Next for Dunne

joepenguin

another title that would get wba brownies is the
"interim wba ordinary super bantamweight world title"

http://www.boxrec.com/title_search.php?title=WBA&division=Super+Bantamweight&SUBMIT=Go&pageID=1



So the wba will have 3 world champs in the one weight category come the end of the month. suppose we should be thankfull there isnt a champ in recess at the same time!!!

eagle eye

joepenguin wrote: »

another title that would get wba brownies is the
"interim wba ordinary super bantamweight world title"

http://www.boxrec.com/title_search.php?title=WBA&division=Super+Bantamweight&SUBMIT=Go&pageID=1



So the wba will have 3 world champs in the one weight category come the end of the month. suppose we should be thankfull there isnt a champ in recess at the same time!!!

That has to be somebody acting the clown. I'm not believing that.

Big Ears

joepenguin wrote: »

another title that would get wba brownies is the
"interim wba ordinary super bantamweight world title"

http://www.boxrec.com/title_search.php?title=WBA&division=Super+Bantamweight&SUBMIT=Go&pageID=1



So the wba will have 3 world champs in the one weight category come the end of the month. suppose we should be thankfull there isnt a champ in recess at the same time!!!

Odd that Poonsawat had refused the chance to fight for the WBA interim title(against any ranked contender of his choosing) in the past. Perhaps they were adamant about pushing through a straight mandatory fight with Cordoba.
I talk about this as if Poonsawat has some input, of course he doesn't Thai fighters have less input in their careers than almost any other fighters. They see their manager and promoters as employers and them merely as employees. It's a whole different World over there.

I haven't seen Hernandez fight but his record isn't that impressive. However his record suggets he's a banger, not just the 10 ko wins from 11 but stopping Walter Estrada in 2 and a few other wins there looks like he may be somewhat dangerous for the Thai. He also has campaigned as a Featherweight for all his career while Kratingdaenggym has operated as a Bantamweight until recently.

Probably a good thing if Kratingdaenggym wins, because I'm guessing this Hernandez isn't going to win a decision in Thailand(unless he's something special) and if he can knock out Kratingdaenggym then he's probably more dangerous to Dunne that Poonsawat is.

Not the first time the WBA have had 3 champions at a weight, they've done it before at Cruiserweight.

alanceltic

Its amazing looking at that list that there have been 15 stoppages out of the last 20 fights at this weight!!!! very interesting stat. Also why does boxrec have Dunnes last fight as a TKO and not as a KO???

T-K-O

WBA WTF.

I think we can now say that Dunne, Caballero or poonsawat will fight in some combination.

Johnduddy

alanceltic wrote: »

Its amazing looking at that list that there have been 15 stoppages out of the last 20 fights at this weight!!!! very interesting stat. Also why does boxrec have Dunnes last fight as a TKO and not as a KO???

Cos the ref called the fight after the 3rd knockdown Cordoba wasnt counted out

cowzerp

Johnduddy wrote: »

Cos the ref called the fight after the 3rd knockdown Cordoba wasnt counted out

He had no need to count as 3 knockdowns is a ko. count would be pointless.

sligobhoy67

cowzerp wrote: »

He had no need to count as 3 knockdowns is a ko. count would be pointless.

AFAIK the ref needs to get to the count of ten before it is recognised as a KO.

walshb

The TKO/KO ruling is a strange one and here's my view.

If the fighter doesn't receive a count (when knocked down) because he is obviously
distressed and the ref decides immediate attention is needed, this SHOULD
be a KO. This was the case in the Cordoa incident. If the fight is stopped when
the fighter beats the count or stopped due to a continuous
assault, then this is a TKO.

A KO is when a fighter: 1, doesn't beat the count or 2, doesn't receive
a count when knocked down (due to danger).

Hey, Herol Graham never received a count, was he KO;d?

Actually, he did. But there are other instances where a fighter was clean
KOd and the ref didn't count, but called medical assistance!

Johnduddy

walshb wrote: »

The TKO/KO ruling is a strange one and here's my view.

If the fighter doesn't receive a count (when knocked down) because he is obviously
distressed and the ref decides immediate attention is needed, this SHOULD
be a KO. This was the case in the Cordoa incident. If the fight is stopped when
the fighter beats the count or stopped due to a continuous
assault, then this is a TKO.

A KO is when a fighter: 1, doesn't beat the count or 2, doesn't receive
a count when knocked down (due to danger).

Hey, Herol Graham never received a count, was he KO;d?

Actually, he did. But there are other instances where a fighter was clean
KOd and the ref didn't count, but called medical assistance!

I stand corrected re the count, I always thought that in the case of Cordoba that the ref intervened before he started to count - thats why I thought it was a TKO

Can you clear this up for me then :

Is the 3rd knockdown deemed a KO regardless of the condition of the fighter ? What if the fighter is in a position to continue even after being floored 3 times in a round ? AND is this a KO or TKO....?

sligobhoy67

Johnduddy wrote: »

I stand corrected re the count, I always thought that in the case of Cordoba that the ref intervened before he started to count - thats why I thought it was a TKO

Can you clear this up for me then :

Is the 3rd knockdown deemed a KO regardless of the condition of the fighter ? What if the fighter is in a position to continue even after being floored 3 times in a round ? AND is this a KO or TKO....?

I didnt think the WBA still had the 3 KD Rule!

walshb

Johnduddy wrote: »

I stand corrected re the count, I always thought that in the case of Cordoba that the ref intervened before he started to count - thats why I thought it was a TKO

Can you clear this up for me then :

Is the 3rd knockdown deemed a KO regardless of the condition of the fighter ? What if the fighter is in a position to continue even after being floored 3 times in a round ? AND is this a KO or TKO....?

The three KD rule where the fighter rises each time is usually deemed a TKO, and rightly so.

If the fighter doesn't rise on the third knock down, then it should be a KO.
Cordoba didn't rise from knock down 3 and I do understand your point that
the ref was calling if off just before he was felled. That's okay, then!

To me, it is not all that hard to apply. A fighter doesn't beat the count, it's a KO.
He beats the count and the ref calls it off, it's a TKO. He is stopped from
a continuous assault, it's a TKO. He can't come out of his corner, it's a TKO.

A KO is only when the fighter cannot beat the count and when the ref decides not to
count a fallen fighter and waves it off to call for assistance.

BTW, the WBA do enforce the 3 kd rule and they say it's an automatic
knockout. So, even if you rise after the third KD, you lose by KO!

http://wbanews.com/artman/uploads/1/WBARulesADOPTEDPUNTACANA2008.pdf

Johnduddy

sligobhoy67 wrote: »

I didnt think the WBA still had the 3 KD Rule!

Ha...the confusion rumbles on...

T-K-O

Even the almighty TKO thought that was in fact a KO

alanceltic

so its fair to say my eagle eye was right in thinking that boxrec have it wrong!!!! I wonder if their stats rank a KO higher than a TKO, mabey worth following up with boxrec to reclassify the result, a KO is much more impressive on a record than a TKO so I imagine it should carry a higher weighting

walshb

alan, the issue is just always ambiguous and there are so many cases
on boxrec where this is apparent. I think and you do and many others, that
it was a KO, but a good point was made by John; he said that the ref seemed
to call if off before Cordoba was felled for the third time. I do recall this.
This changes the whole situation.

BTW, the IBO ratings have yet to change their ratings of late.
Dunne is 23rd and Cordoba is 7th or 8th.

walshb

An example of the ambiguity in relation to boxrec and KOs and TKOs is
with Tommy Morrisson's two losses to Mercer and Bentt.

Mercer obliterated Tommy and it's a TKO and Bentt had Tommy on the floor
three times and it's a TKO, both wins were WBO wins, but the WBA
rule that three knock downs is a KO win! I wonder if the WBO say this also?

The current WBO rule doesn't have a three knockdown rule.
I seem to remember it did have this rule for the Morrisson loss???

Larry Merchant and Lampley did say the 3 rule was in effect!

Big Ears

walshb wrote: »

An example of the ambiguity in relation to boxrec and KOs and TKOs is
with Tommy Morrisson's two losses to Mercer and Bentt.

Mercer obliterated Tommy and it's a TKO and Bentt had Tommy on the floor
three times and it's a TKO, both wins were WBO wins, but the WBA
rule that three knock downs is a KO win! I wonder if the WBO say this also?

The current WBO rule doesn't have a three knockdown rule.
I seem to remember it did have this rule for the Morrisson loss???

Larry Merchant and Lampley did say the 3 rule was in effect!

WBO did indeed have a 3 knockdown rule in place at the time, you'll also see it in the Benn v Barkley fight, and winning by this method is ruled a tko.

Unlike what your interpretation stated previously Walsh, if a fighter is knocked down and the referee waves it off without a count(regardless of whether the fighter gets up or not) it is declared a 'technical count out' which goes on the record as a tko.

The only time you'll see a ko given on the record is if the ref reaches the count of 10 before a fighter gets up.

No idea when the WBA brought in the 3 knockdown rule but it must have been recently enough because I can't ever remember it ending a WBA bought before. if it was in place for Marquez v Pacquiao I, Marquez would of lost by first round tko. However as that bout had more than one title on the line it wouldn't have been in force anyway as they would have used the unified rules.

Personally I'm against it, as a referee, corner or doctor can stop a fight when it needs to be stopped anyway. Technically only the ref can be in reality all 3 can pretty much stop the bout.

The result on boxrec is what the local commission gives them anyway and not what the sanctioning organisation say. So the BUI would be responsible for the result. A result which is correct btw.

walshb

"WBO did indeed have a 3 knockdown rule in place at the time, you'll also see it in the Benn v Barkley fight, and winning by this method is ruled a tko."

I thought so Big, but are you sure the WBO called a three knockdown win a TKO
win? The WBA officially call their three knock down rule a KO win.

As it stands now, the WBO have NO three KD rule; but when they did, did that
get called a TKO or did boxrec just install it as they pleased?

To know this, one would have to show a copy of the old WBO rules!

Boxrec should give the result as per the organistaion rules, not the commission!

Big Ears

walshb wrote: »

"WBO did indeed have a 3 knockdown rule in place at the time, you'll also see it in the Benn v Barkley fight, and winning by this method is ruled a tko."

I thought so Big, but are you sure the WBO called a three knockdown win a TKO
win? The WBA officially call their three knock down rule a KO win.

As it stands now, the WBO have NO three KD rule; but when they did, did that
get called a TKO or did boxrec just install it as they pleased?

To know this, one would have to show a copy of the old WBO rules!

Boxrec should give the result as per the organistaion rules, not the commission!

The reason boxrec give the result as what the commission says and not the sanctioning body is because that is the actual result of the fight.

If boxrec went by what A sanctioning body say then you would have Humberto Soto v Francisco Lorenzo as a NC instead of a DQ win.
Also when more than one title is at stake there could be different interpretations from the sanctioning bodies, however the commission would obviously have their own independent ruling.

The reason they get results from the commissions if the commission will send them results regularly for whenever they have fights, and it doesn't matter if a title is on the line or not. It would be a bit off to take what the commission say as the result but then when there's a bauble on the line take what they say as the result instead of the commission. The sanctioning bodies don't need anymore power and without the local/regional commission the fights wouldn't even be able to take place anyway no matter if the sanctioning body sanctions it or not.

I think they're right to side with what the commission says.
At least that way results(at least within the region the commission regulates) will be standardised.

joepenguin

Seen Dunne on podgae and rodge earlier. He has said that he will definitely be fighting in vegas this year. while this is not gospel it does make me think that they are serious about the big name fights. i suppose the way he looks at is he has accomplished one of his main dreams by becoming a world champion so now go for all the glory while he can.

Johnduddy

joepenguin wrote: »

Seen Dunne on podgae and rodge earlier. He has said that he will definitely be fighting in vegas this year. while this is not gospel it does make me think that they are serious about the big name fights. i suppose the way he looks at is he has accomplished one of his main dreams by becoming a world champion so now go for all the glory while he can.

Didnt see Podge and Rodge but is this overconfidence or bad management ? We have all had the discussion on whether vegas is the best option for dunne. I know if I was in dunnes position I would be looking to pack out the point (o2) and milk it while I could before considering a big fight in vegas with a big name.

I would love to see Dunne defend in vegas in front of a packed house but there are easier ways to make money and Vegas would mean 1 of 2 things. A fight on the undercard of a major WT or WT eliminator fight (Duddy v Pavlik or Duddy V Chavez maybe ) Or fighting a monster (Vazquez)

Ive said it before - make hay while the sun shines Bernard, Brian, Harry....

joepenguin

I reckon he is looking at the glory insted of the money, going for broke. he is in his prime and might as well make the most of that while he can. He will always make money as a fighter.

Johnduddy

joepenguin wrote: »

I reckon he is looking at the glory insted of the money, going for broke. he is in his prime and might as well make the most of that while he can. He will always make money as a fighter.

Joe you can go for glory after you have made a few pound !! - by going to Vegas to defend would mean a mandatory or a big name - do that after you have a full house defence in Dublin against a voluntary - that makes most sense financially. He wont always make money if he gets sparked in the first by an animal like marquez !!! He'll end up back in castlebar tryin to make a living !

Im not being fickle here either just realistic

mark renton

Johnduddy wrote: »

I would love to see Dunne defend in vegas in front of a packed house but there are easier ways to make money and Vegas would mean 1 of 2 things. A fight on the undercard of a major WT or WT eliminator fight (Duddy v Pavlik or Duddy V Chavez maybe ) Or fighting a monster (Vazquez)

Ive said it before - make hay while the sun shines Bernard, Brian, Harry....

the other way around pal - Duddy fighting on the undercard of Dunne v Vasquez / Caballero

mark renton

Johnduddy wrote: »

Joe you can go for glory after you have made a few pound !! - by going to Vegas to defend would mean a mandatory or a big name - do that after you have a full house defence in Dublin against a voluntary - that makes most sense financially. He wont always make money if he gets sparked in the first by an animal like marquez !!! He'll end up back in castlebar tryin to make a living !

Im not being fickle here either just realistic

Ponce De leon got sparked in the first and is he seems to be hanging on to a living :cool:

autograph

Happy for Dunnes. Delighted he made it back. Just hope he doesn't blow it now. Opponents need to be carefully chosen.

akindoc

Johnduddy wrote: »

Didnt see Podge and Rodge but is this overconfidence or bad management ? We have all had the discussion on whether vegas is the best option for dunne. I know if I was in dunnes position I would be looking to pack out the point (o2) and milk it while I could before considering a big fight in vegas with a big name.

I would love to see Dunne defend in vegas in front of a packed house but there are easier ways to make money and Vegas would mean 1 of 2 things. A fight on the undercard of a major WT or WT eliminator fight (Duddy v Pavlik or Duddy V Chavez maybe ) Or fighting a monster (Vazquez)

Ive said it before - make hay while the sun shines Bernard, Brian, Harry....

ridiculous comments. the guy is talking about fighting THE BEST in his division and you are so scared that he'll get his hiding that you want him to make some money fighting nobodies first. Sorry but real boxing fans dont give a balls about bernard making money, we want to see top fights. attitudes like this is why i despise ricky hatton for his 40-0 conjob. as a fan you should be ashamed of yourself imo.

unknown13

He should take the 200K Frank Maloney is offering him and fight Munroe in Dublin because it makes too much sense and he would be stupid to turn that money down for an opponent he would beat comfortably.

T-K-O

Dunne would make more than 200k against ANYBODY in his next fight at the point.

Munroes team didn't want to know Dunne before he won the title, my mother always says treat others as you would like to be treated.