poll: was it a low blow

was it a low blow

yes
130
68%
no
61
32%
 
Total votes: 191

cormack
Super Featherweight
Posts: 2965
Joined: 30 May 2019, 07:13

Re: poll: was it a low blow

Post by cormack »

tonyevs wrote: 29 Aug 2023, 06:49
Loynesy wrote: 29 Aug 2023, 06:20

Don't really understand why there is a debate about this.
Because the Fury fans think by saying Dubois should have won then it's legitimate reason why Fury can continue to avoid fighting Usyk ...
fury his fanboys and his promoter all wanted the same thing - dd win so an inhouse fight could be made to hand over the baubles and make fury undisputed without taking the Usyk fight .
tonyevs
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5844
Joined: 08 Feb 2004, 18:13

Re: poll: was it a low blow

Post by tonyevs »

Just a few years back the UK appeared to be having a golden age of heavyweight boxing.

We had a pair of brave and dominant heavyweights at the top, with another pair coming up to take over from them.

Unfortunately it turned out that the one top guy had shown all his bravery and courage already and wouldn`t be prepared to show anymore - with the other top guy would moving from dominant to looking vulnerable.

The prospects have also imploded. One lacking heart and the other lacking skills.
coneye
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 8608
Joined: 21 Jun 2004, 06:00

Re: poll: was it a low blow

Post by coneye »

tonyevs wrote: 29 Aug 2023, 08:54 Just a few years back the UK appeared to be having a golden age of heavyweight boxing.

We had a pair of brave and dominant heavyweights at the top, with another pair coming up to take over from them.

Unfortunately it turned out that the one top guy had shown all his bravery and courage already and wouldn`t be prepared to show anymore - with the other top guy would moving from dominant to looking vulnerable.

The prospects have also imploded. One lacking heart and the other lacking skills.
Just about sums things up
fifth_root
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: poll: was it a low blow

Post by fifth_root »

leejonesjnr wrote: 29 Aug 2023, 05:47
fifth_root wrote: 29 Aug 2023, 04:42
leejonesjnr wrote: 29 Aug 2023, 04:30The body isn’t small enough that landing a shot wearing a boxing glove is tricky.
I’ve never hit shorts wearing 10s for a contest or 16s for sparring.
Right because a glove can't punch a small area, then based on the common Usyk reactions to body shots, we might as well forbid the body punches, as it becomes very hard to land purely the entire glove above the navel.

I don't know what you hit or if it is true. But this is only you - in a sea of fighting people. So what does that prove?
You think it’s impossible to not hit low?
Okay, you have fun and go about your day, I’ll leave you to it.
Had the fun with your nonsense. Thank you.
stevec@france wrote: 29 Aug 2023, 08:15not at all clear what your point is so I cant be arsed to respond especially about unrelated fights from years ago .

The thing that is clear to almost everyone including the ref is - it was a low blow .
For what is obvious, it is beyond your comprehension, it seems.
Last edited by fifth_root on 29 Aug 2023, 09:28, edited 1 time in total.
cormack
Super Featherweight
Posts: 2965
Joined: 30 May 2019, 07:13

Re: poll: was it a low blow

Post by cormack »

fifth_root wrote: 29 Aug 2023, 09:27
leejonesjnr wrote: 29 Aug 2023, 05:47
fifth_root wrote: 29 Aug 2023, 04:42

Right because a glove can't punch a small area, then based on the common Usyk reactions to body shots, we might as well forbid the body punches, as it becomes very hard to land purely the entire glove above the navel.

I don't know what you hit or if it is true. But this is only you - in a sea of fighting people. So what does that prove?
You think it’s impossible to not hit low?
Okay, you have fun and go about your day, I’ll leave you to it.
Had the fun with your nonsense. Thank you.
stevec@france wrote: 29 Aug 2023, 08:15not at all clear what your point is so I cant be arsed to respond especially about unrelated fights from years ago .

The thing that is clear to almost everyone including the ref is - it was a low blow .
You just joined my ignore list along with a few other johnny come lately clowns .

For what is obvious, it is beyond your comprehension, it seems.
Rockytony67
Super Middleweight
Posts: 176
Joined: 22 Oct 2012, 13:27

Re: poll: was it a low blow

Post by Rockytony67 »



Fat Dan's upset :lol:
Loynesy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1767
Joined: 26 Sep 2003, 08:29

Re: poll: was it a low blow

Post by Loynesy »

Posting with a bottle of
Champagne behind him (ironically it's not even a decent bottle) just adds to Frank's mindset that he is wealthier than the average boxing fan and therefore has an air of smug superiority.

He's just a tool.
BigDoofus
Welterweight
Posts: 2182
Joined: 04 Apr 2016, 14:59

Re: poll: was it a low blow

Post by BigDoofus »

tonyevs wrote: 29 Aug 2023, 08:54 Just a few years back the UK appeared to be having a golden age of heavyweight boxing.

We had a pair of brave and dominant heavyweights at the top, with another pair coming up to take over from them.

Unfortunately it turned out that the one top guy had shown all his bravery and courage already and wouldn`t be prepared to show anymore - with the other top guy would moving from dominant to looking vulnerable.

The prospects have also imploded. One lacking heart and the other lacking skills.
Just a few years ago Joshua was going to fight Wilder “after his next fight”. What’s changed?
The Gratest
Featherweight
Posts: 6495
Joined: 20 Jun 2020, 19:41

Re: poll: was it a low blow

Post by The Gratest »

Certainly not your repertoire :lol:
jamesmcdonnell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 45234
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11

Re: poll: was it a low blow

Post by jamesmcdonnell »

Coco wrote: 27 Aug 2023, 05:14
margaret thatcher wrote: 27 Aug 2023, 05:10
Coco wrote: 27 Aug 2023, 05:07 I don't think it was low but DDD lost credibility after collapsing from a jab to a non puncher

It was on the belt not below it, the law is there to stop you getting hit in the nuts
is the scoring area of his glove not below the belt?

Image
But well above his nuts.

If the ref thought it was low he should have taken points off
Why?

It can be low but deemed accidental whilst still called as a foul. You wouldnt usually only take points off after appropriate warnings.
fifth_root
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: poll: was it a low blow

Post by fifth_root »

stevec@france wrote: 29 Aug 2023, 12:50You just joined my ignore list along with a few other johnny come lately clowns .
How devastating - I am in some ignore list of unknown idi*t.
Nightmare Roy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 16856
Joined: 18 May 2003, 17:29

Re: poll: was it a low blow

Post by Nightmare Roy »

I thought it was a legal shot to begin with but after watching numerous vids and reading up on various rules, it seems a low shot is anything bellow the belly button, if that is the case then it definitely is a low shot.
maverick23
Cruiserweight
Posts: 10375
Joined: 26 Feb 2011, 18:20

Re: poll: was it a low blow

Post by maverick23 »

Nightmare Roy wrote: 30 Aug 2023, 03:12 I thought it was a legal shot to begin with but after watching numerous vids and reading up on various rules, it seems a low shot is anything bellow the belly button, if that is the case then it definitely is a low shot.
Yup.

A lot of the guys saying that it was legal initially though as it didn’t hit his balls are still sticking to it. Now saying Usyk’s shorts were high (Spencer Oliver actually said Usyk’s shorts are notoriously high!) and it landed on the naval and not below it.
Nightmare Roy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 16856
Joined: 18 May 2003, 17:29

Re: poll: was it a low blow

Post by Nightmare Roy »

maverick23 wrote: 30 Aug 2023, 04:04
Nightmare Roy wrote: 30 Aug 2023, 03:12 I thought it was a legal shot to begin with but after watching numerous vids and reading up on various rules, it seems a low shot is anything bellow the belly button, if that is the case then it definitely is a low shot.
Yup.

A lot of the guys saying that it was legal initially though as it didn’t hit his balls are still sticking to it. Now saying Usyk’s shorts were high (Spencer Oliver actually said Usyk’s shorts are notoriously high!) and it landed on the naval and not below it.
I saw a still of both fighters touching gloves at the start of the fight, DD's short were actually much higher
Ruthless-RKO
Welterweight
Posts: 102997
Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59

Re: poll: was it a low blow

Post by Ruthless-RKO »

It's not like Usyk wore his trunks like Hagler..

Image

That's a different story.

As we established, even Fury wears his higher.
stujones
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 27503
Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 15:08

Re: poll: was it a low blow

Post by stujones »

FW has dropped a bollock here (no pun intended). If I was him, I would have shut up about it. The shot itself is quite clearly low. If the shoe was on the other foot, Usyk landed that shot on Dubois, started counting and Dubois does not get up as in pain - he would have been calling for a DQ, ruling Usyk as a cheat and the ref being crap.

The shot was clearly low, it was also accidental (hence why no point deduction) - we've all seen headbutts not get point deductions etc if deemed not deliberate - not even Golota got a point deduction everytime he strayed vs Bowe. Yet Warren is using the "no point deduction" as a reason why it wasn't low. Hell, I think he has even said "why wasn't DD disqualified" - what about when Joe Calzaghe admitted to deliberate going low vs Hopkins as "revenge" - why has no British journo really said that was disgusting and needed a retrospective DQ. DD's shot also clearly raised the protector which is why Usyk reacted as he did. For me there is no really such thing as "boderline" - it is low or not and this shot was low and it is not really even that close.

BUT, FW would have been better to have shut up about it, instead the little discussed element (prior to this bout) that Usyk could be weak to the body is now discussed everywhere - it will kind of put of dampener on any Fury victory vs Usyk and kind of will take the glean of anyone who topples Usyk - "oh yes, we know he is weak there" will be the response. For me, the more telling moment of Usyk's last few fights was being hurt to the body vs AJ and him complaining to the ref in this one - not to that particular shot (which was low and looked like it could hurt his nut due to the raising of the protector) but the other non-low shots to the body DD landed. Now though the "tactical genius" that is Fury will just do what any coach will tell any boxer vs Usyk - as I always believe being a bit weak to the body is a bit like being chinny - to a degree you cannot really improve there.
joshj909
Lightweight
Posts: 6009
Joined: 01 Dec 2017, 06:16

Re: poll: was it a low blow

Post by joshj909 »

stujones wrote: 30 Aug 2023, 07:40 FW has dropped a bollock here (no pun intended). If I was him, I would have shut up about it. The shot itself is quite clearly low. If the shoe was on the other foot, Usyk landed that shot on Dubois, started counting and Dubois does not get up as in pain - he would have been calling for a DQ, ruling Usyk as a cheat and the ref being crap.

The shot was clearly low, it was also accidental (hence why no point deduction) - we've all seen headbutts not get point deductions etc if deemed not deliberate - not even Golota got a point deduction everytime he strayed vs Bowe. Yet Warren is using the "no point deduction" as a reason why it wasn't low. Hell, I think he has even said "why wasn't DD disqualified" - what about when Joe Calzaghe admitted to deliberate going low vs Hopkins as "revenge" - why has no British journo really said that was disgusting and needed a retrospective DQ. DD's shot also clearly raised the protector which is why Usyk reacted as he did. For me there is no really such thing as "boderline" - it is low or not and this shot was low and it is not really even that close.

BUT, FW would have been better to have shut up about it, instead the little discussed element (prior to this bout) that Usyk could be weak to the body is now discussed everywhere - it will kind of put of dampener on any Fury victory vs Usyk and kind of will take the glean of anyone who topples Usyk - "oh yes, we know he is weak there" will be the response. For me, the more telling moment of Usyk's last few fights was being hurt to the body vs AJ and him complaining to the ref in this one - not to that particular shot (which was low and looked like it could hurt his nut due to the raising of the protector) but the other non-low shots to the body DD landed. Now though the "tactical genius" that is Fury will just do what any coach will tell any boxer vs Usyk - as I always believe being a bit weak to the body is a bit like being chinny - to a degree you cannot really improve there.
Promoters talking like fans are idiots really doesn't help the sport.
Perkin Warbeck
Lightweight
Posts: 1969
Joined: 25 Jun 2018, 19:53

Re: poll: was it a low blow

Post by Perkin Warbeck »

margaret thatcher
Super Featherweight
Posts: 39328
Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43

Re: poll: was it a low blow

Post by margaret thatcher »

some sense from the wba actually . :lol: at a rematch
margaret thatcher
Super Featherweight
Posts: 39328
Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43

Re: poll: was it a low blow

Post by margaret thatcher »

usyk's trunks werent high at all, just another angle to try to justify it. you can see his belly button in much of the fight even

some people being total weirdos on this one

Image
handsofstone
Cruiserweight
Posts: 23180
Joined: 11 Jan 2011, 17:28

Re: poll: was it a low blow

Post by handsofstone »

Nightmare Roy wrote: 30 Aug 2023, 03:12 I thought it was a legal shot to begin with but after watching numerous vids and reading up on various rules, it seems a low shot is anything bellow the belly button, if that is the case then it definitely is a low shot.
I was exactly the same
margaret thatcher
Super Featherweight
Posts: 39328
Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43

Re: poll: was it a low blow

Post by margaret thatcher »

but usyk's trunks were so high

Image
dookus
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4488
Joined: 17 May 2005, 06:00

Re: poll: was it a low blow

Post by dookus »

margaret thatcher wrote: 30 Aug 2023, 12:52 usyk's trunks werent high at all, just another angle to try to justify it. you can see his belly button in much of the fight even

some people being total weirdos on this one

Image
people are amazing at remembering what they want to
olij999
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1242
Joined: 14 Jun 2004, 08:22

Re: poll: was it a low blow

Post by olij999 »

The belt line, i.e. the line that determines whether a punch is legal or not, has nothing to do with balls or belly buttons. It is the imaginary line from the top of one hip bone to the other hip bone. So well above the balls, and well below the navel.

On that basis, the punch looked low to me.
orbtastic
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 12549
Joined: 05 Dec 2006, 11:22

Re: poll: was it a low blow

Post by orbtastic »

I've seen the ref point out numerous times that if someone has their shorts high (Eubank notable repeat offender) that shots to the waistband are legal.

His shorts don't look particularly high there but the shot doesn't look particularly "low" either.
Post Reply