I agree with what Jack is getting at, though I don't agree with everything he has said. The rules are a little fuzzy and as they stand are open to abuse from a games man. Also what is all this **** about Brits being biased toward a ****ing Armenian or wherever the **** AA is from. We all know America is a great country with a rich sporting tradition and lots to be proud of but Christ SOME of you lot can show amazing ignorance with regards to the geography and politics of the rest of the world. I agree with a previous poster I would go for an American over 90% of European countries. Please (to some of you not all!) American ESB users dont resort to the stock - biased European moron - answer whenever we disagree with you.
Well that's where the problem lies because the current rules are too easy to exploit from both sides. Even if Dirrell didn't, boxers can fake knockouts, if they want a DQ because they're behind. Maybe by a late punch, as Lorenzo did, or a headbutt or anything else like that. I do feel bad for Jones because it happens in boxing. It's such a primal sport, it becomes instinct for guys to hurt each other, which is why nice guys like Juan Diaz end up fighting after the bell rings. It's not something you can turn off/on easily. It just happens in boxing and I don't think it's fair to ignore the momentum of a fight based on what could be an accident.
Well, it's interesting that the WBC intervened after the Soto/Lorenzo fiasco. As I said before, that single result pretty much ended Joe Cortez's career and since then, I don't think he's refereed a single big fight, has he? There was a huge outcry and it wasn't even that significant a fight. It was an undercard bout, yet it's gone down as one of the biggest robberies in boxing history and rightly so. Had Abraham won every round and been DQed, the Super 6 would be devastated by the controversy.
Hypothetically, had Dirrell got up straight away after the punch, would you have also said Abraham should be DQed? To me, what has happened before the incident and after shouldn't matter. When it is taken into consideration, you aren't going to get fair, consistent refeering. Instad, the punishment will be decided on the referees personal opinion rather than any guideline by the rules.
The difference between Soto/Lorenzo and Dirrell/Abraham isn't that in one case Lorenzo was losing but in the other Dirrell was winning. The difference is that in the Soto case, Lorenzo happened to put one knee on the ground while Soto was in the midst of a flurry, Soto had no way to know that he was 'down' or pull the punch. In the Abraham case, Dirrell was clearly and recognisably on the floor before Abraham threw the punch.
Oh, I know, yeah. The Abraham punch was more obvious but in the rules, it doesn't matter. It's pedantic, I know, but rules are rules and this is why there has to be one rule to follow, rather than the referees judging it individually.
It shouldn't have been a DQ. It should have been a point deduction and time for Dirrell to recover. The ref (or whoever authorized him) acted in something of a panic with the instant DQ.
So a dazed and hurt Dirrell has to recover in 5 minutes after getting KO'd and Arthur only suffers a point deduction? You guys are as biased as they come.:-( Quite pathetic really.
You don't give someone five minutes to 'recover' from being unconscious, then send them back out to be punched in the head some more. That's absolute lunacy.
I don´t think what Abraham did was too bad also...its boxing. If you watch it in slow you can see that Abraham made ready to make the shot just as Dirrell´s glove touched the canvas...so it was pretty close to be counted as a regular KO...sure Abraham tried to take advantage of Dirrell being caught off balance...but what happened when Dirrell hit Abraham with a clear low blow and the ref did not interfere ?...Dirrell tried to take advantage of that...not exactly fair but its boxing. It´s the ref´s job to try and make sure such things doesn´t happen in both cases he failed.
I think in some cases that is enough. It's been referenced a lot in this thread, but Soto/Lorenzo. It was a mistake and Lorenzo could have fought on, so taking a point and starting the fight again in that case would have been fine. This is the problem - There HAS to be one strict set of guidelines to avoid all this. I don't really think it's fair for the referee to judge based on the context of the fight and effect of the illegal blow.
What happened last night in both fights was pretty relevant to this thread: Hopkins clearly faked the aftermath of the rabbit punch, no question. He was the one who turned his back, so it was his fault he got hit. You can't expect every fighter to pull their punch, depending on what their opponent is doing. Jones didn't deserve to have a point taken in the 6th. In the Haye fight, there was just an awful job by the referee. If it's a rabbit punch, why was the knockdown called? If it's a rabbit punch, why didn't Ruiz get 5 minutes? Because the referee called it as an illegal blow, when he took a point from Haye. You can't have it both ways, but it seems many referees have done this in the past. This is the problem with the rules, as I've said many times in this thread. There is not enough guidance, so it comes down to the referees opinion, which is based on the momentum of the fight and the result of the illegal blow, two things which shouldn't be considered.
Whatever happened before has NOTHING to do with determining the punishment for the illegal punch. Nothing. RJJ was beating Griffin before he was disqualified. Means **** all. You make the decision based on that event alone, not what happened 5 rounds ago.