Thread: fighters who should of been dq that wernt

Nigell Benn in his bout with Iran Barkley. 3 times he hit a floored Barkley. That one sticks out in my mind more then any.

One from recent times, Robert Guererro - Eric Aiken. Guererro hit below the belt about 20 times (I don't even think I'm exaggerating there) and I don't think he even got warned.

anyone think tyson should of been dq against razor ruddock rematch how many times did he hit ruddock low must of been like 10 times

Wilfredo Gomez hitting Carlos Zarate while his glove was on the canvas.

what about when golota bit that guy on the neck that was crazy

Mayweather when his uncle jumped in the ring.

Originally Posted by Bx730NY

Mayweather when his uncle jumped in the ring.

I disagree strongly here. In my opinion, this was the perfect example of a time where the ref could have dq'd a fighter, but made the right call in NOT dq'ing him.

The whole purpose of disqualifying a fighter (or deducting points) is to penalize a fighter who commits a foul and gains an unfair advantage as a result of the foul.
Floyd Mayweather gained no advantage from his uncle entering the ring. The action and the time had already been stopped because of the intentional low blow.
Did Roger deserve to be ejected from the fight? Of course he did. Did he deserve a suspension like the one he got? Definitely.
But to DQ Floyd because Roger entered the ring would not have been a correct decision. If that happened, you'd be rewarding the guy (Judah) who started the whole sequence by blatantly hitting low, because he was getting his a** kicked and wasn't man enough to take his beating like a pro.

Originally Posted by Bx730NY

Mayweather when his uncle jumped in the ring.

It's a controversial issue that one for sure.

A great article on it is here

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/s...r.25fa997.html

Originally Posted by SweetPea

Originally Posted by Bx730NY

Mayweather when his uncle jumped in the ring.

I disagree strongly here. In my opinion, this was the perfect example of a time where the ref could have dq'd a fighter, but made the right call in NOT dq'ing him.

The whole purpose of disqualifying a fighter (or deducting points) is to penalize a fighter who commits a foul and gains an unfair advantage as a result of the foul.
Floyd Mayweather gained no advantage from his uncle entering the ring. The action and the time had already been stopped because of the intentional low blow.
Did Roger deserve to be ejected from the fight? Of course he did. Did he deserve a suspension like the one he got? Definitely.
But to DQ Floyd because Roger entered the ring would not have been a correct decision. If that happened, you'd be rewarding the guy (Judah) who started the whole sequence by blatantly hitting low, because he was getting his a** kicked and wasn't man enough to take his beating like a pro.

I couldn't CC you enough man that's spot on. Had Rog jumped into the ring during the fight then there would be a case to be had. But time was stopped.

Had that fight been called I think that would haunt Steele more then the Taylor - Chavez bout.

Hatton was lucky not to be DQ'd againstTszyu!

Wlad for holding Peter excessively. No that was not tying up. That was blatant holding.

Originally Posted by Bx730NY

Wlad for holding Peter excessively. No that was not tying up. That was blatant holding.

Maybe he should have got a warning but I've seen A LOT more holding then that in a fight.

Originally Posted by SweetPea

Originally Posted by Bx730NY

Mayweather when his uncle jumped in the ring.

I disagree strongly here. In my opinion, this was the perfect example of a time where the ref could have dq'd a fighter, but made the right call in NOT dq'ing him.

The whole purpose of disqualifying a fighter (or deducting points) is to penalize a fighter who commits a foul and gains an unfair advantage as a result of the foul.
Floyd Mayweather gained no advantage from his uncle entering the ring. The action and the time had already been stopped because of the intentional low blow.
Did Roger deserve to be ejected from the fight? Of course he did. Did he deserve a suspension like the one he got? Definitely.
But to DQ Floyd because Roger entered the ring would not have been a correct decision. If that happened, you'd be rewarding the guy (Judah) who started the whole sequence by blatantly hitting low, because he was getting his a** kicked and wasn't man enough to take his beating like a pro.

I realize you're obviously a big Floyd fan but you have to stop being so biased. The politics of boxing prevented justice in that case. A rule is a rule and as much as it wasn't Floyds fault, he should have been dq'ed for his corners actions.

Everything was against Zab that night from the ref not calling the knockdown to the non DQ. To add insult to injury, he becomes the first guy I've ever heard of that gets a year suspension for throwing a low blow. Even Golota didn't pay a price that steep. It's not like Zab was throwing illegal shots all night.

Zab got a raw deal and if you wanna believe the commentarys version then that's fine with me but just know you're wrong on this one. That is just a case of HBO protecting their investment. Period.

Originally Posted by amat

Originally Posted by Bx730NY

Wlad for holding Peter excessively. No that was not tying up. That was blatant holding.

Maybe he should have got a warning but I've seen A LOT more holding then that in a fight.

He could have definitely lost at least a point or two or three and then be DQ'ed. Henry Akinwande was DQ'ed in the fifth round against Lennox for holding and it wasn't as bad as Wlads. I guess it's an HBO thing and I just won't understand.

Originally Posted by Bx730NY

A rule is a rule and as much as it wasn't Floyds fault, he should have been dq'ed for his corners actions.

But the spirit of a rule is more important than the exact words of a rule. Technically, the ref could've DQ'd Floyd under the words of the rule. But he would've been penalizing a fighter who did nothing wrong and gained no advantage, and that's not the intent behind the rule.

Everything was against Zab that night from the ref not calling the knockdown to the non DQ.

Yes, it was a knockdown and it should've been a 10-8 round for Judah. But that knockdown meant nothing in the long run. Floyd won enough rounds that the point didn't make any difference at all.

To add insult to injury, he becomes the first guy I've ever heard of that gets a year suspension for throwing a low blow.

This has been covered in a million different threads, just in the 5 or 6 months that I've been a member here. He didn't get suspended a year for low blows. He got suspended because after Roger came in the ring, Judah started running around and throwing haymakers at people in the ring. Watch the tape if you don't believe me.
He got suspended because he:
a. started the whole incident by throwing a blatant low blow and a blatant rabbit punch. Both were clearly intentional.
b. After Roger escalated things by entering the ring, Zab escalated them even further by throwing the punches in the brawl that I already referred to.
c. Zab was also punished because this was not his first offense. He already had the suspension from the Tsyzu fight, a suspension that he deserved. When it's not your first time messing up, you're going to be punished more harshly.
I like watching Zab fight, he's got a lot of skills and I think a lot of people here underrate him. But he has a tendency to act like a jackass when he faces adversity.

Zab got a raw deal and if you wanna believe the commentarys version

This isn't the commentators' version, it's my version. Whenever something controversial happens, I always make a point to watch it over again with no sound, so that I'm not influenced by what they're saying.