.

Boxing isn't football where there's a clear immediate DQ offence clearly laid out in the rules. There's simply no rule I am aware of that says committing a certain foul automatically results in an immediate DQ. We've seen fighters bite others and not be immediately DQ'ed, we've seen fighters kicks other fighters and not be DQ'ed immediately, we've even seen a boxers manager grab his fighters opponent and pull them over the ropes and out of the ring and their fighter not be DQ'ed.

Now your position maybe that such flagrant fouls should be immediate DQ's and that's fine but that is not the actual rules of boxing. Fighters have done worse than Lewis did and not be DQ'ed. Not saying Lewis couldn't of be DQ'ed or even shouldn't of be DQ'ed because it was a blatant foul, but under the actual rules of boxing not what you want the rules to be the referee has that discretion to decide as again there is not automatic DQ offence in boxing.

So again I never said immediate DQ's don't happen but there is no specific red card offence that leads to an automatic DQ. Now if the rules said, if a fighter hit's another fighter after the bell it's an auto DQ then yeah it should be an immediate DQ every time. The term "flagrant" allows room for interpretation by the referee which is why you can get inconsistent decisions where one referee will ignore foul after foul or another will start warning and deducting points for even minor infringements.

You obviously think the Lewis foul was flagrant and I don't actually disagree but what I'm saying is the lack of a clear rule under which circumstances a fighter should be DQ'ed immediately leaves room for inconsistency and gives Lewis some what of a argument for not being DQ'ed immediately, because plenty of other fighters have done the same or worse and not been DQ'ed and from what I have witnessed in boxing is that in that situation, the referee's decision is often influence by if the fighter can or cannot continue which is why it is relevant.

Now you may disagree with these referee's decision to not auto DQ any foul you deem flagrant but they decided differently because they interpreted the rules in a way you did not. Your judging the situation based on what you would like to happen in boxing, I'm judging it based on what actually all to often happens in boxing, where that lack of clear rules leads to inconsistent decisions by different referees. So should Lewis be judged based on some hypothetical scenario where in boxing the rules are always enforced consistently by all referees or should we judge him based on how boxing actually is often run and judged and we have inconsistent decisions across the board. Now the later means you can have a kind of Schrodinger's cat situation where Lewis should have been and also should not have been DQ'ed and both could technically be correct because of how different people will interpret the rules.

I have no issue with you having a different opinion on this which is why I haven't claimed you are bias and I don't think you are bias you've just interpreted the situation in a different way than I have. Now you take me not agreeing with your position as bias, but in reality it's just another example of the inconsistent definition of how the rules of boxing resulting in an inconsistent enforcement of those rules. I accept the reality of actually how boxing is judged and view the Lewis foul through that lens, you seem to prefer to view the foul under what you and probably all fans would like to happen in boxing.

 

Where the heck did i say that you said that DQ don't happen in Boxing? What you were saying is that it didn't happen after just one foul or so. Which i prove wrong, and then you change the narrative that it happen, but only if the fighter stay down/can't continue, which is not as true as well.

And you are defending a lost cause on here. Clear DQ, and Lewis should feel extremely lucky he wasn't a straight up DQ-ed.
I think the post in this thread are very accurate as to what people think as well.
That should have been a 3rd loss in his career, no matter how biased you are towards Lewis.
Rules are rules, and you keep ignoring the part i quoted. Lewis should have been DQ, end of the story.

 

Then I misunderstood what you are conveying as that was never my position and it seems you also misunderstood my position. I never stated immediate DQ's don't happen as I clearly said "usually" there is a points deduction or a warning, unless of course the foul directly impacts the result of the fight which forces the referee to make a decision instead of simply warning or deducting a point and allowing the fight to naturally play out.

I also never flat out stated it doesn't happen after one foul. I asked the question if it was in the rules that there was an offence that would cause and immediate. I also didn't see those videos as proof of anything as explained that the first guy couldn't continue another example there were multiple warnings, it didn't back your position but if anything supported my position as they reflected what I was saying.

So from my perspective your arguing with me because you misunderstood my original position.

I don't have a cause here because as I stated in the previous post my don't see this as a black and white issue like you where you are right and I am wrong or vice versa. I have said more than once to you the foul deserved a DQ and don't disagree with your opinion but I'm simply stating Lewis shouldn't be judged on how we would like the sport to be judged but by how it actually judged. It's not a simple take on the issue I know and maybe I'm over complicating it but if other fighters haven't been disqualified for similar or even worse then it gives Lewis the room to also not be disqualified even if we both think the foul deserves a DQ.

 

Yeah that was bad. I think the ref was scared to get in there though.

 

Sorry mate, again you are a decent poster, but nowadays don't have the time, neither the energy to go into such long discussion. Not read this or the previous post, and i think i was clear why as well. Cheers.

 

Lewis was an extremely dirty fighter.