Which fighters should have been disqualified?

I never said all fouls are the same. Nobody is claiming bringing a gun to the ring, and shooting somebody, is the same as a low blow. What is the same though, and again, this is basic boxing 101. A low blow isn't more of a foul than hitting after the bell. One isn't viewed as more of a foul than the other. That is the discussion at hand here. Those fouls in practice, and in function are both treated as fouls that can result in warnings, DQ's, or a fight being ruled a NC.

 

I doubt Buchanan heard the bell. The crowd was roaring. Duran landed the low blow while the referee was actually jumping in. I believe the referee actually had hold of Duran when the blow landed.
Looked intentional to me.

 

When both fighters are still in action after the bell has rung, late punches aren't often regarded as severe fouls. Duran hadn't stopped fighting and was throwing swings as the bell was sounding too, that's okay because it's the referees job to stop them when the crowd are roaring over the sound of the bell. It just happens all Duran's swings missed apart from the one he threw really really low, the last late blow of the exchange.

 

No offense, but are you having some kind of meltdown over this? Moving through your points:

1) Are you actually arguing that Duran did not intentionally throw an illegal blow? It was most certainly thrown well after the bell (when the ref was stepping in to separate them no less). We don't have to be mind-readers to attribute intent to fouls as blatant as that one.

2) You really don't understand the difference between the two fighters' fouls?? The difference is extremely obvious: Buchanan's fouls did not injure Duran and render him unable to continue, while Duran's foul did indeed injure Buchanan and rendered him unable to continue.

3) Yes, the ref botched it--we all understand that. Those of us who feel that Duran should have been disqualified are obviously arguing based on the premise that the ref did a better job and actually recognized the blatant foul that occurred right under his nose. You harping on the fact that the ref missed the foul seems to run counter to the spirit of this thread. The bottom line is that Duran deserved to be disqualified and the ref blew it.

 

1. So no proof then. So you're making claims about somebody's intention as fact, and yet have nothing conclusive to provide to support such a conclusion. You keep missing the giant elephant in the room. I don't care what you think Duran's intentions were, or how it looked, YOU claimed he intentionally tried to injure Ken by going low; what I'm saying is, and what is unquestionably true is, you have zero proof that your conclusion is a fact. I'm not saying it can't look intentional (it does, and can), but what I am saying is, you have zero proof of what was going on in Duran's mind right before the punch. Fighters miss punches all the time. They throw a punch to the head, and it ends up on the shoulder area. They try and go to the body, and it ends up low. Does that mean the punch was intentionally low. Further, and the other elephant is the room, the ref, JUST as Duran is throwing the punch... puts his hand on the shoulder of Duran in a DOWNWARD and BACK motion. You don't think this might have altered the trajectory of a punch? Think a little bit here Kev.

I shouldn't have to spell this out for you Kevin, you should be smarter than this; proving intent is a whole different ballgame, and one that isn't proven easily. For example, if this went before a judge and jury, there is absolutely no way Duran would get convicted. None. Please try and understand the terminology being used here.

2. Again you're wrong here again. Ken said he was able to continue and wanted to continue. So your notion that he was unable to continue doesn't jive with Ken's own words. The ref viewed the punch as a legit punch, which you can hear in his post fight interview. A he felt Ken wasn't able to continue because of a LEGAL blow. This isn't a situation where Duran hit him low, and he just turtled up and never got up. He did, just like Duran continued after he got his with illegal punches.

3. Again we got back to the "blatant" foul, and how he "missed" the foul. You do realize ref miss fouls ALL THE TIME, virtually every fight. Should we go back and review all the fights and notice any fouls we see, and say, hey he should've been disqualified after that. How could the ref miss that call. He shouldn't have. Then you'd come back with, well, he was able to continue and did so. Yet, do you NKOW if that punch after the bell scrambled his brain more than it appears or how a low blow took some energy from the fighter.. even though he was able to continue... Do you realize the slippery slope we'd then go down. Fouls happen all the time, they are missed all the time... it happens. it's part of the sport. Just watch the damn replay and you'll see it for yourself. The ref almost jumps on Duran's right shoulder in a downward motion. The same shoulder Duran was throwing the punch with. Yet somehow, you feel like this couldn't have affected the trajectory of the punch, to say nothing of how people can miss, and DO miss all the time with their punches. Especially in a mad flurry such as that.

Look at the ref at 5:46

This content is protected

 

Holyfield should have been dqd against Rahman for headbutting. That was the most egregious non dq I can think of.

Ali cooper could go either way, I don't have a huge problem with it. Ali was definitely lucky he fought in an older era in that fight, though. Apart from the salts, the ref may have called it nowadays. Lewis was given a tko against McCall and was less hurt than Ali against Cooper imo.

 

1) I never said that Duran intentionally injured Buchanan! Where are you getting this from? I said that the blow should have been deemed intentional, as it was very late (especially) and quite low. Your judge/jury analogy is completely irrelevant here. This ridiculous burden of proof that you're trying to impose here would basically prevent refs from considering virtually any fouls intentional. Refs infer intent all the time, based on the egregiousness of the foul in question. This was a very late punch (that happened to be low).

2) The ref stopped the fight because he determined that Buchanan could not continue, right? And we know that it was on account of the late low blow, right? What Ken thought or said or wanted is irrelevant. You're smarter than this (at least when you're sane).

3) Why, yes--isn't the point of this thread to identify instances where boxers got away with fouls and other disqualifying?? What am I missing? Are you under the impression that we're trying to start a petition to get the decision overturned or something?
I don't find your slippery slope concerns particularly compelling. I'm 100% ok with fighters who slug their opponents after the bell being disqualified, even if it creates a perverse incentive for their victims to exaggerate the extent of their injuries. It's a risk you run when you do something dirty.

 

So we are clear here, and since you didn't address it... Did you watch the video and notice the ref coming down on Duran's right shoulder? The same shoulder he's using to throw a punch? You don't think this could've altered the trajectory of the punch?

 

How about another fight where Ken was the victim........

This content is protected

To me this is much worse than what Duran did. Norton got beaten while on one knee by a big heavyweight.

 

Eusebio Pedroza should have been DQ'd against Juan LaPorte. Also, Daiki Kameda against Daisuke Naito and Luis Lazarte versus Ulises Solis.

This content is protected

Freddie Norwood should have been DQ'd against Derrick Gainer. Luckily due to the ref's incompetence, Norwood still lost.

This content is protected