Hopkins vs. Dawson post fight discussion - Please do not make new threads about this.

[S.J. II]

Bernard Hopkins is my master.

[TheAlmighty]

This is the shot that made Hopkins Quit!

[warp1432]

It does make sense. If a fighter can't continue because of an injury where there was no foul. Then a TKO can happen.

Since the ref(whether right or wrong) judged that no foul occurred, the a TKO can very well stand. No if the ref would have judged that a foul did happen whether intentionally or accidental. Then you would be right that would it make sense.

But a foul did occur, jro. You are not allowed to shove someone off and that's why it should be a NC.

They can overturn it just like they did with Bradley Campbell. They ruled it was a punch when clearly it was a headbutt. He ruled it wasnt a foul and it clearly was.

[jrosales13]

So an accidental clash of heads results in a NC, but being thrown to the canvas deliberately does not? Where is the logic in that; this sport sickens me at times.

Where is the logic in your post?

If there's is an accidental clash of heads which results in a NC. Would mean that the ref ruled it an accidental foul. But, even if it's clear that there was a clash of head that caused a cut. And, the ref ruled it a no foul(which means it was caused by a punch) then it would be TKO verdict, wouldn't it?

Kind of like Bradley-Campbell which got overturned to a NC.

Funny enough it happened in Cali.

Like I said, the CSAC is almost as bad as TSAC.

They might overturn this if they rule a foul took place that caused the injury. They have a history of this.

[King Kong]

It's utter bull**** to categorically state that Chad would have won this fight just because he won the first couple rounds, BTW. Hopkins had plenty time to make adjustments and Dawson isn't reknowned for mental strength.

[-EX-]

I just watched it again, Chad did launch Bernard...I couldn't tell the same on the stream...it looks much worse...it should deff be a NC...

Dawson after the fight showed more energy than I've ever seen from him in the ring

[street bully]

No you wouldn't. And being on someones back is also a foul in the sport. Like I said IMO both committed fouls...So what's the issue?

Are you seriously going to compare leaning on somebody after the momentum of throwing a punch coupled with the fact that your opponent is bent over, with straight up body slamming someone to the canvas. One was a lean, which isn't **** and does not cause damage, the other is a body slam that does physical harm in a sport where you can only harm your opponent with your fists legally.

[jrosales13]

But a foul did occur, jro. You are not allowed to shove someone off and that's why it should be a NC.

They can overturn it just like they did with Bradley Campbell. They ruled it was a punch when clearly it was a headbutt. He ruled it wasnt a foul and it clearly was.

Funny, I just used the Bradley-Campbell example.

I'm not against it being overturned...That post is a response that the TKO doesn't make sense. But, under the ref ruling the TKO does make sense...Like I said in that same post whether the ruling was right or wrong, the TKO call makes sense. That's all I was dis*****g.

[jrosales13]

Are you seriously going to compare leaning on somebody after the momentum of throwing a punch coupled with the fact that your opponent is bent over, with straight up body slamming someone to the canvas. One was a lean, which isn't **** and does not cause damage, the other is a body slam that does physical harm in a sport where you can only harm your opponent with your fists legally.

Well you and I have different definition of what a body slam is.

[Come∂ian]

Hopkins milked that ****.......