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.