Bernard Hopkins Responds: "Dawson Should Be Disqualified"
by Scott Christ on Oct 19, 2011 4:31 PM EDT
in Boxing News Analysis
Email
Print
Bernard Hopkins won't be happy just to get his WBC title back via a no-contest ruling for his fight with Chad Dawson -- he wants Dawson to be given a disqualification loss. From RingTV.com:
"First of all, I'm hoping that the commission in Los Angeles does the right thing and rewards my championship on paper back, and, second, disqualifies Chad Dawson for a flagrant foul.
"That was not an accident. I could have broken my neck or fractured a vertebrae. I've got a family. He's got a family. I've done things in the past. I've hit a guy on the hip. I've done things that a Jersey Joe Walcott or a Rocky Marciano would do. But I've never bitten anybody's ear. I've never picked nobody up and tried to throw them from the ring. I personally think that he should have been disqualified."
Hopkins has a lot more to say about the fight, about his critics, and about Chad Dawson in the article, so give it a click and read the whole thing.
But here's our question: What do you think should happen on December 13 when the California commission meets to discuss this? Golden Boy filed their appeal on Tuesday, so it's going to happen. Should the fight stand as it is (TKO-2 for Dawson, which I can't see), be ruled a no-contest, or be changed to a DQ win for Hopkins?
66 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Tough shit !
“as ye shall sow, so ye shall reap” …. as that Jeebers dude once said.
Well.. he certainly reaped what he sowed.
Yes. Not appropriate to judge the facts of the present based on the facts of the past.
And as Kittitas Kid remarks below, he wasn’t given wins based on those occurences in the past. No one lost anything. This is a championship loss based on error, and that’s not acceptable.
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
I was being a little tongue in cheek, but only a little. I don’t have much time for Hopkins as a person, so I stand by what I wrote. You’re probably viewing it fairer (less personal) than me and I respect that. I have to say though, the facts of the past count a lot for the facts of the present IMO.
Hopkins is one of a kind though, gotta give him that.
Humans are repaid often because of facts from the past
so even with the queensberry rules of boxing. The human element doesn’t forget nor forgive so easily.
politicians and hookers
i guess we can now add bernard hopkins to the old adage “politicians and hookers get respectable with age”
i went to the fight at staples. watched it again on ppv (yes i got suckered twice into paying for yet another debacle).
i have no interest in a hopkins-dawson rematch.
i have no interest in seeing hopkins fight anyone anymore.
two rounds might not be enough to tell who was going to win that fight.
two rounds was all that was needed to see that hopkins was doing his best to make it the boring fight that many predicted it would be.
it was clear that bernard’s strategy was to lunge in with a lead right, followed closely by his head. then tie up dawson.
might be a good strategy to win. is a great strategy to make for a boring fight.
i am really surprised in the recent blh poll that more people want to see a hopkins-dawson rematch than not. why? what am i missing? or have we lowered our expectations to the extent that we think this is the best we can get?
i am really surprised in the recent blh poll that more people want to see a hopkins-dawson rematch than not. why?
Because the linear LHW title of the world changed hands in a bullshit decision.
If they return the belt to Bernard, then fuck Dawson. He can go back to obscurity. But as long as he has the belt, Bernard deserves the chance to school him and get it back.
And yeah, straight right-headbutt-clinch ain’t pretty, but if you spent $60 looking for a pretty BHop fight, you don’t know much about boxing. Caveat emptor. You may like him or not, but you can’t say you don’t know what to expect at this point.
Most people don't know shit about boxing. At all. Period. - Roger Mayweather
by The Kittitas Kid on Oct 19, 2011 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions
ohh right. the belt. yeah, for people that care about titles, i can see that.
hopefully this is ruled a nc and hopkins gets his belt back.
honestly, i could care less what the official outcome of this is.
would settle for a perceived fair and conclusive ending. but this is boxing and that may be too much to ask for these days.
and i was hoping for the hopkins who fought jean pascal to show up. my bad.
and i was hoping for the hopkins who fought jean pascal to show up. my bad.
If he tried to fight Dawson like that, he’d get lit up. I’m a huge BHop fan and even I admit that. Pascal is all physicality and no technique, while Dawson has both. Bernard was going to have to use all of his tricks and all of his caginess to pull this one out.
Most people don't know shit about boxing. At all. Period. - Roger Mayweather
by The Kittitas Kid on Oct 20, 2011 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions
After I saw the theatrics he put on against Roy Jones Jr., he has not a leg to stand on.
He acted as if he got hit on the head with an anvil when RJJ tapped him on the head.
Rolled around and like, I don’t know what?!?!?!?!
Barnard Hopkins pulled a Kermit Cintron. That’s what happened.
He plainly refused to continue. What does the ref do but call it as he sees it?
He is in the ring with them not us.
As much as we like to stand on the side lines and make our assumptions; He called it like he saw it.
Case closed as far as I’m concerned.
Quit crying B-Hop! its not becoming of a gangster or thug and it makes you look like an idiot after you made those unwarranted and disparaging remarks about McNabb!
Well, you know, that was that fight, this is this fight. They’re not the same fight, and it’s not the same thing. There’s something off imo in “reasoning” that because he was acting in fhe RJJ fight—which is all he was doing, he should lose a championship unfairly in another fight entirely. And, I assure you, when he went down and reacted to the shoulder injury this time, absolutely, I thought, Not Again!!!. And indeed, it’s not again. It’s a whole nuther story this time, as the slomo replays clearly indicate. At the very least, this is a no contest.
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
by BoxAnne on Oct 19, 2011 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hopkins is a Hall of Fame drama queen. Maybe this is a case of the boy who yelled "wolf" once too often.
Still, the manner in which Dawson grabbed his leg teels me that the CAS will have lots to work with in December.
"Luck is when preparation meets opportunity." - Mike Quarry
It was that fight and this was this fight. True on that account. I wasn’t reasoning with myself, only that I felt he cried foul again so like Boss Man said, "Hopkins is a Hall of Fame drama queen. Maybe this is a case of the boy who yelled “wolf” once too often."
I then therefore wasn’t in the mood to make concessions for the man is all.
A little harsh? Yes…
I have to agree on the no contest as I am no expert just yet and have not the knowledge to refute the no contest decision. We’ll see what the Commission agrees on and go from there.
Unbeknownst to me, was the referee competent to ref a fight of that supposed magnitude?
Did he make an educated guess on the outcome? I really don’t understand why he called the fight as he did.
Either way, it is so grey the area that I’ll just sit back and wait on the outcome.
I would like some clarification on why the judge ruled it as such.
Please weigh in.
I voted nothing keep it like it was.
The ref’s actions were not suspect due in part to the fact (first and foremost), he gets the benefit of the doubt!.
No one complained about the ref and whomever put him there felt he had enough experience to handle a PPV main event regardless if it was not PPV worthy.
The ref is qualified and made his call. Whoever has the power to overturn his call can but shouldn’t.
So be it.
I disagree with the idea that nothing should be done, based on that the ref was appointed and should therefore be given the benefit of the doubt. Regardless of why and how he was appointed, if the call was wrong, it should be changed.
This is not a case of judges scoring a fight wrong. That could be hard to say that they were absolutely wrong (even if most would agree that judges often are wrong), since it is, when it comes down to it, a judgement call. This was simply the question of if the reason of the fight being stoped was a legal way of winning a boxing match.
Even the best ref´s can make mistakes. If let´s say Smoger or Bayless (generaly considered good ref´s) would call a headbutt as a punch, and a fight was stoped based on that, the comission should go back and change their call, regardless of how competent they are. Everyone makes mistakes. The correct way of dealing with mistakes is correcting them. That is why the comission can go back and change the ref´s call…
"I´ve seen the future of the whole fucking thing and it´s Big Man Clarence Clemons!"
- Bruce Springsteen
The world became a less amazing place on June 18 2011, with the death of Clarence Clemons. R.I.P. Big Man, you will be sorely missed.
Some people don´t like the saxophone, but if you can´t rock to the Jungleland solo, you are dead inside!
No one complained about the ref …
They’ll sure as shit complain when he gets appointed going forward.
Most people don't know shit about boxing. At all. Period. - Roger Mayweather
by The Kittitas Kid on Oct 19, 2011 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions
I call BS
He threw Jones multiple times in their second fight.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
by Brickhaus on Oct 19, 2011 6:53 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
I’m at a loss to understand why the Jones fight is relevant. The topic is the Dawson fight. I can’t understand taking a championship from somebody, anybody, for anything occurring in a separate fight altogether. Or taking a championship from anyone because they’re boring and for many, unlikable. Just indefensible “reasoning.”
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
by BoxAnne on Oct 19, 2011 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
I may be wrong, but I think what Brick is calling BS is at Hopkins’ assertion that he would never do that when he, in fact, has done it before.
Bob Arum would promote Lucifer himself if he could put asses in the seats.
You got it
And even if I wasn’t referring to that, there’s NO way this should be changed to a DQ. A hundred different people could watch that and I’d guess that 1/3 think Dawson is at fault, 1/3 thinks Hopkins is at fault and 1/3 think they both are. This isn’t a clear cut intentional foul, and that’s what it would need to be to change the decision to a DQ. IMO, it’s a lot more likely that the win stands than that it turns to a DQ. At least there’s precedent for this kind of win standing.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
With respect
The poll clearly shows that the ratios are nothing like 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3.
by Maximus Decimus Meridius on Oct 20, 2011 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions
That's not what the poll is
For someone to vote for DQ, they’d clearly new to think it was an intentional foul perpetrated solely by Dawson. I’d expect most people to say this should be an NC BECAUSE it’s ny clear who caused it. That’s my point.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
by Brickhaus on Oct 20, 2011 7:43 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Not sure what you’re saying above.
Still agree with MDMeridius above at 10/20/11 3:45 PM EDT
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
He threw Jones multiple times in their second fight.
He wasn’t granted a KO2 for any of those throws, though. I think that’s the crucial differentiator.
Most people don't know shit about boxing. At all. Period. - Roger Mayweather
by The Kittitas Kid on Oct 19, 2011 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions
No, but to quite Hopkins
I’ve never picked nobody up and tried to throw them from the ring.
I call BS on that one.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
Wait, BHop said something that was bullshit?
Not like that Donovan McNabb thing that so full of wisdom.
I don’t pay to hear the guy talk. God knows I would never do that with him, especially.
He also says Dawson should be DQ’d, and I’m not banging that drum. He was hanging over Dawson’s back and shit happened. And as you guys note, he has a history of this shit. So rule it a DQ and run it back.
Most people don't know shit about boxing. At all. Period. - Roger Mayweather
by The Kittitas Kid on Oct 20, 2011 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm sure, given the context, that you actually mean:
“So rule it a NC and run it back.”
That said, I may be wrong.
by Maximus Decimus Meridius on Oct 20, 2011 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions
No, you're right
Apologies. Too many initialisms.
Most people don't know shit about boxing. At all. Period. - Roger Mayweather
by The Kittitas Kid on Oct 20, 2011 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions
With Hopkins past, people will not have alot of faith or sympathy for him.
That is understandable. However, it was no doubt an intentional throw by Chad. That can be said by watching the actual action. The past of the fighters is irrelevant to that issue. Chad reached down with his left hand and grabbed Hopkins right leg as he bucked him of with his shoulder. That changes the action from a way of getting your opponent off of you, to a throw/takedown.
That said, the whole situation was caused by Hopkins jumping up on Dawson, pushing him down with all of his body weight. That is the reason I would like to see a No Decission. Both men are at fault for what went down, but giving a win to Dawson for something that is an illegal move is not acceptable.
"I´ve seen the future of the whole fucking thing and it´s Big Man Clarence Clemons!"
- Bruce Springsteen
The world became a less amazing place on June 18 2011, with the death of Clarence Clemons. R.I.P. Big Man, you will be sorely missed.
Some people don´t like the saxophone, but if you can´t rock to the Jungleland solo, you are dead inside!
The pasts of all fighters is relevant.
Guys who headbutt are watched more closely. And warned more often.
The same with guys who hit low.
And who whine.
Fights are seen in context, not in vacuums. And rightly or wrongly, they are judged that way.
Bernard is a theatrical boy that has played many roles…and cried wolf many times.
That is why he was not given the benefit of the doubt.
That said, it will be revered by the balless CSAC.
But I would be shocked if any re-match can be sold via PPV.
I think Bernard damaged his stock.
Not his legacy. his stock
"Silence is golden when you can't think of a good answer"
---- Muhammed Ali
by pakinpower on Oct 20, 2011 3:56 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well, insofar as
The pasts of all fighters is relevant.
Dawson in that case knew who he was getting into the ring with and had begged for years to get into the ring with Hopkins. If you can’t stand the head, Dawson dear, stay out of the kitchen.
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
No DQ, I’m thinking. It was a foul, yeah, but it wasn’t incredibly flagrant, and Hopkins contributed to it enough that it’s basically a wash. No contest seems like the right outcome.
Bad Left Hook
"My God, kids today think that the laces are for tying up the gloves."
-- Fritzie Zivic
by jrok on Oct 19, 2011 7:18 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Exactly
Most people don't know shit about boxing. At all. Period. - Roger Mayweather
by The Kittitas Kid on Oct 19, 2011 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions
DQ
If it had just been Dawson shoving Hopkins off of him, I’d say call it an accidental foul NC. But Dawson clearly and blatantly hooked Hopkins’ right leg with his left glove before shoving him, which turns it into an intentional foul. And an intentional foul which stops a fight has to be a DQ.
by Verklemptomaniac on Oct 19, 2011 7:21 PM EDT reply actions
I agree with your reasoning, especially the last sentence.
But I have to sort of temper my own preference for what should happen with what is right.
I’d love to see Dawson punished for what, in my eyes, was a clear leg-hook and throw. Fuck him, he knew what he was doing, DQ him, etc.
But I think the right call here is a NC.
by Maximus Decimus Meridius on Oct 19, 2011 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions
But I think the right call here is a NC.
There is no alternative. It has to be a NC.
by The Boxing Bulletin on Oct 19, 2011 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I think you'll find that there is a poll at the top of this thread,which shows there are in fact three very distinct alternatives.
But as I said, I believe the right thing here is the NC.
by Maximus Decimus Meridius on Oct 20, 2011 2:32 AM EDT up reply actions
There are three very distinct alternatives in the poll, but that doesn’t make them all legitimate outcomes. If the TKO result holds up, or the result is changed to a DQ, it would be a travesty – at least in my opinion. There was no winner here.
TheBoxingBulletin.com
I agree with your sentiment, but what I don'tunderstand is why you've responded to my post in an officious manner in the first place,if all you were going to do is agree with what I said?
Your first statement was flawed. There are alternatives.
YET AGAIN: I think the right decision is the NC. If you seriously want an argument over whether or not there are feasible alternatives, please refer once again to the poll at the top of the thread, as I’m not interested in having some quasi-meta-physical debate over something so trivial.
by Maximus Decimus Meridius on Oct 20, 2011 2:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Apologies, as my initial response wasn’t meant to be argumentative – but I can see how the terse wording could be taken that way. I should have originally stated, “in my opinion there is no alternative, it has to be a NC.”
TheBoxingBulletin.com
Make that… in my opinion, there are no fair alternatives besides a no-contest result. Yes, there are alternatives, but I think either of those would be a gross injustice.
TheBoxingBulletin.com
In which case, we are singing off the same hymn sheet.
I’d still love to be a fly on the wall in Chad Dawson’s house if they decide to retrospectively DQ him… (I know they won’t, but he’d lose his fucking mind if they did…)
by Maximus Decimus Meridius on Oct 20, 2011 3:39 AM EDT up reply actions
A few fights with similar situations where the win has stood
Austin-Golota
Valuev-McCline
There’s one other that was a title fight in the early ’80’s with almost exactly the same ending that was ruled a TKO, but I can’t remember the fighters at the moment.
I agree that it should be a NC, but just because the injury didn’t come from a legal punch, it doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t be an actual loss.
Just to get the info out there though – WBC is saying Hopkins keeps his belt. Ring is waiting pending California commission ruling. California commission will make a ruling on December 13.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
How is Austin-Golota similar? Golota got knocked down by a legal punch, hurt his arm when he fell, and retired in the corner. Did Don King launch one of his famous “investigations” that I’ve forgotten about? I don’t recall commission involvement.
Bad Left Hook
"My God, kids today think that the laces are for tying up the gloves."
-- Fritzie Zivic
And an intentional foul which stops a fight has to be a DQ.
Except that Hopkins is in the air, jumping on Dawson’s back – before Dawson does anything to his leg. I don’t see how one can focus on one foul, while ignoring the other.
Here’s a pretty good replay from a couple angles, which shows Hopkins going airborne before Dawson lifts up, or does anything to his leg: You just cannot jump on your opponent’s back – and if you do, you have no right to expect a gentle landing. One incident. Two fouls. Both guilty. No-contest.
by The Boxing Bulletin on Oct 19, 2011 11:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Given Hopkins initiated the incident with a foul of his own, a DQ against Dawson would be as ridiculous as the TKO ruling that Russell made.
Football deals with situations where penalties were committed by both sides on the same play in a sensible manner. The play is not counted. And this should be handled the same way. No-contest. End of story.
TheBoxingBulletin.com
I cannot help but think that they’ll find some way to uphold the decision. It was as clear then as it is now that the original decision was the wrong one, but that went ahead anyway. Maybe I’m just growing cynical, but after some noise and a song and dance, I bet the decision somehow stands.
"I live what you talk. I Live What You Talk.'’ (Bernard Hopkins)
In thie moment, Hopkins was stating it was a setup. I figured that was paranoia talking at the time. It that decision stands, I’m inclined to agree with him.
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
well
like everyone I hope the right thing happens, but unlike most I’m not that sure that it will. I didn’t think he was being paranoid on the night because it was such a laughable ‘decision’ – he was entitled to think like he did. We’ll see how it goes…there are things like bad scorecards but this was on another level.
"I live what you talk. I Live What You Talk.'’ (Bernard Hopkins)
You're not the only pessimist on this one, Brock
As the old saying goes, “You’re only paranoid when you’re wrong.”
Bad Left Hook
"My God, kids today think that the laces are for tying up the gloves."
-- Fritzie Zivic
Why would they want to get him out, though
Even though he’s no PPV superstar, he’s still a shitload more marketable than fucking Dawson.
The idea that Shaw has more suck with the Cali commission than GBP doesn’t hold water, to my mind.
Most people don't know shit about boxing. At all. Period. - Roger Mayweather
by The Kittitas Kid on Oct 20, 2011 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, if we go the conspiracy route, it’s about matchmaking, Canadian rematches, and distributor contracts. Also, Hopkins is somewhat less than just “not… a PPV… attraction.” He’s a miserable flop on PPV, and an old flop, and probably a very hard man to cut deals with.
Bad Left Hook
"My God, kids today think that the laces are for tying up the gloves."
-- Fritzie Zivic
Fair enough
Most people don't know shit about boxing. At all. Period. - Roger Mayweather
by The Kittitas Kid on Oct 20, 2011 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Rafael (among others) is reporting that the WBC has changed the result to a technical draw, and given the belt back to Hopkins.
Doesn’t affect the official record, which only the California commission has authority over.
http://twitter.com/#!/danrafaelespn/status/127137393647157250
by Verklemptomaniac on Oct 20, 2011 7:44 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bad Left Hook
Related FanShots on Bad Left Hook
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
