Which fighters should have been disqualified?

Why would the lack of previous warnings prevent a DQ for a blatant fight-ending foul?

 

Because the ref has to VIEW it as a foul first of all, and in this case, he didn't. Therefore, there can be no DQ. He didn't come out and say "Yeah I saw a low blow, but Duran was winning". Then, there would be a point, but that wasn't the case. Second, and generally speaking, if the Ref didn't have a good look at it, but suspected it might be, the best scenario than is a no contest... not an immediate DQ.

 

Absolutely KuRuPT!! I was thinking about that possibility last night....a "NC" would have been the perfect call!

 

Refs aren't even being held accountable nowadays. 40-50 years ago, you had no chance of refs being called out for dumb mistakes that they made.

 

Quite logical! Well put.

 

Didn't Ken Buchanan come to NYC for awhile trying to get Duran to rematch him since he thought he got "jobbed" the first time around (should have deserved at least a NC in the fight).

 

Yes, he pursued Duran...though all in vain....and yes, he deserved at least a NC IMO.

 

But the point is that the ref should've seen it, and he should've disqualified Duran. Bottom line is that Duran deserved to lose that fight by dq, and would have if the ref had done his job properly and competently.

 

There's a double standard here though. The ref "should've seen Ken hitting after the bell" and DQ him for it by your standards. He didn't. But because Duran commits a foul he didn't see, and you say right is right, and he should be DQ'd? Hopefully you can see the hypocrisy in this statement.

 

You're reaching here, and the logic of your argument is suffering for it. Nothing in my previous posts indicated that the ref should have disqualified Buchanan for his inconsequential late punch. I don't remember how late Buchanan's punch(es) were, but they at most merited a warning. In contrast, a fight-ending low-blow, delivered well after the bell, merits a DQ. Please point out the hypocrisy when you get a chance.

 

That's the problem with your argument, a foul is foul by the book. A low blow is no worse of a foul than hitting after the bell etc etc. They are both fouls. YOUR argument is, well, we see it was a low blow, he should've see it was a low blow, so regardless of whether the ref saw it, Duran should've been DQ'd. That is your exact argument, which we can see here:

Yet, when you insert the following, it works JUST THE SAME. The ref should've seen Ken hitting after the bell (this happened multiple time BTW), if he was doing his job competently he would've seen it and DQ'd Ken. The problem with both of these arguments, is they are predicated on the fact that "should've" seen something, which as we know is boxing, literally happens in every single fight that has every existed. Ref's miss stuff all the time, yet here, he misses stuff, no problem; BUT this other thing he missed, well, that's much much worse. That doesn't make any logical sense. Yes, Ken got screwed by the ref missing that, nobody is saying otherwise. But you want to retroactively DQ'd Duran over something the ref missed. That makes zero logical sense, and would call into question pretty much most every fight that we've ever had. What likely should've happened is, as I said before, the fight should've been ruled a no contest. That is the best case scenario, and giving Ken about as good as you could give him. The ref point blank said it wasn't a low blow. So if he's point blank saying that, you could never DQ Duran. The best you could do is, after the fact, is declare the bout a NC. It's pretty simple, and yes, there is a blatant hypocrisy inherent in your argument.

 

This is blatantly false. A foul is not a foul. If an intentional foul causes an injury serious enough to end a fight, the fouler is to be disqualified (I thought this was basic boxing knowledge?) Therefore, and I repeat, there is nothing in my previous posts that suggests that Buchanan should have been disqualified for his inconsequential late blow.

 

Where the hell did this "all fouls are equal" come from ?
I've never heard that one before.
It's just not true. It never has been.
Holding onto the top rope isn't the same as biting an ear off, for example.

I suspect that if it wasn't the great Roberto Duran we're discussing no one would have any doubts that was a situation where the challenger should be DQ'd.

 

I didn't think I needed to point out the obvious here Kevin, but sometimes, you can't wrap your head around the basic concepts you're arguing about. First, let's take the most basic and simplistic problem with your premise and conclusion. "AN INTENTIONAL" foul that causes serious injury, results in a DQ. Hopefully you see the problem with your premise. I'd like you to "prove" the foul was intentional. You do understand that in any sport, sometimes your aim is off, especially when in a combat sport such as boxing where you're constantly having to adjust your angles and height. People all the time aim for a body punch, but it goes too low, that doesn't mean it was intentional. People aim for the basketball hoop all the time, they've played most of their life, that doesn't mean their aim in always true. In any sport it's the same thing. You have ZERO way to prove that blow was intentionally thrown by Duran low, with the end cause to hurt ken and end the fight. If you have proof of this, please post it. I don't want to hear what you THINK Duran's intentions were, or what it looked like to you. Your claim was it was done intentionally to hurt his foe and end the fight. Prove it.

Second, and again we go back to your hypocrisy.... By your same standards.. Ken INTENTIONALLY threw punches after the bell. Do you think punches are intended to cause laughter and tickle? No, they can and do cause harm correct? So if he's INTENTIONALLY doing something that can cause harm, and it's considered a foul, then Ken should've been DQ'd. Only we can't prove that either. What we can say for certain is, the REF SAID THE PUNCH WASN'T LOW. That is what he saw, but here, you want to retroactively saw he should've been DQ'd. You do understand, that a DQ would require the ref to have ruled that a low blow. This is basic boxing 101. He didn't see it as a low blow, so therefore he couldn't be DQ'd. The most that could've happened (should've) is the commission/association could've came in and ruled it a no contest. I'm not sure what is so unclear about this. Nor am I unclear how you can't see your hypocrisy on this issue.