Hopkins vs Dawson *SPOILER*

site closed

Ive not seen it so cant really comment, but sounds like a shambles. Boxing seems to be trying its hardest to turn fans away at the moment.

Cheers for the info Seanus. Cant see much boxing where I am at the moment.

Just seen it, shocker of a decision. Result overturned and rematch presumably(?)

I have not seen the incident, so I cant offer an exact opinion. But from the description what is your suggestion?

If Hopkins cant continue, then I think it would have to be ruled a Technical Knock Out loss - unless the suggestion is Dawson should be disqualified?

Is this much different to say the Vitali Klitschko v Solis fight for instance? Or the Vitali Klitschko v Byrd fight?

Having seen the incident, I dont think what Dawson did warranted a disqualification so I my belief is the referee had no option but to declare Dawson the winner once Hopkins could/would not continue. I just dont see any other option.

One could suggest a No Contest declaration but I think that leaves the sport open to horrible abuse as any fighter could simply fake an injury or a fall in order to get a fight declared a no contest and this would be impossible to control. If the injury was genuine then its simply unfortunate. If not, then no better outcome is warranted.

I

I thought if a boxer sustained an accidental injury before the fifth then the bout had to be called a NC? Thats why they let Barrera carry on against Khan until the 5th.

I don't think Dawson should have been penalised either, Hopkins charged in, which forced him onto Dawsons back, yes Dawson picked him up, but it'd be harsh to rule that a foul.

I think the ref made a hash of it though, he only asked Hopkins could he continue, he didn't make Hopkins aware that it'd be a TKO if he didn't, Hopkins must have thought it'd be a NC. And I think Bernie would have been happy enough with a NC.

The ref should have made the situation clearer, they were on a time out, so there was no rush.

You'd have to feel sorry for the people stateside that forked out 55 bucks on that.

joeyjojo618 wrote:I thought if a boxer sustained an accidental injury before the fifth then the bout had to be called a NC? Thats why they let Barrera carry on against Khan until the 5th.

Thats in relation to cuts, and the situation is somewhat different in any case. Barrera was deemed unfit to continue by the referee and doctor. Hopkins himself refused to continue in this case. I dont think referee had any other alternative other than to rule Dawson the winner in the circumstances.

I find it hard to believe that they would have one rule for cuts and another for different injuries, but if you know the law then fair enough.

Also, presumably the doctor should have looked at Hopkins and decided whether he was fit to continue?

joeyjojo618 wrote:I find it hard to believe that they would have one rule for cuts and another for different injuries, but if you know the law then fair enough.

Also, presumably the doctor should have looked at Hopkins and decided whether he was fit to continue?

You can't fake cuts - but you can fake injuries. Hopkins doesn't seem like someone who would quit in a fight, especially as anything half decent he does now is to his credit seeing as he is 46. Its also likely that he will get injured easier just by simply being old.

joeyjojo618 wrote:I find it hard to believe that they would have one rule for cuts and another for different injuries, but if you know the law then fair enough.

Also, presumably the doctor should have looked at Hopkins and decided whether he was fit to continue?

The rules are seperate. This is why Vitali Klitschko has a loss to Chris Byrd for example, despite winning almost ever round against him. Im not sure really what a doctor can be expected to be able to diagnose in the space of a minute or two unless the injury is immediately obvious. It was Hopkins himself who chose not to continue in any case, according to the reports.

The rule is there to protect the integrity of the sport. Otherwise a fighter could simply fake an injury with little or no consequences. As in this case for example, if Hopkins was looking for an easy way out or not genuinely injured.

tried to watch it this morning having Sky+ - the recording cut out towards the end of the first round.


grrrrrrrr.....

Dan Raf of ESPN has posted pics of B-Hop in a sling and a copy of a hospital report citing a dislocated shoulder. He wasn't faking it then.

My concern isn't of the decision, it's of Dawsons automatic rufusal of a rematch which IMO should be given due to the contraversial ending. Dawson is a never was and after this will never be a star attraction.

Hopkins was diagnosed with a dislocation of the joint that connects the collar bone to the shoulder blade, no way he could of continue

Sounds very reasonable, thanks for the explanation fellers.

Still seems a little unfair on the injured party. Assuming it was a genuine injury Bhop did nothing wrong but now has another loss on his record. Can they get the result changed retrospectively once the injury is verified, or is that it?

SPOILERS!!

They said it stands for now but they will look into it - so fingers crossed a rematch much take place.

Also forget spoilers mate - it only lasted 5 minutes - isnt worth watching bar the injury.

I think given the injury is immediately verifiable the WBC should order a rematch.

DAWSON'S DUCKING CLEVERLY!!

Adam D (Hobo) wrote:tried to watch it this morning having Sky+ - the recording cut out towards the end of the first round.


grrrrrrrr.....

Same happened to me Adam, think the other fights over ran so much that by the time the b-hop fight came on Sky Plus thought the programme was over.

If that of all decisions isn't overturned it'll be a robbery, not in the sense that Hopkins was ahead by any distance but by the fact that Dawson was allowed to "stop" Hopkins with cheap rough play in which boxing played no part. That was a WWE night.

What are these refs smoking nowadays?!

Good for Boxing not bad....

Is it really good for our sport for a 46 year old to come back when the spirit moves him and whip the best around???

Hopefully he retires now and Boxing can move on!!!!

Hoppo..wonderful as he is.. isn't good for Boxing he makes it look tragic..

Truss, I don't see how anything that doesn't involve boxing is good for boxing.

Did Dawson win by outboxing B-Hop? No.

Was the fight at all entertaining? Not by my reckoning.

What you and possibly the shambolic politics of boxing want is Hopkins out down to clear ageism and by any means necessary judging from this morning.

This being the case, boxing will not have done itself any good. On the contrary, it will have committed suicide in my eyes.

The second round:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHOFraXlPms&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Knowsit17 wrote:If that of all decisions isn't overturned it'll be a robbery, not in the sense that Hopkins was ahead by any distance but by the fact that Dawson was allowed to "stop" Hopkins with cheap rough play in which boxing played no part. That was a WWE night.

What are these refs smoking nowadays?!

Hopkins was trying his usual ugly rough hugging and Dawson wasn't having any of it. What Dawson did wasn't intended to injure Hopkins, but to tell him to quit leaning and holding. I'm glad Hopkins lost.

I don't think it looks good for Boxing when a part time 46 year old can beat Boxing's best fighters when he pleases.....

Any other era it doesn't happen....

Would a 46 year Hoppo beat Michael Spinks, Nigel Benn etc...

No it shows Boxing's tragic state..

Bad enough Foreman winning..

Knowsit17 wrote:Truss, I don't see how anything that doesn't involve boxing is good for boxing.

Did Dawson win by outboxing B-Hop? No.

Was the fight at all entertaining? Not by my reckoning.

What you and possibly the shambolic politics of boxing want is Hopkins out down to clear ageism and by any means necessary judging from this morning.

This being the case, boxing will not have done itself any good. On the contrary, it will have committed suicide in my eyes.

This seems to be a rather hysterical reaction to what was essentially a freak occurance. Hopkins could not continue the fight so the officials had little choice other than to rule this a technical knock out. They have no way of knowing the extent or seriousness or even credibility of that kind of injury on the spot. It would be more farcical if a boxer was allowed to withdraw from a fight at any given moment citing an injury and have the fight switched to a no contest.

Unfortunately injuries like this can occur in boxing. The most credible option in my eyes is to uphold the rules in place but for the WBC to have the common sense to order a rematch.

Perhaps they should have "TKO pending Medical
Examination" option and have their own doctors verify the injury. That way we get a bity more to discuss - fighters wont fake it and everything gets rectified within hours.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I don't think it looks good for Boxing when a part time 46 year old can beat Boxing's best fighters when he pleases.....

Any other era it doesn't happen....

Would a 46 year Hoppo beat Michael Spinks, Nigel Benn etc...

No it shows Boxing's tragic state..

Bad enough Foreman winning..

Nothing really to add to my original post. Crystal clear ageism and censoring of a large part of boxing. The results you'd like to see aren't what matter, the results that reflect things are.

Balti, I agree Hopkins has mainly been a dirty, cagey fighter, though his stamina and endurance to keep up with the younger guys has always impressed me. If the officials wanted him out, they should have hired more competent refs who'd have none of the holding for twelve rounds and not the softies who always look the other way. The way it was handled last night is not something I can condone.

It's not Hopkins and I applaud his career..

But you think 40 year old Heavies and 46 yr old light heavies don't show up the lack of talent in Boxing????

Good is it..

Ageism probably but the sport looks stupid with these guys running it..

Knowsit17 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I don't think it looks good for Boxing when a part time 46 year old can beat Boxing's best fighters when he pleases.....

Any other era it doesn't happen....

Would a 46 year Hoppo beat Michael Spinks, Nigel Benn etc...

No it shows Boxing's tragic state..

Bad enough Foreman winning..

Nothing really to add to my original post. Crystal clear ageism and censoring of a large part of boxing. The results you'd like to see aren't what matter, the results that reflect things are.

Balti, I agree Hopkins has mainly been a dirty, cagey fighter, though his stamina and endurance to keep up with the younger guys has always impressed me. If the officials wanted him out, they should have hired more competent refs who'd have none of the holding for twelve rounds and not the softies who always look the other way. The way it was handled last night is not something I can condone.

Yet the WBC ordered an immediate rematch against Pascal when he was seen to be the victim of a poor decision in the first fight.

I am not quite sure what people expected the referee to do last night? Hopkins said he couldnt continue. The rules indicate the referee had two options, either to disqualify Dawson (which would have been harsh) or to declare Dawson the winner on the grounds Hopkins couldnt/wouldnt continue.

Common sense means that no one in the boxing world would consider this a bonafide win for Dawson and I think an reasonable person would see it as a freak event which happens very infrequently.

After the Mayweather fiasco..Boxing could've done without this....

"The rules indicate the referee had two options, either to disqualify Dawson (which would have been harsh) or to declare Dawson the winner on the grounds Hopkins couldnt/wouldnt continue."

What happened to the no-contest rule?

Knowsit17 wrote:"The rules indicate the referee had two options, either to disqualify Dawson (which would have been harsh) or to declare Dawson the winner on the grounds Hopkins couldnt/wouldnt continue."

What happened to the no-contest rule?

Thats not at the referees discretion in the circumstances. It would be far worse if Hopkins was faking/play acting/making the most of his injury and the referee ruled it a no contest in any case. Hopkins could lean on Dawson, fall over when Dawson pushes back and then declare he is unfit to continue. He gets to keep his title, makes decent money and worst case scenario he has to have a rematch where he makes another decent packet. The sport has to protected from this kind of thing and unfortunately one just has to accept that injuries will occur in a very physical sport.

I cant see how one can view this as some kind of conspiracy against Hopkins given the freak nature of the incident.

Correct decision based on the rules, but certainly a rematch should be ordered asap. I doubt either fighter will be too upset when the dust settles though as neither fighter's names are gonna be hurt by such a freak result and they are both gonna get another big pay day.

Why does anybody want a rematch..he'll be 47 soon...

The guy has no right fighting at that age he could get hurt...

Colonial Lion wrote:I have not seen the incident, so I cant offer an exact opinion. But from the description what is your suggestion?

If Hopkins cant continue, then I think it would have to be ruled a Technical Knock Out loss - unless the suggestion is Dawson should be disqualified?

Is this much different to say the Vitali Klitschko v Solis fight for instance? Or the Vitali Klitschko v Byrd fight?

Chris Byrd and Vitali never did anything against the rules of boxing against Vitali and Solis, respectively.

Dawson's action that ended the fight was illegal. (I don't know why some people are arguing about that! While it was not as dramatic, it nevertheless reminded me of Naz' infamous body slam). And while I am confident that Dawson did not want the fight to end as a result of it, his action was an intentional one. Dawson had a full intention of not allowing Hopkins to play his own game by being rough himself. That was evident when he tried to choke Hopkins with his arm pushed against Hopkins' throat earlier in the fight. And let's be fair, we can't blame Dawson for choosing this tactics against Hopkins. However, it was Dawson's push - in fact it was not much of a push, he had his arm around one leg, leg around the other, lifted Hopkins up, and then dropped him instead of pushed him over - which caused the fight to come to a premature end.

The result should be changed to NC, and Dawson is not in a position to complain even if he got disqualified. (Though I think that's too harsh on him.) But having a TKO for Dawson is one of the worst calls I have ever seen in boxing.

onetwotwo wrote:

Colonial Lion wrote:I have not seen the incident, so I cant offer an exact opinion. But from the description what is your suggestion?

If Hopkins cant continue, then I think it would have to be ruled a Technical Knock Out loss - unless the suggestion is Dawson should be disqualified?

Is this much different to say the Vitali Klitschko v Solis fight for instance? Or the Vitali Klitschko v Byrd fight?

Chris Byrd and Vitali never did anything against the rules of boxing against Vitali and Solis, respectively.

Dawson's action that ended the fight was illegal. (I don't know why some people are arguing about that! While it was not as dramatic, it nevertheless reminded me of Naz' infamous body slam). And while I am confident that Dawson did not want the fight to end as a result of it, his action was an intentional one. Dawson had a full intention of not allowing Hopkins to play his own game by being rough himself. That was evident when he tried to choke Hopkins with his arm pushed against Hopkins' throat earlier in the fight. And let's be fair, we can't blame Dawson for choosing this tactics against Hopkins. However, it was Dawson's push - in fact it was not much of a push, he had his arm around one leg, leg around the other, lifted Hopkins up, and then dropped him instead of pushed him over - which caused the fight to come to a premature end.

The result should be changed to NC, and Dawson is not in a position to complain even if he got disqualified. (Though I think that's too harsh on him.) But having a TKO for Dawson is one of the worst calls I have ever seen in boxing.

Yes, I saw the incident later and whilst I would agree what Dawson did infrancted on the rules, the outcome was something of a freak incident. Given Hopkins had initiated it by leaning on Dawson Im inclined to think a DQ would be harsh.

However with the ruling, the referee has little option is the point I am trying to make. He can not issue a NC, and even if he could, he is in no position to say if Hopkins injury is genuine, exaggerated or plain fakery. He can only really DQ Dawson or else consider Hopkins unfit to continue thereby ruling it a TKO.

The rules are quite rigid, because otherwise the sport would be open to a whole manner of conning and faking injuries. Whilst one could argue that this is a harsh L on Hopkins record (assuming the injury is real as it appears to be), its essentially a meaningless loss that common sense would ignore as being irrelevant. I think this is prefferable to the alternative of forcing referees to make ill informed calls on whether fighter is fit to continue or not due to a injury that is near impossible to verify on the spot.

Shouldn't this be overturned like Rahman vs Toney was? Originally ruled a TKO for Toney as Rahman refused to continue, referee thought a punch was the cause but it was accidental clash of heads. It got made a NC after being reviewed and the cause was an accidental foul.

bellchees wrote:Shouldn't this be overturned like Rahman vs Toney was? Originally ruled a TKO for Toney as Rahman refused to continue, referee thought a punch was the cause but it was accidental clash of heads. It got made a NC after being reviewed and the cause was an accidental foul.

Potentially it could be. The decision rests with the State Commission and not the ref. However in a case of cuts where the injury is more obvious and the rules are different then its more likely.

They are less likely to do it for situations like this for the reasons Coloniol Lion has made. I would be surprised if the decision was overturned although I would expect a rematch ordered, assuming Hopkins demands one. Especially as light heavy isnt brimming with big fights in any event.

Should be a DQ but I'll take the money.

Hopkins was lucky he got injured...Dawson was on his way to beating the old man.

cheers for the comments fellas, i dont see how this can be anything but a NC. This was an injury caused by a throw, not blaming Dawson for getting the old man off him but its not a TKO, unlike Vitali who effectively retired on his stool which means its a TKO

Reminded me of http://boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Fight:1546745
Which was a No Decision.

Also reminds me of Williams Cintron a bit. Williams got the win for that one too.

Williams got the win there because it had gone enough rounds ot go to the card, was a TD and would have been a NC if it hadnt gone as far

Fair enough I don't remember it going many though, it was a shocker of a fight to be fair and it was like 5.00 in the morning when I watched it remember it started to heat up then Cintron went through the ropes.

Adam D (Hobo) wrote:tried to watch it this morning having Sky+ - the recording cut out towards the end of the first round.


grrrrrrrr.....

Yeh same!! just caught it on the replay though, sure BN will be doing plenty - plus you don't have to worry about waiting, incident is 13 mins into the broadcast!

Comeuppance for all Hopkins dirty spoiling tactics in the past. People are making it sound like Dawson picked him up and power slammed him WWF style, he didn't, he basically shrugged him off when Hopkins was jumping all over him. You climb on someone's back, they have the right to stand up - the result? You will fall off their back.

Agree a NC would be a fairer determination but rules are rules and the interpretation of them in this freak occurence is TKO. Just got to hope for the rematch.

blatant spear tackle, clear red card for dawson. Only welsh fans would see this any different.