The super 6 fight debates The first fight wasnt contraversial but the next 3 have opened some debates so... Fight 1 - Was J Taylor a spent force already when Abraham beat him? Fight 2 - Who won between Froch between Dirrell (Boxing News and The Ring both made Froch a close winner) but what do you think? Was it a home town decision? Fight 3 - Was Kessler unfairly fouled and beaten with the assistance of headbutts? Were illegal tactics aloud due to the winning fighter being at home? Fight 4 - Was Abraham wrongly disqualified, should Dirrell have been given 5 minutes to recover, before a decision was made? And could Dirrell have continued? What you think? In case your interested I think Fight 1 - Taylor was a spent force going in Fight 2 - Fight could have gone either way, and it was just a close decision rather than a robbery. The boxing mags say as much. Fight 3 - Kessler shipped some headbutts which although not legal, happens in boxing, and I dont think he would have won on this night. I dont think the referee aloud any unfair treatment Fight 4 - I thought there was meant to be a rule which aloud a fouled fighter 5 mins to recover, which if correct should have been in place. At first I thought Dirrell was O.K. due to the delayed reaction, but in listening to him after am not as sure now. The DQ seemed fair enough though as Dirrell was down and shouldnt have been hit. But I hate it when fights end as inconclussive as this.
evenly matched fights often end in controversy in boxing. this isn't guys just padding their records.
Should he have been given five minutes to recover? The man was unconscious having tremors for Christ's sake!
He spoke before he went to the floor (possibly delayed reaction), but there is a rule ive heard before where if the fouled fighter cant continue within 5 mins, hes declared a TKO loser. I dont agree completely with that and said, I thought the DQ result was fair as Dirrell shouldnt have been hit, but its a just a question. There are some people that say De La Hoya quit against Hopkins which I dont think so either, but peoplke have differing opinions
honestly the biggest controversy here is the frich-dirrell fight. ward would have won regardless, dirrell mostly likely would have won regardless of the DQ. it's definitely interesting though, considering that despite bad beatdowns, illegal punches or hometown decisions the fact that they will still continue fighting each other adds a lot more drama into the mix.
Kinda sucks that this tournament has so much controversy. Its such a good move for the sport and good pairing but the fight results have bee na little disappointing but very dramatic nonetheless
controversy is the norm in boxing. There are so many unpredictable things that can go wrong inside and outside the ring.
I believe that is if the foul is accidental. If a foul is accidental, the wronged party gets 5 minutes to recover, and if they can not continue, they forfeit. The ref ruled King Arthur's punch as an intentional foul, so that's why it was a DQ.
The three big controversies have been: 1.) why does Abraham ***** everytime someone lands something to his body, I mean if those are low this man has the smallest abdominal region for a grown male in recorded history. 2.) Why the hell is Kessler-Froch taking place in some backwater town instead of Copenhagen? 3.) Should Arthur Abraham receive some type of point fine for his antics in the Dirrell fight? He hit Dirrell while Dirrell was down and after seeing the replay still didn't admit to doing anything wrong or showing remorse, and afterward demanding that Dirrell take a steroid test as he is getting taken away to the hospital.