Hopkins v Dawson result over turned, Technical Draw

Result over turned Hopkins still champ , on world boxing news

Well done if you got there first inman. It hasn't made eastside yet.

Is that a reliable website? If so I'm going to go hassle Union about getting 10 points in his prediction league for predicting a draw in that fight.

Dan Rafael is reporting it as well though.

Apparently the fight did badly in PPVs - likely <100,000 as well.

Good that hopkins is still champ, how dawson could ever claim to be champ 'winning' in that fashion is beyond me. Wonder if we'll see a rematch. I'd like to see Cleverly in with either of these two.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:Good that hopkins is still champ, how dawson could ever claim to be champ 'winning' in that fashion is beyond me. Wonder if we'll see a rematch. I'd like to see Cleverly in with either of these two.

How long does that kind of injury take to heal? Also will Hopkins need more time given that he is nearly 50 years old. Personally I'd rather see Cleverly in with Glenn Johnson for a taste of borderline world level before either of Hopkins or Dawson.

Wouldn't really want to see a rematch personally, Sugar Boy, but I fear it's inevitable. Would think the WBC will order it as the first 'fight' was hardly much of an indicator as to who the best man is right now.

Couldn't really see Cleverly beating either of these two, though a sudden and steep decline for Hopkins will come sooner or later. Who knows, it may have already happened. As good ol' Truss says, timing is everything. I think if there is a rematch and Hopkins (win or lose) looks like he's on the slide, it's a fight Warren might want to make.

Can't even get it right not. No decision, not technical draw.

Wouldn't surprise me if the shoulder injury heralds Hopkins' decline. Possibility of it recurring, advanced age meaning possible longer healing period, plus at his age he's not as likely to heal back to 100% of what he was beforehand.

Scottrf wrote:Can't even get it right not. No decision, not technical draw.

. http://www.worldboxingnews.net/2011/10/jose-sulaiman-makes-hopkins-v-dawson.html

inman124 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Can't even get it right not. No decision, not technical draw.

. http://www.worldboxingnews.net/2011/10/jose-sulaiman-makes-hopkins-v-dawson.html

Not you, the officials. Nevermind, wrong anyway, WBC specific rule. Wonder when it was put there...

I think they have it wrong aswell, Definatly no contest, can't see a rematch

Cleverly Hopkins NOW. Warren make the fight if you are anything close to the promoter you wish you were.

Cleverly should beat him at this stage of their careers. Pascal is a pot-shotter - Cleverly offers workrate - which Hopkins still won't like. Hopkins doesn't seem to like bodyshots any more - Cleverly's bodyshots are OK.

My take is that Clev absorbs substantial punishment - but if he keeps to strategy, boxes off the front foot and attacks Hoppo's body, he takes the fight.

Alternatively, Hoppo rolls back the years, makes Clev miss embarrassingly and nails him on the way in and out.

If warren makes the fight now Clev still gets credit for the win. Once Hopkins loses - that credit declines exponentially.

oxring wrote:Cleverly Hopkins NOW. Warren make the fight if you are anything close to the promoter you wish you were.

Cleverly should beat him at this stage of their careers. Pascal is a pot-shotter - Cleverly offers workrate - which Hopkins still won't like. Hopkins doesn't seem to like bodyshots any more - Cleverly's bodyshots are OK.

My take is that Clev absorbs substantial punishment - but if he keeps to strategy, boxes off the front foot and attacks Hoppo's body, he takes the fight.

Alternatively, Hoppo rolls back the years, makes Clev miss embarrassingly and nails him on the way in and out.

If warren makes the fight now Clev still gets credit for the win. Once Hopkins loses - that credit declines exponentially.

I just can't see Clev having any chance to be honest Ox. Although Hopkins is getting older, Cleverlys power won't trouble Hopkins and if Bellew can jab Clev at will, then Hopkins will tee off on him. He did so against Pavlik and he would do exactly the same against Clev.

Clev hasn't been in with a world class opponent, let alone an elite fighter (regardless of age). If Clev stands ANY chance, he should get rid of his father as a trainer and get some experience in that corner, other wise he'll be walking straight into shots all night long.

Thing is though - Calzaghe had less power than anyone by the time he fought Hopkins - but the workrate held him through. Now Clev throws punches in bunches and has great stamina.

The susceptibility to the jab is a bit of a concern - but Pavlik doesn't throw as many different punches as Cleverly - so there's a bit more for Hopkins to counteract.

Clev hasn't fought a top fighter - but I'd give him more chance of a 50 year old Hoppo than Pascal - in terms of styles. Pascal in beating Dawson has shown an impressive ability to deal with come-forward fighters but not technicians - and I can't pretend to suggest that Clev is a technician.

Whereas Hoppo didn't seem comfortable in the 6 minutes of the Dawson fight and we've seen him struggle with workrate before (Taylor, Calzaghe).

i think a lot of people were in awe of how amazing it is seeing a 46 year old perform that well a lot of people missed things. even though for the majority of the second pascal fight hopkins dictated the pace he was desperately tired during the last couple and ate a couple of big ones at the end.

now im guessing that as long as clev can force hoppo to work for 3 mhnutes which i think he is capable of doing then i reckon he could have b hop blowing bubbles late and combine it with his good body work you may be onto something. for me due to the stage of hopkins career i would pit it as a 50-50 fight.

Glad the result was over turned. Its boxing not WWE. Just a pity they weren't competent enough to sort it out right on the night.

I think a 75% Hopkins beats Cleverly with a bit to spare. Too clever, too good even at this stage. Would Hopkins want it? Clev isn't too well known and although I'd give him credit its not one that will enhance his legacy greatly on both sides of the pond I wouldn't imagine?

The only person with anything to gain from a fight between Hopkins and Cleveley is Cleverley. I can't see Hopkins entertaining it unless he wants an all expenses paid trip to the UK. Cleverley is better off building up his reputation by taking on those people who are on the fringe of world class, thereby establishing himself as the front runner in this division.

inman124 wrote:I think they have it wrong aswell, Definatly no contest, can't see a rematch

Could still be changed to a 'no contest' in December when the California commission meet to review.

BBC's version of events;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/15399546.stm

Nothing has been overturned!

The Nevada State Commission haven't announced anything yet!!!!! They will most likely call it a no contest as this is what they did with the Bradley vs Campbell fight.

The WBC have zero standing when it comes to official results, boxrec is still saying he lost as well

So we have a draw, a no contest and a Hopkins loss. I am certain there is a universe for Coxy where Hopkins won

bhb001 wrote:So we have a draw, a no contest and a Hopkins loss. I am certain there is a universe for Coxy where Hopkins won

They could rule it a DQ......

In Coxy's head he probably won the fight.

if it's true, brilliant news. was a farce that hopkins could lsoe his belts in such a fashion.

saying that, a rematch could happen. dawson deserved it as much as anyone, and was handling hopkins well.

hopkins is a slow starter so he may have figured dawson out after a few rounds, hope we get to find out - not because the fight was exciting, but dawson got his shot and now deserves to finish it, even if he was acting like a brat after the fight.

Personally I hope there's a rematch and Hopkins loses more fairly. Yeah he's experienced and has ring smarts but I'm sick of seeing him use-to put it nicely-'shady' tactics and acting the cry-baby. He's all bluster before a fight, all keen to act the bad-ass, but as soon as the slightest thing happens that he thinks he might be able to take advantage of he's crying foul and stinking out the place so he can have a breather or a respite from his opponent. He tried on more than one occasion against Calzaghe to play for time and I'd just like to see a ref who doesn't stand for it. I want to see a ref who enforces the rules and who makes the fighters actually fight and box instead of mauling their way to the final bell.

Does that mean the prediction league results will change.

Hopkins is a lucky boy.

paperbag_puncher wrote:Glad the result was over turned. Its boxing not WWE. Just a pity they weren't competent enough to sort it out right on the night.

I think a 75% Hopkins beats Cleverly with a bit to spare. Too clever, too good even at this stage. Would Hopkins want it? Clev isn't too well known and although I'd give him credit its not one that will enhance his legacy greatly on both sides of the pond I wouldn't imagine?

Equally it's not a piggy-back race. Unjust way for Hoppo to lose his title but comeuppence for his tedious dirty spoiling tactics. If you want to come box, box, if you want to brawl, brawl, but some of the antics we get from Hoppo are BS and its good to seem him getting stung for once.

Bad Chad seemed to be dealing with him well and, as I don't consider shrugging a monkey off your back a foul, would like to see a him deal with B-Hop more comfortably in a rematch.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

paperbag_puncher wrote:Glad the result was over turned. Its boxing not WWE. Just a pity they weren't competent enough to sort it out right on the night.

I think a 75% Hopkins beats Cleverly with a bit to spare. Too clever, too good even at this stage. Would Hopkins want it? Clev isn't too well known and although I'd give him credit its not one that will enhance his legacy greatly on both sides of the pond I wouldn't imagine?

Equally it's not a piggy-back race. Unjust way for Hoppo to lose his title but comeuppence for his tedious dirty spoiling tactics. If you want to come box, box, if you want to brawl, brawl, but some of the antics we get from Hoppo are BS and its good to seem him getting stung for once.

Bad Chad seemed to be dealing with him well and, as I don't consider shrugging a monkey off your back a foul, would like to see a him deal with B-Hop more comfortably in a rematch.

I'm not blaming Dawson for the circus either (even though he came across as a Muppet afterwards) more the ref. How someone can lose their belt to a non boxing move is ridiculous.

The right decision. Dawson being allowed to win the title with such an obvious illegal hurl will have been farcical. No matter how cagey Hopkins is, I don't see how any true fan could condone it.

Hopefully a rematch in the works minus a BS ref this time.

This is one rematch I wouldn't want to see. Who's gonna pay to watch Hopkins try to steal his way out of another fight.

Knowsit17 wrote:The right decision. Dawson being allowed to win the title with such an obvious illegal hurl will have been farcical. No matter how cagey Hopkins is, I don't see how any true fan could condone it.

Hopefully a rematch in the works minus a BS ref this time.

I don't see that what Dawson did was such a heinous thing. All he did was react to Hopkins leaning on his back and forcing his head down to stall the action, for the umpteenth time. Sure, Dawson could have responded with a little more composure but I don't see how it can be anything other than an accident.

What Dawson did wasn't particularly bad and trivial really. It was the result and letting a man lose his title in that manner was the problem. I don't care if anyone thinks Hopkins deserved it he didn't. 2 wrongs and all that.

I think the title should be changed as it wasn't a technical draw.

I agree he didn't deserve it but I'm just weary with Hopkins and the way he carries on. I don't see anything particularly praiseworthy in the way he makes his opponents fight at his pace through use of dodgy practices.

Knowsit17 wrote:The right decision. Dawson being allowed to win the title with such an obvious illegal hurl will have been farcical. No matter how cagey Hopkins is, I don't see how any true fan could condone it.

Hopefully a rematch in the works minus a BS ref this time.

An 'obvious illegal hurl'?? You make it sound like it actually was WWE and he pulled off some kind of power slam/suplex type manoeuvre.

Not sure if this will work but check out the photo off the BBC website, what the hell is Hopkins doing other the jumping on his back??! Dawson had every right to 'shrug' him off and that's all it was.

Spoiler:

If that doesn't work just click the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/15399546.stm

Hopkins is too old he should retire

According to that BBC article,

The WBC found that Dawson broke the rule barring "any rough tactics other than clean punches"

Am I crazy for thinking that Hopkins himself had also broken that same rule when he decided to climb on Dawson's back?

BALTIMORA wrote:According to that BBC article,

The WBC found that Dawson broke the rule barring "any rough tactics other than clean punches"

Am I crazy for thinking that Hopkins himself had also broken that same rule when he decided to climb on Dawson's back?

You're not at all crazy, it's true. Also I take back the ridiculous overexaggeration I made earlier about the 'hurl', though I maintain it would have been farcical to allow the title to change hands without a punch being thrown to decide the result.

Hopkins' last few fights have been reffed terribly, I have no idea how he keeps getting away with what he does! A more straight-forward ref will have deducted points or even disqualified Hopkins in many of his recent fights.

I've not really commented on this fight but Hopkins peed me off to be honest, his constant throw the right hand pounce in and grab, jumping about people, is boring. He was moaning about being fouled but jumping on people's back is also a foul, he was going to lose the fight and he knew it, the quicker he loses the belt the better.

yes the wBc recognise it as a TD, but what about Hopkins record, still shows it as TKO on bocrex, this doesn't make it a TD across the board does it??

BALTIMORA wrote:According to that BBC article,

The WBC found that Dawson broke the rule barring "any rough tactics other than clean punches"

Am I crazy for thinking that Hopkins himself had also broken that same rule when he decided to climb on Dawson's back?

That's exactly what I thought when reading the article, one rule and all that.....

Seanusarrilius wrote:yes the wBc recognise it as a TD, but what about Hopkins record, still shows it as TKO on bocrex, this doesn't make it a TD across the board does it??

As someone else pointed out, the WBC can only control who handles their belt (hence why joke situations like Martinez can occur so easily), only the State Athletic Commission can overturn/change the result.

As i thought, so what are the commision doing?? What a farce this would be if they left it as winf for Dawson and the WBC stripped him of win.


Dear boxing,

stop trying to make me a MMA fan

i think the ref was in a lose lose situation, what ever he did would be wrong. to me he called it right. hopkins leaned on him so dawson threw him off, neither legal but neither serious enough to disqualify the boxer, hopkins got hurt and wouldn't continue so the according to the rules loses via TKO. it may not be fair but thats the rules so the ref had no choice, he even gave b-hop a decent amount of time to continue, there are many fighters with a L on there record due to TKOs not caused by a punch (solis springs to mind) and the rule is there to stop people getting away with faking injury and not suffering a loss.

eddyfightfan wrote:i think the ref was in a lose lose situation, what ever he did would be wrong. to me he called it right. hopkins leaned on him so dawson threw him off, neither legal but neither serious enough to disqualify the boxer, hopkins got hurt and wouldn't continue so the according to the rules loses via TKO. it may not be fair but thats the rules so the ref had no choice, he even gave b-hop a decent amount of time to continue, there are many fighters with a L on there record due to TKOs not caused by a punch (solis springs to mind) and the rule is there to stop people getting away with faking injury and not suffering a loss.

true but if you listen to the tape you hear the ref say can you continue? hopkins says yeah with one arm. the ref then says no youre not going on with one arm. hopkins wanted to continue. dont know if that changes anything though

didnt hear that so fair play. still think b-hops a bit to blame, he wasn't communicating with the ref, he wasnt answering him at first, and ive seen him do it before where he ignores the ref whilst not fighing , like the low blow incident against calzaghe. it puts the ref in a situation where he doesnt know what to do, so makes a gut decision.