should dirrell have been dq'd in his last fight?

around 45 the ref says stop a couple of times, around 47 dirrell throws a punch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpXP2h3JKg0

around about 15 dirrell hits the floor, in the same second abraham throws the punch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEF3jknVjrw

No

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jabvargas24

No

---

hmmmm you raise some interesting points

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jabvargas24

No

---

hmmmm you raise some interesting points

---

Well, it's kinda all that needs to be said. Apples and oranges

Hitting once lightly when the ref calls break isn't a DQ'able offence. Shit, we'd have most fights end in a DQ if all of those were called.

Blasting your opponent on the temple after he has slipped to the canvas is a DQ'able offence.

On a side note, man if Direll hit Froch with shots like that he would have had him out of there easy. If he had higher work rate he'd be pretty feckin awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Althugz

Blasting your opponent on the temple after he has slipped to the canvas is a DQ'able offence.

---

hmm i see, so you are allowed to hit late as long as its not too hard?

Should have been a warning for hitting on the break. Fighters get DQ'd if the punch results in a KO. I haven't looked at the official rule this is just my take on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manos de Piedra

Should have been a warning for hitting on the break. Fighters get DQ'd if the punch results in a KO. I haven't looked at the official rule this is just my take on it.

---

Ŵhat if the fella had fallen over after the punch and started don a little fit?

Absolutely not..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manos de Piedra

Should have been a warning for hitting on the break. Fighters get DQ'd if the punch results in a KO. I haven't looked at the official rule this is just my take on it.

---

Ŵhat if the fella had fallen over after the punch and started don a little fit?

---

Then he would be disqualified just as Roy Jones was when he hit Griffin and the way Abraham was when he hit Dirrell.

I think the main thing here is to be realistic and reasonable about the intent of the "offender" and the actual power behind the punch. It is clear to see that the punch Dirrel threw late was both unintentional and more of a love tap which would never have resulted in any significant damage to the opponent. Also it was sort of a straight on jab. On the other hand, Abraham, who is known to have a good punch, got Dirrel with a much harder punch thrown with more aggression and from an awkward angle that would twist the head more. The two are only similar in basic concept but otherwise, as someone said earlier, its like apples and oranges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninjaspy3

I think the main thing here is to be realistic and reasonable about the intent of the "offender" and the actual power behind the punch. It is clear to see that the punch Dirrel threw late was both unintentional and more of a love tap which would never have resulted in any significant damage to the opponent. Also it was sort of a straight on jab. On the other hand, Abraham, who is known to have a good punch, got Dirrel with a much harder punch thrown with more aggression and from an awkward angle that would twist the head more. The two are only similar in basic concept but otherwise, as someone said earlier, its like apples and oranges.

---

perhaps, but where do you draw the line?

when does the apples and oranges become appanges or orales?

get me?

dirrell threw a punch very very late

Jamie Moore was DQ'd against michael jones for a late punch that was within a second late

following this the world renowned salford university did a extensive study and it was found that a human brain doesnt work quick enough so Jamie would never have been able to pull out of the punch

the AA punch was less than a second after the knee hit the floor and the dirrell punch was a lot more than a second

this shows that there was no intent to bend the rules by AA and there was by Dirrell

surely this means that the punch that dirrell threw deserves the punishment more than that that AA threw despite the power in the punch

also what the viewer sees as a powerful punch and what is a powerfull punch can never be even in the slightest bit proven as fact, for example Lee Selby Knocked out the very durable John Simpson with a body shot a couple of weeks ago that looked nothing at all

if that punch had have landed late and john gone down and selby DQ'd then watching it back we would all be calling John a cheat

I think the ref should have a 3-5 sec window in his head about a punch being late enough to DQ a fighter. You can't DQ a second after the bell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jabvargas24

I think the ref should have a 3-5 sec window in his head about a punch being late enough to DQ a fighter. You can't DQ a second after the bell.

---

Should AA have been DQ'd?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jabvargas24

I think the ref should have a 3-5 sec window in his head about a punch being late enough to DQ a fighter. You can't DQ a second after the bell.

---

Should AA have been DQ'd?

---

Of course he should have. He was being owned for 11 rounds and although it's certainly unfortunate on his part if it was just an instinct reaction from him that he couldn't pull out of, what other option did the referee have? Call it a No Contest and give AA a fresh start in a rematch? That wouldn't have been fair either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Althugz

Of course he should have. He was being owned for 11 rounds and although it's certainly unfortunate on his part if it was just an instinct reaction from him that he couldn't pull out of, what other option did the referee have? Call it a No Contest and give AA a fresh start in a rematch? That wouldn't have been fair either.

---

Do you believe that dirrell was legitimately knocked out?

If not, do you think that was fair?