Question about boxing rules in Million Dollar Baby
Fred 14 March 2005 22:27:16
************** SPOILER WARNING ************
***DON'T READ ANY MORE IF YOUR HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE ******
*********** SPOILER WARNING ****************
I have a question about the last fight scene in this movie. Twice Maggie was described as having lost the fight. However, her opponent hit her after the bell, and she had been warned by the referee that she would be disqualified if she committed another foul. What then are the rules? Wouldn't the attack be a foul and therefore wouldn't Maggie be declared the winner--and new champion?
As you can atell I don't know much about boxing, but after the film my wife said she'd like to attend a real event!
In <3EFYd.8129$cN6.7578@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> The Sanity Cruzer wrote:
Yes. The flagrant fouls and how they were handled were a joke. How > that movie could be so ridiculous and win the best movie Oscar is > beyond me.>
Oh, back to your question; But the referee had his back turned, just > like the refs turns their backs in pro wrestling. So, the bad 'guy' > won because the ref didn't see the fouls, even though the audience > and other ringside officials saw them.>
Wow! It just came to me. Eastwood actually made a wrestling movie, > not one about boxing.
The more I read/hear about his one I'm starting to wonder...why bother? It really bugs me that Clint would do something like this as I've always been a big fan and hate to risk it all on one movie...
Robert Phillips 14 March 2005 06:33:44 [ permanent link ]
Ruddell wrote:
The more I read/hear about his one I'm starting to wonder...why bother? > It really bugs me that Clint would do something like this as I've always > been a big fan and hate to risk it all on one movie...
I'm a little unclear here - what "all" was risked in the making of this movie, and by whom? Are you suggesting that Eastwood risked "all" (reputation, future, finances, etc.) by making it? I'd have to seriously disagree, if that's what you meant. Or did you mean that you would risk all of your respect for Eastwood by watching the movie when you've disliked so much that you've read and heard about it?
The more I read/hear about his one I'm starting to wonder...why >> bother? It really bugs me that Clint would do something like this as >> I've always been a big fan and hate to risk it all on one movie...>
I'm a little unclear here - what "all" was risked in the making of this > movie, and by whom? Are you suggesting that Eastwood risked "all" > (reputation, future, finances, etc.) by making it? I'd have to > seriously disagree, if that's what you meant. Or did you mean that you > would risk all of your respect for Eastwood by watching the movie when > you've disliked so much that you've read and heard about it?>
It reads like he has $9 left in this world and doesn't know if he wishes to spend it on a movie ticket.
I once knew of a guy who was down to his last $100. He went to a strip bar, bought some drinks, gave the change to the stripper & walked out. Nobody has heard from him since.
In <cK6Zd.114157$pc5.76841@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> Robert Phillips wrote:> Ruddell wrote:>
The more I read/hear about his one I'm starting to wonder...why >> bother? It really bugs me that Clint would do something like this >> as I've always been a big fan and hate to risk it all on one movie...>
I'm a little unclear here - what "all" was risked in the making of > this movie, and by whom? Are you suggesting that Eastwood risked > "all" (reputation, future, finances, etc.) by making it? I'd have to > seriously disagree, if that's what you meant. Or did you mean that > you would risk all of your respect for Eastwood by watching the movie > when you've disliked so much that you've read and heard about it?
It's just that I don't think I've ever seen an Eastwood flick I didn't really like. You know, like going undefeated for years and years and years. No, Clint isn't going to loose much sleep if I don't like the movie so it's really not an issue.
Jeeze, you guys are like a pack of wolves someday...