Wlad V Haye question.

I think Froch should have been credited with a kd when Dirrell was intentionally falling to the canvas to avoid being manhandled by him. I just think it is one of these grey areas of the rule book. If I was boxing and in an exchange I tore a ligament and I took a knee at some point as it was hurting, I would be deducted a point for a knock down. But if I throw myself at the canvas to avoid getting close to a fighter because of their in game, that is fine? I mean lets not pretend that Haye doesn't fight dirty on the inside anyway, he rabbit punched the hell outta Ruiz all night long and when he went down on a count of the rabbit punching, they were scored knockdowns.

Fair play to Haye for doing something about Wlad trying to grab him everytime he went within 2 metres of him, you're not allowed to hold, why do referee's let Wlad do it? Some allow it, some don't. I think they choose the referees that allow it.

Hey guys, I watched the Wlad - Haye match again the other day and something came into my head. It's when Haye has a knock down scored against him for falling over and the British commentary say "that wasn't a knock down". Well I beg to differ, if you take a voluntary knee etc it is a knock down and as Haye was putting himself on the canvas on purpose shouldn't all of the times he purposely fell over technically be scored as a knock down? Therefore shouldn't Haye have lost that fight by like 30 points? Wlad pushes fighters down as they come in. Its all a part of his defense to keep fighters from fighting him on the inside. I think Haye was trying to get Wlad in trouble by falling to his knees when Wlad pushed down. I don't think they were knock downs at all.

Not true, fighters go down due to injury that is sustained by themselves or pre-existing. IE bad hands, torn pec.... etc

Fair play to Haye for doing something about Wlad trying to grab him everytime he went within 2 metres of him, you're not allowed to hold, why do referee's let Wlad do it?