Why would dirrel need to act, he was going to win anyway...

[Gandalf]

Every fight he is in is a fucking stinker.

did you even watch the fight? it was entertaining. fucking dumbass

And you had the audacity to neg rep me and call me a keyboard warrior!

Anyway, I don't think Dirrell was acting, but he was clearly spent and on his last legs. He kept backing to the ropes and was unable to sustain what he did in the previous rounds. It would have been AA v Jermaine Taylor 2 in the 12th.

[eagleskins]

He clearly was acting. He was on his way to being KO'ed. Abraham was getting stronger, and the ref clearly stole a knock down from him. That fight would have ended in the 11th.

[blegit]

I do think Dirrell did do an acting job BUT like one guy said earlier it was still a clear foul and all Dirrell had to say was that he couldn't continue. Just like Montell Griffin acted his way to a win against RJJ. Dirrell did a better acting job by the way. Dirrell should've just took the time out and danced the last 1 and a half rounds away. Its a lot harder to catch Dirrell than probably any other fighter, especially while having the fight won, so Abraham had a much slimmer chance than catching a JT. Anyway, I think the 2 Andres gave brilliant performances against guys favored to win the whole thing. This kept the tournament up for grabs.

[ninjaspy3]

He clearly was acting. He was on his way to being KO'ed. Abraham was getting stronger, and the ref clearly stole a knock down from him. That fight would have ended in the 11th.

Would of, could of.....

didn't.

Irrelevent.

Thanks for your contribution.
Sorry, Im tired of arguing the same thing over and over and then someone comes and posts the exact same false logic again.

[Truth]

@NinjaSpy
I like your arguments in the official fight thread but read the title of this thread "Why would Dirrell need to act, he was going to win anyway" a hypotheical statement the poster is simply replying by stating that Dirrel had no legs and was backpedaling to the ropes and was about to be stopped by Abraham if it were not for the DQ

[ninjaspy3]

@NinjaSpy
I like your arguments in the official fight thread but read the title of this thread "Why would Dirrell need to act, he was going to win anyway" a hypotheical statement the poster is simply replying by stating that Dirrel had no legs and was backpedaling to the ropes and was about to be stopped by Abraham if it were not for the DQ

But you see, in reply to the thread title, the real question is "How much does one need to act to have the opponent DQ'd?"

....I wasn't aware that -any- acting was necessary for this to occur. I believe a DQ is issued in response to an illegal action.

Hence: "Why would he need to act if he was going to win?"
Answer: He didn't need to act.

[JonesJrMayweather]

@NinjaSpy
I like your arguments in the official fight thread but read the title of this thread "Why would Dirrell need to act, he was going to win anyway" a hypotheical statement the poster is simply replying by stating that Dirrel had no legs and was backpedaling to the ropes and was about to be stopped by Abraham if it were not for the DQ

But you see, in reply to the thread title, the real question is "How much does one need to act to have the opponent DQ'd?"

....I wasn't aware that -any- acting was necessary for this to occur. I believe a DQ is issued in response to an illegal action.

Hence: "Why would he need to act if he was going to win?"
Answer: He didn't need to act.

exactly...

[Truth]

I interpreted the question differently, the wonderful direct english language once again going by the question you were attempting to answer. Yes he didn't need to Act.. Abraham was already Dq'd but his absolutely laughable antics were embarassing (he obviously wanted no bit of fighting again... yes even though the fight was over) All people on the forum are pointing out is though Dirrell was hit with a CHEAP shot he obviously wanted to ues it to get out of that ring ASAP. I've seen people KO'd they're all quiet a little shellshocked and very calm to get up Dirrell rushed up started yelling let me breathe and behaved like a little child.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

He clearly was acting. He was on his way to being KO'ed. Abraham was getting stronger, and the ref clearly stole a knock down from him. That fight would have ended in the 11th.

Would of, could of.....

didn't.

Irrelevent.

Thanks for your contribution.
Sorry, Im tired of arguing the same thing over and over and then someone comes and posts the exact same false logic again.

Haha, then stop. It's not like your arguing with the same person over and over, it's just you you you you... Relax. It's not false logic.

Logic is defined by the application of knowledge and I think enough is known about both fighters to to assume that a stoppage (whether voluntary or involuntary) was still a viable outcome in that fight... Even at that point.

I'm not saying this is truth. No not at all... but to call it false logic IS actually nonsense. It's with the whole ''it's irrelevant'' opinion.

Again, I'm not really taking sides, I'm just opening up the dynamic of this supposedly black & white argument.




Lastly... Shouldn't Abraham be docked points for a disqualification? I mean it's not quite the same as loosing fairly, is it? The fact that AA is still top of the table is just wrong!

[JonesJrMayweather]

For those saying "he acted and should have just gotten up and fought, but instead took the DQ" what sport are you watching...ITS A FOUL!!!!

That's like after Tyson bit Holyfield, tyson's camp argued "The ear has nothing to do with boxing, it won't impede his punching or nothing and he could have continued"...How about next time they just let AA get a free punch with knockout power behind it at the start of the fight, then if Dirrel manages to get up we'll have a clean fight because the fight will surely be even after that....

[markb018]

He clearly was acting. He was on his way to being KO'ed. Abraham was getting stronger, and the ref clearly stole a knock down from him. That fight would have ended in the 11th.

and a knockdown was not given to Dirrell either.

[GuyIncognito76]

It's hard to say for certain, but it did look like he was playing. The bit where he was being interviewed and he thought he'd lost did appear to be akin to a tee-totaller pretending to be drunk.

I'm not saying he was acting, I guess only he knows for sure -the punch didn't seem to catch him flush, and he'd been hit with better shots in the fight, but I will accept that he wasn't ready for it.

I did like the balls of Abrahams in his interview though

[ninjaspy3]

It's hard to say for certain, but it did look like he was playing. The bit where he was being interviewed and he thought he'd lost did appear to be akin to a tee-totaller pretending to be drunk.

I'm not saying he was acting, I guess only he knows for sure -the punch didn't seem to catch him flush, and he'd been hit with better shots in the fight, but I will accept that he wasn't ready for it.

I did like the balls of Abrahams in his interview though

The punch caught him flush. There's video with slow motion replay.

Anyway, let's say, for the sake of argument that Dirrell was acting. Are you saying that the DQ should only be given if a fighter is illegally KOd? I dont think there is a rule saying that one must be hit while down + almost be KOd from the shot for a DQ to be taken into consideration.

[GuyIncognito76]

It's hard to say for certain, but it did look like he was playing. The bit where he was being interviewed and he thought he'd lost did appear to be akin to a tee-totaller pretending to be drunk.

I'm not saying he was acting, I guess only he knows for sure -the punch didn't seem to catch him flush, and he'd been hit with better shots in the fight, but I will accept that he wasn't ready for it.

I did like the balls of Abrahams in his interview though

The punch caught him flush. There's video with slow motion replay.

Anyway, let's say, for the sake of argument that Dirrell was acting. Are you saying that the DQ should only be given if a fighter is illegally KOd? I dont think there is a rule saying that one must be hit while down + almost be KOd from the shot for a DQ to be taken into consideration.

I didn't say I disagreed with the DQ. Dirrell was clearly down and he was hit by a good punch. The issue is whether, or not, Dirrell was play acting. The Ref was shocking; he missed (or miss-called) two knockdowns and should probably waved the fight off as soon as Abrahams hit him -Dirrell's reaction appears to be the only reason the fight was called off (of course, so useless was the ref that he may have been intending to call off the fight anyway, but just wasn't very decisive)

[terrorsid]

i dont care if he wasa gonna get knocked out or not it was no reason to hit him why he was down. Everyone knows that was a dirty ass move. If you were winning on point and you knew that you were bout to get knocked out why not use a cheap tactic I mean he was so tired that he slipped trying to use his footwork, his legs were noodles already AA could have just waited for him to stand the knockout was there Dirrell couldn't escape it. AA is wayyyy to strong for that i would have stayed down 2 honestly.
Nobody thought anything was wrong when AA caught Taylor with that big ass forearm either.
At the end of the day Dirrell could be called a bitch but at least if he was faking AA was using a dirty tactic the minute he threw that punch so why isn't ok for him to use 1?