Bernard Hopkins to fight Tavoris Cloud on March 9.

[ThirdPartyView]

The original call was the right call according to the rules of the sport.

According to a mistake made by Pat Russell, which he later admitted was a mistake before the CSAC when confronted with video evidence of the botched call.

The overturned decision was a travesty.

Given that Russell himself admitted the screw-up and that the CSAC has the power to overturn botched calls, I don't see how doing what is within the purview of the CSAC's power is 'a travesty'?

 

[TexasDrugAddict**]

Why not? You still haven't substantiated why the standard is "Never quit, even if you've been wronged." And those examples aren't of guys getting wronged and backing out, so I'm not sure what to make of them.



If he was in agony and was unable to move because of the dirty move? Yeah.

A fighter should never be allowed to Quit and not take the lost for quitting. There is a ref,doc,comminson, and corner to stop the the fight and IF any one of the stop the fight on YOUR call, your lose. Period. How can a fighter ever say I don't/can't fight on and not lose. If his "injury" was from a foul, then the REF would have called the foul and the other fighter would be DQ'ed and there would never be a reason to quit. If the REF is Not calling a foul and you quit, you lose. You are saying fuck the REF. and this fight and I want out. You should take the lost then.

 

[Seano]

According to a mistake made by Pat Russell, which he later admitted was a mistake before the CSAC when confronted with video evidence of the botched call.



Given that Russell himself admitted the screw-up and that the CSAC has the power to overturn botched calls, I don't see how doing what is within the purview of the CSAC is 'a travesty'?

Yeah, Russel "admitted" it when he was brought before the guys who sign his paycheck and it was apparent they were siding with GB.

I don't care what he said. We all saw the fight. We all saw what happened. We all read the rules. They're not that complex. You get hurt in the process of committing a foul thats your fault. Thats is clear as day in the rules. Thats exactly what happened. Tell me its not. Hopkins pushed down on Dawson, a foul, and Dawson stood up, dropping hopkins. No foul, since he was being fouled in the process. There was no foul on Dawsons part yet Hopkins doesn't lose?As I said, A special exception was made for Hopkins which is setting a shitty precedent in the sport.

 

[ThirdPartyView]

A fighter should never be allowed to Quit and not take the lost for quitting. There is a ref,doc,comminson, and corner to stop the the fight and IF any one of the stop the fight on YOUR call, your lose. Period. How can a fighter ever say I don't/can't fight on and not lose.

Because he was fouled and cannot reasonably continue without risking further injury?

If his "injury" was from a foul, then the REF would have called the foul and the other fighter would be DQ'ed and there would never be a reason to quit.

Alternatively: the call is botched and then (partially) corrected by an appeal to the commission (which is what happened in Hopkin's case). Referees are not perfect, hence the power of commissions to overturn referee's calls.

If the REF is Not calling a foul and you quit, you lose. You are saying fuck the REF. and this fight and I want out. You should take the lost then.

See above.

 

[Seano]

Because he was fouled and cannot reasonably continue without risking further injury?


.

Hopkins wasn't fouled.

 

[ThirdPartyView]

Yeah, Russel "admitted" it when he was brought before the guys who sign his paycheck and it was apparent they were siding with GB.

Prove your assertion that Russell was coerced - thanks.

I don't care what he said. We all saw the fight. We all saw what happened. We all read the rules. They're not that complex. You get hurt in the process of committing a foul thats your fault. Thats is clear as day in the rules. Thats exactly what happened. Tell me its not.

It's not.

Hopkins pushed down on Dawson, a foul, and Dawson stood up, dropping Dawson. No foul, since he was being fouled in the process.

Except that Russell didn't call Hopkins pushing on Dawson as a foul, so Dawson technically committed a unilateral foul.

Hopkins wasn't fouled.

He was according to Russell during the appeals hearing when shown the video evidence.

 

[Seano]

This seems pretty clear cut to me. Explain to me how this isn't almost a word for word description of what happened on the Hopkins fight.

41. SELF-INJURY

If a boxer injures himself while attempting to intentionally foul his opponent or by performing an unorthodox
move, the Referee will not take any action in their favor, and the injury will be considered the same as one
produced by a fair blow.

If the injured boxer cannot resume boxing when ordered to do so by the Referee, he or she will loose the
bout by TECHNICAL KNOCKOUT.

In cases of Self-Injury, neither the Four (4) Round nor Five (5) Minute Rules apply.

----


the original call was the right call.

 

[ThirdPartyView]

This seems pretty clear cut to me. Explain to me how this isn't almost a word for word description of what happened on the Hopkins fight.

Because Russell didn't call the Hopkins pushing as a foul?

 

[Seano]

Because Russell didn't call the Hopkins pushing as a foul?

Why was he moving in to break the action? He couldn't very well call a foul before the sequence was over could he?

 

[TexasDrugAddict**]

Because he was fouled and cannot reasonably continue without risking further injury?

Alternatively: the call is botched and then (partially) corrected by an appeal to the commission (which is what happened in Hopkin's case). Referees are not perfect, hence the power of commissions to overturn referee's calls.

See above.

Refs are not perfect but neither are commissions. A ref is calling a fight on live tv in front of the world. Commissions are behind doors overturning calls . I would believe a REF call that I saw with my own eyes before a Commissions call behind closed doors.

 

[Seano]

Because Russell didn't call the Hopkins pushing as a foul?

OK, lets see...

If Russell made a mistake what was it? That he didn't call Hopkins foul or Dawson's? Why did the "new" decision favor Hopkins in either case? Because if he called Hopkins, then Dawson didn't foul right? So was he supposed to call Dawson when Dawson was the one originally being fouled? Hopkins was the one who caused that situation. He should have a loss by TKO on his record for that fight.

I'm sorry, you'll never justify that decision to me. You never will. The rules are clear as day and I'm right.

 

[ThirdPartyView]

Why was he moving in to break the action?

Uh, where did Russell move in to break the action during the final sequence? He was on the other side of the ring, then moves and signal no knockdown after the takedown and then checks out Hopkins.

Refs are not perfect but neither are commissions.

You do realize that (a) tu quoque is a bad logical fallacy and (b) that Russell himself admitted that he screwed up after the fact, right?

OK, lets see...

If Russell made a mistake what was it? That he didn't call Hopkins foul or Dawson's?

Considering that Dawson ducked underneath (I would say to an illegally low level), rammed into Hopkins ribs (making him hover his arm over his back given Dawson's positioning) and busted out the takedown, I would say Dawson's - I didn't see any foul on Hopkin's end given the preceding actions by Dawson.

 

[Seano]

Uh, where did Russell move in to break the action during the final sequence? He was on the other side of the ring, then moves and signal no knockdown after the takedown and then checks out Hopkins.

Would the ref have stopped the action of the fall hadn't occurred? Would he have allowed Hopkins to lean on Dawson's neck? No. The ref breaks the action when that happens because its illegal. A foul. He called no KD and wanted Hopkins to continue at which point Hopkins refused. TKO loss.

 

[consortium11]

1) I don't get the Seano "hate". He has positions and he sticks to them. He also happens to back them up. We've had our disagreements but I've never felt he was arguing "just because". The fact that his opinions aren't popular doesn't make them wrong.

2) The changing result in the first Hopkins/Dawson bout was a disgrace and set a dangerous precedent.

The referee got the call right the first time. Hopkins was fouling Dawson (it's a foul to deliberately clinch) and in doing so got injured. The result should have therefore been a TKO. You live by the sword, you die by the sword... and Hopkins always battles on the edge of the rules.

In how many situations have athletic commissions reversed results because the referee later (and in this case a month or more later) decides he made the wrong call? Why didn't this apply to Mares vs Agbeko? Soto vs Lorenzo? Or any of the other bouts with referee controversy? Why doesn't it apply to judges? Hell, what sports does this principle actually apply to? How many matches in other sports get ruled no-contests because a referee later says he got a call wrong (and in truth he didn't)?

3) Hopkins quit. He's a smart enough guy to know that when he's asked if he can continue if he says "yeah... with one arm" the bout's going to be stopped. He was quite clearly hoping for a no-contest or a disqualification win.

Sometimes it's smart to quit. Ortiz took a lot of abuse for quitting against both Maidana and Lopez but in both cases it was probably a smart call. Garcia made a smart decision to quit against Salido; he could have continued (as he admitted) but he was miles ahead on the scorecard and there was no reason to take more punishment. Vitali made the right decision to quit against Chris Bryd... his shoulder was torn to pieces.

But in each case the boxer quit. Their corner didn't pull them out while they protested, the referee didn't stop the fight. They either quit themselves or stood by passively as their corner did it for them, agreement by action if not words.

 

[Seano]

You do realize that (a) tu quoque is a bad logical fallacy and (b) that Russell himself admitted that he screwed up after the fact, right?

According to the rules we've acknowledged, what did Russel "screw up?" Russel was sure of himself after the fight and his explanation was a good one. His decision didn't change until he was brought before the commission.

 

[Seano]

Thanks Consortium. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

1) I don't get the Seano "hate". He has positions and he sticks to them. He also happens to back them up. We've had our disagreements but I've never felt he was arguing "just because". The fact that his opinions aren't popular doesn't make them wrong.
.

I like Seano too...my only problem with him...and you for that matter is his bull$hit Bradley vs Pacquiao card.

Seano is cool in my book.

 

[TexasDrugAddict**]

You do realize that (a) tu quoque is a bad logical fallacy and (b) that Russell himself admitted that he screwed up after the fact, right?

I do realize that the REF changed his mind but I am not 100% postive that i was on his own free will or if he was under the influence of one the most powerful promotions in boxing. I didn't get to see the hearing. I saw him make what He Thought was the right call on fight night and then behind closed doors he changed his mind. That doesn't sit well with me.

Also there is no instant replay in boxing. Ref make the call, Commission should stand by it and not pick it apart unless there is 100% of Corruption. Then the commission should step in. Why didn't the commission step in and give Marcos back the point that Joe took away.

 

[Seano]

TPV, its not illegal to come in low, its illegal to come in below the waist.

Was he that low? I don't think so and besides, he wasn't coming in, he was slipping a shot. It was Hopkins who came in illegally.

 

[Seano]

For the record, I am aware Russel changed his decision. My stance is that he was right in the first place. He was.