Ngannou vs Dubois.. The REAL Heavyweight Undisputed.. Who Wins?

Ngannou simply by heart and determination, Dubois might be one of the softest HW contenders ever. What about now after he beat Hrgovic?

​ My god, you're such a groupie phaggot. The other groupie h0m0s are likely ashamed of you. Can you be more desperate?

No, actually the things are not black and white. Fury won, but the victory was disgraceful. Usyk lost, but the circumstances, the propaganda and his overall behaviour were in his favour, so many people don't question his theatre (faking a legit punch as a low one and having a corrupt referee to save him) and he fought more convincingly. What he had were two fights: one lost until the fifth round and one after the fifth which he won. Dubois will probably win. You know in fighting, especially the heavyweight divisions, the triangle theories don't work. Undisputed and lineal means nothing, I agree. What matters is only the quality of your opposition. What I disagree with is that Fury lost - he sucked hard, that's for sure, but got a close victory. While Usyk lost. But even if we agree they both lost, they must fight.​ My god, you're such a groupie phaggot. The other groupie h0m0s are likely ashamed of you.

Undisputed and lineal means nothing, I agree. What matters is only the quality of your opposition. What I disagree with is that Fury lost - he sucked hard, that's for sure, but got a close victory. While Usyk lost. But even if we agree they both lost, they must fight. Just out of interest...have you watched Fury V McDermott? The first one. Fury absolutely lost that. He is a fraud, and has hardly fought anyone of note. Wlad, I'll give him that, and Widelr to a degree although Wilder literally doesn't have a good scalp in the win column. Fury is just a massive mouth who ducked AJ twice / for years, avoided Joyce and Dubois who were from the same stable and the fights could've easily been made but he fought Chisora for a third time instead. Can't stand the guy and anyone defending him needs to give their head a shake.

I saw his take before, and responded to it. He had factual inaccuracies in almost every part of it. I reviewed the punch prior when all this was going down, and the glove is on the beltline which was below the navel before the punch landed, and only rode up with the strike. That's a clear low blow. The only way to argue it was legal is to make the false argument that landing on the belt is legal. What matters is where on the BODY it lands, not where on the shorts. You cant see his navel prior to the punch. A shot on the navel, while low, is not considered a low blow.

IMO Ngannou would stop Dubois. The fight I'd like to see is Ngannou vs. Chisora.

Did you see the link that I posted of what shawn Porter said though. I do know the rules but that shot was square on the navel IMO and not below. Therefor not a low blow. I saw his take before, and responded to it. He had factual inaccuracies in almost every part of it. I reviewed the punch prior when all this was going down, and the glove is on the beltline which was below the navel before the punch landed, and only rode up with the strike. That's a clear low blow. The only way to argue it was legal is to make the false argument that landing on the belt is legal. What matters is where on the BODY it lands, not where on the shorts.

If it's that big a deal for you to quibble over something stupid that's already been rejected, feel free to go back and rewatch it. Frame by frame if you have to. His belt is below the navel before the punch happened, you can see the belt ride up with the glove as it happens, belt is back below after as well. If it were a legal blow, it wouldn't have made contact with the belt at all. Usyk was straight upright when the blow started, not bent over to make his belt ride up before the punch. And the reaction is consistent with a punch to the bladder. People make a big deal of the balls as if that's the only thing that's below the waistline and susceptible to a low blow. Legal body shots have a very different reaction. If it's to the belly, it doesn't drop you instantly, usually not at all. If it's to the liver, you'll see a delayed reaction. I've taken body hits, both legal and not, and the only ones that drop you instantly like that are illegal. Since you're so interested in what other people on the Internet have to say, here's another expert take. https://youtu.be/ZGpjOq6fW3Y Boxers are wrong about the rules all the time. That's the point of the previous examples that you ignored. I believe you that Shawn Porter says something different, but that doesn't mean he's right. In fact, having watched his take, there's multiple factual inaccuracies in what he said. For instance, he thinks the ref HAS to define the line in the ring. He doesn't. They usually do that before the fight and again in the ring, but there's nothing in the rules requiring it to happen in the ring. Then he talks about the belt, which is completely irrelevant to the low blow rule, for reasons already mentioned. Heck, he mentions some of them. Most commissions define it by navel, although some use the hip line. It's wild you are still on this without ever having read the rules. If you haven't read the rules, there's no way you can have any sort of informed opinion on the subject. ​​​​​​ Did you see the link that I posted of what shawn Porter said though. I do know the rules but that shot was square on the navel IMO and not below. Therefor not a low blow.

You cant even see Usyks navel when the shot landed so how can you say it was low? His trunks were all the way up to the bottom of his ribs lol If it's that big a deal for you to quibble over something stupid that's already been rejected, feel free to go back and rewatch it. Frame by frame if you have to. His belt is below the navel before the punch happened, you can see the belt ride up with the glove as it happens, belt is back below after as well. If it were a legal blow, it wouldn't have made contact with the belt at all. Usyk was straight upright when the blow started, not bent over to make his belt ride up before the punch. And the reaction is consistent with a punch to the bladder. People make a big deal of the balls as if that's the only thing that's below the waistline and susceptible to a low blow. Legal body shots have a very different reaction. If it's to the belly, it doesn't drop you instantly, usually not at all. If it's to the liver, you'll see a delayed reaction. I've taken body hits, both legal and not, and the only ones that drop you instantly like that are illegal. Since you're so interested in what other people on the Internet have to say, here's another expert take. https://youtu.be/ZGpjOq6fW3Y Boxers are wrong about the rules all the time. That's the point of the previous examples that you ignored. I believe you that Shawn Porter says something different, but that doesn't mean he's right. In fact, having watched his take, there's multiple factual inaccuracies in what he said. For instance, he thinks the ref HAS to define the line in the ring. He doesn't. They usually do that before the fight and again in the ring, but there's nothing in the rules requiring it to happen in the ring. Then he talks about the belt, which is completely irrelevant to the low blow rule, for reasons already mentioned. Heck, he mentions some of them. Most commissions define it by navel, although some use the hip line. It's wild you are still on this without ever having read the rules. If you haven't read the rules, there's no way you can have any sort of informed opinion on the subject. ​​​​​​

Why are you even here if you haven't read them? Rules define a low blow as below the waistline, most frequently defined by the position of the navel. Here's an example. {"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"Screenshot_20231101-083700~2.png","data-attachmentid":32060664} There's plenty of other sources. I usually request paper copies from the commission prior to fights. One thing it's definitively NOT is the beltline, because that moves around during the fight. Heres what porter has to say on it.

Why are you even here if you haven't read them? Rules define a low blow as below the waistline, most frequently defined by the position of the navel. Here's an example. {"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"Screenshot_20231101-083700~2.png","data-attachmentid":32060664} There's plenty of other sources. I usually request paper copies from the commission prior to fights. One thing it's definitively NOT is the beltline, because that moves around during the fight. You cant even see Usyks navel when the shot landed so how can you say it was low? His trunks were all the way up to the bottom of his ribs lol

Post the rules then, lets see Why are you even here if you haven't read them? Rules define a low blow as below the waistline, most frequently defined by the position of the navel. Here's an example. {"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"Screenshot_20231101-083700~2.png","data-attachmentid":32060664} There's plenty of other sources. I usually request paper copies from the commission prior to fights. One thing it's definitively NOT is the beltline, because that moves around during the fight.

Let Lomachenko defend his undisputed lightweight championship vs Shakur on that card.:boxing: Loma didn’t win.

Apparently I do when it comes to low blows. The definition is described clearly in the rules. Post the rules then, lets see

Idk what you’re talking about. We’re talking about low blows. Shawn Porter clearly stated in his podcast what is and isn’t a low blow. Do you know more than him when it comes to boxing, yes or no? Apparently I do when it comes to low blows. The definition is described clearly in the rules.

Being a boxer doesn't mean you know the rules. There's still a ton of great boxers who think that judges SHOULD give all close rounds to the champ no matter what, because "to be the champ you have to beat the champ." I think Lennox Lewis just said you have to KO the champ to win. That's clearly BS. What that saying actually means is that the champ retains in the event of a tie. But there are tons of champs who won on the strength of a controversial split as a challenger, Leonard v Hearns being one famous example. It's a widely believed falsehood that has no basis in fact. Ditto the concept of low blows being defined by a beltline, when in fact it has nothing to do with it. I suppose you think Russ Anber is wrong too, because he doesn't agree with the all-knowing Shawn Porter? Teofimo Lopez thought he could still have lightweight belts up for grabs in a catchweight fight contested above the lightweight limit. ​​​​​ Etc. Tons of stupid takes even from famous boxers. ​​​​​​ Idk what you’re talking about. We’re talking about low blows. Shawn Porter clearly stated in his podcast what is and isn’t a low blow. Do you know more than him when it comes to boxing, yes or no?

Ngannou simply by heart and determination, Dubois might be one of the softest HW contenders ever.

There is no way Usyk beats the count. It's wishful thinking to believe so. While there is a small element of doubt which you could postulate upon, the reality is that he was severely hurt by the body shot and he even crawled away from Dubois on his hands and knees after it landed. He didn't grab his balls like he was injured in that region. We all saw what happened and how he reacted. That was a hell of a body shot and he folded. Martin Bakole knocked him out in sparring too, apparently with a body shot. Dubois later got knocked out by Usyk because he gassed more than anything else. He'd already won the fight by knocking his opponent out within his 6 round window of opportunity but the opponent was given time to recover from that punch while Dubois adrenaline was being drained from the delay in waiting. History will look back on that fight as an egregious robbery. What fight?

:lol1: Fifty points to kaf. This thread is owned. Cheers March!

Being a boxer doesn't mean you know the rules. There's still a ton of great boxers who think that judges SHOULD give all close rounds to the champ no matter what, because "to be the champ you have to beat the champ." I think Lennox Lewis just said you have to KO the champ to win. That's clearly BS. What that saying actually means is that the champ retains in the event of a tie. But there are tons of champs who won on the strength of a controversial split as a challenger, Leonard v Hearns being one famous example. It's a widely believed falsehood that has no basis in fact. Ditto the concept of low blows being defined by a beltline, when in fact it has nothing to do with it. I suppose you think Russ Anber is wrong too, because he doesn't agree with the all-knowing Shawn Porter? Teofimo Lopez thought he could still have lightweight belts up for grabs in a catchweight fight contested above the lightweight limit. ​​​​​ Etc. Tons of stupid takes even from famous boxers. ​​​​​​ Teo's trainer - his dad - thought the same thing. Jack Reiss said the navel cannot be used to establish the beltline in a boxing match because the position of the navel varies from person to person. But the Association of Boxing Commissions, who Jack works for, defines a low blow as "below the navel"