Dawson Wins Title Against Hopkins, But it was the Wrong Call:
Last night, “Bad” Chad Dawson regained the Light Heavyweight Championship with a 2nd-round TKO over reigning titleholder Bernard Hopkins. But that really doesn’t tell the whole story. In the 2nd round, Hopkins and Dawson came together. With Hopkins leaning on Dawson’s back/right shoulder area, Dawson lifted Hopkins and shoved him with his shoulder, causing Hopkins to fall backwards.
Citing an injured shoulder, Hopkins writhed in pain. An incredulous Dawson indicated in no uncertain terms that he thought Hopkins was faking. After a few minutes, the fight was waved off. Next thing we knew, Chad Dawson was being announced as the new Light Heavyweight Champion of the World.
Let’s look at the major players in this fiasco and see if we can’t make sense of yet another bizarre big-fight result.
Chad Dawson
He was doing well against Hopkins, but not really in a way that screamed that he would surely win. But in less than two rounds, he was probably feeling pretty good. Long criticized for fighting lackadaisically, “Bad” Chad was being assertive and aggressive.
And to Dawson’s credit, Hopkins was leaning on him is a vaguely roughhousing way, with all his weight pressing down on Dawson. So the lift and shove was understandable. It wasn’t a crazy-enough maneuver to justify a disqualification, regardless of the result. But let’s face it—it fell squarely outside of the Marquis of Queensberry rules. For a TKO to emanate from that move doesn’t sit right.
It’s difficult to really quantify the level of Dawson’s liability in this event. On one hand, his actions led to the end of the fight. And while not flagrant enough to warrant a DQ, it was a foul by any reasonable measure. On the other hand, he was being harassed by Hopkins at that particular moment by a maneuver that sort of falls into the same category of “foul.” And his response, while heavy-handed, was not meant to produce the result that it created.
Bernard Hopkins
I’m not sure I can rightfully say what really happened to his shoulder. But I wasn’t the only one who felt he was pulling a Fred Sanford as he rolled around on the canvas. Hopkins has earned a rep as a tough guy, but also as a fighter who maybe tries to over-milk injuries sustained during fights. It seems his reputation preceded him in this fight.
But that’s not necessarily proper. Everyone is subject to human nature and part of that is remembering people’s tendencies, so the referee and Dawson instinctively thought Hopkins was feigning more pain than what was truly the case. That alone doesn’t mean his injury was fake, however.
Hopkins has a legitimate gripe. His night and title reign ended with him being thrown to the canvas. Talk about a lousy way to lose a championship! In addition, why was he kept in the dark as to what was going on? Neither the referee nor anyone on the commission could convey to Hopkins that he needed to fight or he would lose? And if they ruled him unable to continue because of a visibly separated shoulder, then how is that a TKO? If he slipped on his own and banged his shoulder, that’s one thing. But if the referee and commission’s stance was that he was in fact injured and unable to continue, shouldn’t the fact that his opponent directly caused the injury prevent him from being a TKO loser?
But let’s not forget that this is professional boxing. Things happen in the ring that fighters need to soldier through from time to time that aren’t always fair. The sticking point for me is that Dawson’s fight-ending maneuver hardly seemed accidental, unless your definition of an accident is tied up in the intent vs. result dynamic. The rules state that a fighter unable to continue due to an unintentional foul is declared a TKO loser. I’m not sure lifting a man and throwing him to the floor is an “accident.” Dawson surely didn’t mean to separate Hopkins’ shoulder, but he did intend to do the very thing that ended up leading to that result.
Referee Pat Russell
Watching fights in the Southland for over 30 years, I’ve always been happy to see Russell as a third man. And there was a part of me that liked his ruling. It might have been administered strangely, but it was decisive and sent a message: Don’t come to California trying to BS your way into a DQ win.
But I felt Russell could have been more clear on his ruling. It seemed the first anyone was hearing of this was when Buffer announced the result. No one can be sure what Hopkins and his corner were told, but it would be wrong if he weren’t warned that he needed to get up and fight or become a TKO loser. And what happened to the 5-minute recuperation period? How does that work? Accidental low blows can warrant a 5-minute break, so why not an “accidental” toss to the floor? The fight was waved off way before 5 minutes had elapsed.
Even if Hopkins was ruled physically unable to continue, rendering the 5-minute break moot, it almost seems to verify B-Hop’s foothold in this debate. If the referee or doctor determined the fall had in fact injured him significantly enough to prevent him from continuing, then that rules out the possibility that Hopkins was faking, doesn’t it? Oh, what a mess!
I see where Russell is coming from. He thinks the result of the foul far outweighs the gravity of Dawson’s intent. I agree. I just don’t think that renders the infraction “legal” or “accidental.” Saying “I didn’t mean it” doesn’t give you a pass. A drunk driver doesn’t mean to kill people, but without his misdeeds, the accident never would have happened. I just have an issue with Russell saying it wasn’t a foul.
Final Verdict for Dawson-Hopkins Results
In a way it’s simple and then it’s not. If Russell and the commission felt that there was no foul, it’s difficult to sign off on that. If their stance is that the foul was not flagrant enough to warrant a DQ for Dawson, that’s another story. Their stance, however, was that there was no foul. That is difficult to understand. After all, Hopkins was ruled unable to continue. How did that happen?
If Hopkins had gone down after something more benign and hurt himself, a TKO would be wholly correct. But he was lifted off the canvas and slung to the mat, was he not? He was injured and unable to continue. A DQ against Dawson would have been too harsh. But a TKO loss for Hopkins seems almost more out of line. A no-contest just seems like a more justified result in this unfortunate situation.
Boxing doesn’t always go by “what seems correct.” It’s a tough business with results that aren’t always fair. But when a fighter’s evening is ended by illegal moves, he shouldn’t lose by TKO.
