do illegal shots have to be taken into context?

[Citizen Koba]

Nah I hear you. I think the best call, had he seen that the last blow was low, would at minimum be to give him time to recover. He may have been reluctant to judge it as low because Kovalev bellyached about shots that pretty much landed square on the beltline not a minute earlier in the round.

That said, I just had to watch the Joshua - Klitschko final round again and I am left wondering if I'm being a little to rulebound on this one although every fight is different. I'm as prone to my biases as everyone else and it's basically impossible to judge your own objectivity. The other fight I keep thinking of was Froch - Groves I - a fight where I argued fairly strongly that Groves was done - or at least would be before long. Go figure

[jas]

That said, I just had to watch the Joshua - Klitschko final round again and I am left wondering if I'm being a little to rulebound on this one although every fight is different. I'm as prone to my biases as everyone else and it's basically impossible to judge your own objectivity. The other fight I keep thinking of was Froch - Groves I - a fight where I argued fairly strongly that Groves was done - or at least would be before long. Go figure

The aj vs wlad stoppage was horrific

Aj hardly landed any punches in the final sequence

[BrometheusBob.]

That said, I just had to watch the Joshua - Klitschko final round again and I am left wondering if I'm being a little to rulebound on this one although every fight is different. I'm as prone to my biases as everyone else and it's basically impossible to judge your own objectivity. The other fight I keep thinking of was Froch - Groves I - a fight where I argued fairly strongly that Groves was done - or at least would be before long. Go figure

I didn't love the Froch - Groves 1 stoppage but I did hold the belief that Froch was gonna knock him out anyway so I wasn't too worked up over it either.

Joshua-Klitschko is one that doesn't look so great if you replay just the ending of it, as AJ lands almost nothing in his last effort but not too many people were super upset. AJ seemed to be regaining his bearings leading into that round and in the round Klitschko took a vicious uppercut earlier as well as another shot that put him down. Plus his body language was not promising.

[Larry the boss]

https://youtu.be/00XnEPpvY-A

[Citizen Koba]

The aj vs wlad stoppage was horrific

Aj hardly landed any punches in the final sequence

It wasn't the stoppage I was thinking of, more that I didn't have a problem with the ref letting the rabbit punch slide a few seconds before he jumped in. It's the issue of whether fouls should always be penalised and it's fair to say I may not always be consistent on it. Although (as I pointed out in my first post on the matter) I think it's generally regarded that a rabbit punch in the heat of an exchange is less egregious than a low blow

[nveleven]

Good question. I started a thread about this a few years ago that received some interesting responses, so it's good to know other people are wondering this in light of this past weekend's events. I enjoyed the kov/Ward fight. I see great arguments for both sides, though I was pulling for Kov bc I've always liked his aggro style more.
Anyway, to answer your question with another question:
I always found it odd that a fighter can low-blow or head-butt another fighter, and if they're a good enough actor to make it look accidental, they may only get a warning...or at worst a point deduction.
Okay?
But now the other fighter is put at a potentially significant disadvantage with an open cut, bruised kidney, have the wind knocked out of you, some fighters piss blood after a fight, etc...

So, other than being a dick...where's the downside to fouling to gain an advantage?
It's why I always hated watching Hopkins & Bradley fight.

[Metho_4u]

If illegal shots are preceded by a decent punch earlier in the round, or if youve got a hunch that a stoppage would happen later on regardless, is it okay if the fighter finishes the fight with a series of illegal shots e.g low blows?

Or should illegal shots be illegal in all circumstances and points deducted for their use? What do you guys think?
If future fights end with shots that arent legal within the queensbury rules, is this now allowed, or was the ward kovalev fight just a one off where the rules can be bent just this once...

Where do you draw the line? For example would it be okay to finish a fight via an elbow or headbutt if you thought the momentum in the fight had changed? Or is it just punching a boxer in the testicles that is acceptable in these circumstances?

How about hitting your opponent while he's down?

[jas]

It wasn't the stoppage I was thinking of, more that I didn't have a problem with the ref letting the rabbit punch slide a few seconds before he jumped in. It's the issue of whether fouls should always be penalised and it's fair to say I may not always be consistent on it. Although (as I pointed out in my first post on the matter) I think it's generally regarded that a rabbit punch in the heat of an exchange is less egregious than a low blow

Was not a foul

Inside of glove and cant attribute enough intent or blame to aj for it

[Citizen Koba]

Was not a foul

Inside of glove and cant attribute enough intent or blame to aj for it

See that's my problem. It might sound like I'm flip-flopping here but actually I'm just trying to wrap my head around it. You could also argue that there wasn't intent from Ward - yet somehow the situations are clearly different to me. I'm just trying to put my finger on exactly why.

[jas]

See that's my problem. It might sound like I'm flip-flopping here but actually I'm just trying to wrap my head around it. You could also argue that there wasn't intent from Ward - yet somehow the situations are clearly different to me. I'm just trying to put my finger on exactly why.

3 successive fouls are most likely done deliberately