Khan puts his money where his mouth is....

First topic message reminder :

Why couldn't he just stuff it all in his mouth quite literally? Khan has decided to formerly appeal, oh dear.

"Stop pushing him away Khan" - Everyone heard him getting warned, is just the desperate act of a sore loser.

http://ringtv.craveonline.com/blog/170809-10000-check-makes-it-official-khan-appeals-peterson-verdict

Boon

Tyson did make comments about the long count, but yes admittedly he didn't go on. Perhaps he thought of Dempsey.

azania wrote:

But no-one has answered my question if they imagine that Tyson instructed King to launch the enquiry and Tyson is far more intelligent than Khan.

I'll happily answer I doubt he did, but again am not sure of what relevance this is for a number of reasons, firstly King is a far more forceful personality than anyone at GBP and is a master at bending folk to his will and it is pretty much accepted Tyson was little more than his puppet by that point so almost certain King instigated the appeal, in fact the body language of Tyson suggests he wanted little to do with it and was embarrased by the whole affair. Also this still does change the fact that that particular appeal died pretty quickly so Mike can perhaps be forgiven in the upset, confusion and shock of his first defeat, particualrly given his fragile mental state of going along. Khan has no such excuse, whilst thick he is well adjusted, has a ateam of advsiors and managers around him and has had a week to reflect on the events, the defeat and the situation and he is still going along with it and supporting it, so pretty much all of the factors you can put forward to mitigate Mike's actions are simply not applicable for Khan.

azania wrote:Boon

Tyson did make comments about the long count, but yes admittedly he didn't go on. Perhaps he thought of Dempsey.

It was a while ago Azania, I couldn't grow a beard back then but vaguely remember Don King going mental over it whereas Tyson was a lot less demonstrative. Anyway, whether it is Khan or GBP promotions taking this forward that is almost besides the point. The reason Khan is getting criticisms is because of his bitter outpourings after the fight.

Can't believe you lot are still arguing this.

oxring wrote:For the love of mercy fellas - get back to discussing the topic.

There's been nothing in the way of constructive debate for the last 2 pages.

Bring back the trash talk section then?

And that's harsh on mine, and others (barring Az), well thought out points regarding the topic.

With all due respect oxy, that is absolute drivel, I have posted on the topic on this very page.

rowley wrote:With all due respect oxy, that is absolute drivel, I have posted on the topic on this very page.

Catch up!

Super D Boon wrote:

azania wrote:Boon

Tyson did make comments about the long count, but yes admittedly he didn't go on. Perhaps he thought of Dempsey.

It was a while ago Azania, I couldn't grow a beard back then but vaguely remember Don King going mental over it whereas Tyson was a lot less demonstrative. Anyway, whether it is Khan or GBP promotions taking this forward that is almost besides the point. The reason Khan is getting criticisms is because of his bitter outpourings after the fight.

Dont you think that the differing outpourings after their fights is because one got comprehensively beaten whilst the other thought he won fair and square?

coxy0001 wrote:

oxring wrote:For the love of mercy fellas - get back to discussing the topic.

There's been nothing in the way of constructive debate for the last 2 pages.

Bring back the trash talk section then?

And that's harsh on mine, and others (barring Az), well thought out points regarding the topic.

Fine - there's been little in the way of constructive debate for the past 2 pages?

As for trash talk - no.

azania wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:

azania wrote:Boon

Tyson did make comments about the long count, but yes admittedly he didn't go on. Perhaps he thought of Dempsey.

It was a while ago Azania, I couldn't grow a beard back then but vaguely remember Don King going mental over it whereas Tyson was a lot less demonstrative. Anyway, whether it is Khan or GBP promotions taking this forward that is almost besides the point. The reason Khan is getting criticisms is because of his bitter outpourings after the fight.

Dont you think that the differing outpourings after their fights is because one got comprehensively beaten whilst the other thought he won fair and square?

Then he is deluding himself. Close fight, ref warned him numerous times and docked points.

Just becasue refs dont usually dock points does make it wrong to do say.

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

But no-one has answered my question if they imagine that Tyson instructed King to launch the enquiry and Tyson is far more intelligent than Khan.

I'll happily answer I doubt he did, but again am not sure of what relevance this is for a number of reasons, firstly King is a far more forceful personality than anyone at GBP and is a master at bending folk to his will and it is pretty much accepted Tyson was little more than his puppet by that point so almost certain King instigated the appeal, in fact the body language of Tyson suggests he wanted little to do with it and was embarrased by the whole affair. Also this still does change the fact that that particular appeal died pretty quickly so Mike can perhaps be forgiven in the upset, confusion and shock of his first defeat, particualrly given his fragile mental state of going along. Khan has no such excuse, whilst thick he is well adjusted, has a ateam of advsiors and managers around him and has had a week to reflect on the events, the defeat and the situation and he is still going along with it and supporting it, so pretty much all of the factors you can put forward to mitigate Mike's actions are simply not applicable for Khan.

Perhaps you underestimate GBP and their forcefulness. You dont get to be the biggest promotional company in boxing by playing nice and fair. They are not as bombastic as King. I mean, who is? But they are no less forceful imo. Just do it more quietly. I believe that Tyson, Khan, Pac, you name them, are all pawns in a bigger game played out by rival promoters and sanctioning bodies. Moreover, it also generates more publicity and controversy and that equals more money.....the bottom line in boxing.

I recall several years ago chatting with Mike Watson when he was going through his legal wrangling with Mickey Duff. Some of the things that was going on would make you weep. Boxers are pawns and if you get too big for your boots, you can get frozen out easily. Look at Tim Witherspoon as an example. Look at Lewis after McCall because he didn't want to sign with King. Its all because of this that I dont believe a word of this is Khan's doing. The business of boxing is the most corrupt you can ever imagne. And it still is.

Khan employs a team of advisors. More likely his dad and uncle employ them on behalf of Khan. They dont just advise him., They tell him what to do.

A friend of mine back in the day once tried his hand in boxing. He managed a former ABA semi finalist called Greg Egbuniwe. Before his forst pro fight the infighting that went on was ridiculous. Because my guy knew nothing about boxing but knew about business and making deals he signed Greg up to fight his first bout against some chap who KO'd him in the first round and went on to become British Champ. Greg hjad no clue what was going on during the talks and was told who he was fighting. Had he refused to fight he would have been blackballed. In short boxers are the last to know what on earth is going on.

In a close fight all they know is that they were robbed.

AlexHuckerby wrote:Can't believe you lot are still arguing this.

They dont know that they're all wrong

johnson2 wrote:

azania wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:

azania wrote:Boon

Tyson did make comments about the long count, but yes admittedly he didn't go on. Perhaps he thought of Dempsey.

It was a while ago Azania, I couldn't grow a beard back then but vaguely remember Don King going mental over it whereas Tyson was a lot less demonstrative. Anyway, whether it is Khan or GBP promotions taking this forward that is almost besides the point. The reason Khan is getting criticisms is because of his bitter outpourings after the fight.

Dont you think that the differing outpourings after their fights is because one got comprehensively beaten whilst the other thought he won fair and square?

Then he is deluding himself. Close fight, ref warned him numerous times and docked points.

Just becasue refs dont usually dock points does make it wrong to do say.

OK

Super D Boon wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:What issues?

I suggest you read up on it before jumping to conclusions.

I'm well aware of the situation, just wondering why we shouldn't blame Khan when the appeal is on his behalf?

Blame him all you want. You dont need my permission for that.

But the facts are that GBP launched the appeal on Khan's behalf. Much like launched an appeal on Tyson's behalf. Both wrong but I have my facts right and blame goes to those in power who can make such a decision. Not the minnions like Khan.

In fairness both situations are entirely different. Khan made a big song and dance about the ref after the fight. I don't remember Tyson himself being so vocal about the supposed "long count" and think that was all Don King's doing. This is why people a pinning the blame on Khan for this fiasco whereas King raised the appeal largely on his own volition because he realised he'd lost his big cash cow!

And now GBP are making a song and dance about the ref, the cards and much else.

azania wrote:Responses as they appear.

Hagler near on had a mental breakdown due to the result of the SRL fight. He complained bitterly for 25 years to anyone who would listen. For the last time, the grounds of the appeal is not based solely on the closeness of the judging. There are about 6 other grounds of which the decision of the judges is one of them insofar as one judge's card went walkies apparently.

Yep, Khan was groomed for big things. So was Ortiz and now Canelo. Boxers get groomed. At least Khan didn't quit or is fighting no-bodies and claiming to be a world champ.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. But my main point is that all other boxers would do exactly what Khan is currently doing. Can you tell me what JMM said after the Pac fight? Do you think he has accepted the decision? Hatton still copmplains about Cortez when asked. Norton still thiks he deserved the nod against Ali and Holmes. Graceless and classless or normal behaviour of boxers who lose close decisions. Name me one boxer who has accepted defeat in a close fight? Hearns blames having his legs massaged for his Hagler loss. You are requesting that Khan behaves in a manner displayed by no other boxer.

Yep, Khan has a lot of haters. I started a thread some time back asking that question. He does and says exactly as others boxers do and say yet some have an inbuilt hatred of him.

Well, I can only tell you the perception I have of the guy during this situation. I've been really supportive of Khan in the past, but when you made the thread about Amir Khan 'haters' I tried to think of some reasons as to why he's not considered to be likeable. I posted a list the day before the Peterson fight, and his subsequent behaviour has only served to confirm some of the comments I made. In defending Khan, you make reference to other 'golden boy' types not being scrutinised. But, Canelo is almost universally slagged off for being a protected champion, and Ortiz is portrayed as a mental midget. You make reference to other 'sore losers' (Hagler, JMM) - I don't know, perhaps these guys had other redeeming features, fighting styles, or aspects of personality that have stopped people disliking their actions so much. For me, the aspects of Khan's character that I've long disliked (but have tried to ignore) seem to have manifested themselves in the behaviour he's displaying now.

I think many of the arguments surrounding 'it's GBP, not Khan', or 'there have been other sore losers', or 'there have been other appeals' are either being overly pernickety or are being put forward without the benefit of current context. They are a bit too selective, and slavish to small details: simply a means to slip out of the undeniable overall truth that Khan has come out looking a bit worse from this whole episode. I can't remember it at the time, but I'm sure some people's perception of Hagler was dulled due to his complaints over the SRL decision. Equally, I'm sure that, in many people's eyes, Hagler had done enough good things in the past and in the future in order that he wasn't predominately remembered as a crybaby. JMM is the same. Most people think he deserved a victory somewhere in the 3 fights, and he has carried himself with dignity for the rest of his career, so people are inclined to be more sympathetic to his complaints. It remains to be seen if Khan can behave or perform in a manner that inspires respect, but, for now, I think even you'll admit that he's lost face from this situation.

Either that, or we all hold inherent hatred/implied racism against him. Hardly a fair thing to say, is it?

Disliking a boxer is a personal thing. I disliked SRL because I saw him as trying to copy Ali and fill his boots. I disliked the way he carried himself, his holier than thou attitude and that he never gave anyone rematches. But he was a supreme boxer. Was my attitude irrational. Of course it was. But I will not criticise him for doing what other boxers have done.

As for current boxers, I dislike Hopkins. I find him boring and incredibly whiny. Plus he knows the game and is very intelligent. Being part share-holder of GBP and an active share at that means he knows the business of boxing and in his case would dictate terms to lawyers of GBP.

Khan is not in that bracket. For one he isn't particularly bright. But all he knows is boxing and has been doing that on a pro-am level since he was 16. But his every word seems to be scrutinised in a manner which is unheard of for another british boxer. He doesn't say anything controversial. Just silly. Yes he talks himself up. Which boxer doesn';t?

YOu raised the issue of racism. I dont believe all criticism if Khan is due ot racism,. but ubdoubtedly some is. I mean he wears the flag of Pakistan on his shorts and gets critcised for it and some questioning his patriotism. Well Witter wears the flag of Jamaica on his shorts. No criticism there, Lloyd Honeyhan wore the Jamaican flag on his shorts and entered the ring with a Jamaican flag. No criticism there. Why criticise Khan? His name was emblazoned in the Union Flag/ But the pakistan issue was highlighted. That his brither boxed for Pakistan in the C Games was another issue raised to criticise and question Khan. So yes I believe that SOME of the criticism is racially motivated. Some genuinely critical of his attitude. But on this issue criticism directed at Khan is unwarranted when there is precedent with Tyson and Steve Cunnngham in launching an appeal to over-turn a decision.

JMM and Hagler are known warriors who give it their all in the ring. Always in entertaining fights and never ducking the best. Tell me is Khan is nothing but an exciting fighter who engages his opponents (due to his lack of boxing ablity more like) and not ducking anyone? He is also a warrior out to test himself against the best and willing to do so.

Also he should be praised (manager criticised) in taking a madatory fight in his opponents back yard. Not many do that given his profile.

Khan may have come out looking worse, but it doesn't detract that the appeal was launched by his management. One thing for sure though is that the publicity will generate sales in any rematch and in any future Khan fights.

You used the term 'inherent hatred' and there was certainly talk of racism brought up in the other thread. That's what I was referring to. I couldn't argue with any authority that race has no bearing in terms of other people's poor perception of Khan, but I can say that my general impression of people's opinions here is that they see him as a bit of a crybaby, nothing more. They see this appeal as the actions of a crybaby running to their mum (rightly or wrongly).

Was the appeal launched by his management? Ultimately, yes. But, was Khan fully behind it and does he think that the ref (rather than Peterson's performance, or his own flaws) was to blame? I think, for the most part, yes. You think no, he should be largely free from criticism surrounding the appeal. It's almost impossible to tell for sure, so you can only be left with your own interpretation of events.

As for his fighting style/opponents. I have no problem with his list of opponents recently. Although the tight fights with Peterson and Maidana show me that he's in that throughly mixed in with that 2nd tier of LWWs rather than being above them. He's certainly in exciting fights, but I'm beginning to really dislike the way that he has to panic and run due to the fact that he can't handle himself on the inside.

I think it's unfair for you to imply that I, and many others, have an irrational dislike for Khan. I think there has been a genuine combination of behaviours and actions that have lead to this perception of him. I certainly don't 'hate' the guy, and would be happy to see him redeem himself by acting in what I would consider to be a manner more worthy of respect. I see where your arguments are coming from, and there are singular points that appear to be fair enough, but I remain pretty unconvinced with the overall picture you're painting.

I can't believe how much time I've put in to this today - supposed to be writing my phd thesis, but have been hit by some serious spells of procrastination. 606 does not help.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/amir-khan-slammed-jibe-female-athletes-094007878--spt.html

Doing a lot to help his popularity, again.

lets be honest, if it wasnt for khan fans playing the racial card the guy wouldnt have half as much supports as he does. some people chose to see the best in him for fear of feeling racist. its the same as the insecure homo-phobes who vote for brian dowling to win everything he enters

Boxtthis wrote:You used the term 'inherent hatred' and there was certainly talk of racism brought up in the other thread. That's what I was referring to. I couldn't argue with any authority that race has no bearing in terms of other people's poor perception of Khan, but I can say that my general impression of people's opinions here is that they see him as a bit of a crybaby, nothing more. They see this appeal as the actions of a crybaby running to their mum (rightly or wrongly).

Was the appeal launched by his management? Ultimately, yes. But, was Khan fully behind it and does he think that the ref (rather than Peterson's performance, or his own flaws) was to blame? I think, for the most part, yes. You think no, he should be largely free from criticism surrounding the appeal. It's almost impossible to tell for sure, so you can only be left with your own interpretation of events.

As for his fighting style/opponents. I have no problem with his list of opponents recently. Although the tight fights with Peterson and Maidana show me that he's in that throughly mixed in with that 2nd tier of LWWs rather than being above them. He's certainly in exciting fights, but I'm beginning to really dislike the way that he has to panic and run due to the fact that he can't handle himself on the inside.

I think it's unfair for you to imply that I, and many others, have an irrational dislike for Khan. I think there has been a genuine combination of behaviours and actions that have lead to this perception of him. I certainly don't 'hate' the guy, and would be happy to see him redeem himself by acting in what I would consider to be a manner more worthy of respect. I see where your arguments are coming from, and there are singular points that appear to be fair enough, but I remain pretty unconvinced with the overall picture you're painting.

I can't believe how much time I've put in to this today - supposed to be writing my phd thesis, but have been hit by some serious spells of procrastination. 606 does not help.

In that thread I didn't bring up the issue of racism. Other posters stated that they believe that some of the criticism of Khan has a racial tinge to it. Boxers of African orign have been in boxing since it began. But not from the Sub-Continent. The shortened term for someone from Pakistan has been used to describe him on yahoo comments pages. I dont believe that much, even a significant minority or posters here display any of those characteristics when being critical of Khan either. But some are imo and will deny it when questioned. There is no Suarez enquiry to ascertain whether true or not.

People call Khan a cry baby, but not Froch (and many others) who is still insisting that he beat Kessler. Its the double standards that irritates me. And this isn't solely due to the appeal. The appeal is just a smokescreen they hide behind, again my opinion.

The appeal was launched by his management. The question that should be asked before whining about Khan is; did he request that his managemenbt team launch an investigation or not? I doubt he did. Of course he is now behind it. He cant say otherwise and indeeed doesn't comment much on it. Make of that what you will. And yes he does hold the ref responsible. Archie Moore held the ref responsible for his loss to Rocky because the ref gave a standing 8 count when the rules stated that he shouldn't have done. Up to his death he didn't forgive the ref. Yet for the sepia loving brigade, Moore can do no wrong. But for the same people, Khan is a cry baby. Moore a hero.

The tight fights he's had with pressure fighters lends me to believe that Khan should change trainers and learn to develop a jab as he cant fight close up effectively. No shame in that as he is in good company. Ali, Lewis amongst others had poor infighting ability. But it makes for an exciting fight and Khan delivers exciting fights. Plus his chin. You dont know if he will get KO'd or not.

If my insinuation that your dislike of Khan is irrational, all I can do is apologise.

Now get back to your studies.

oxring wrote:http://in.news.yahoo.com/amir-khan-slammed-jibe-female-athletes-094007878--spt.html

Doing a lot to help his popularity, again.

He does have a point though.

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:http://in.news.yahoo.com/amir-khan-slammed-jibe-female-athletes-094007878--spt.html

Doing a lot to help his popularity, again.

He does have a point though.

Quiz for you:
Q: What's the difference between Sarah Stevenson and Amir Khan?

(keep it clean)

A: Stevenson is still World Champion.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:http://in.news.yahoo.com/amir-khan-slammed-jibe-female-athletes-094007878--spt.html

Doing a lot to help his popularity, again.

He does have a point though.

Quiz for you:
Q: What's the difference between Sarah Stevenson and Amir Khan?

(keep it clean)

A: Stevenson is still World Champion.

Martial arts is a minority with little public following. The bbc is a very PC organisation. I doubt that there were no women in their list escaped them. The list isn't based on a quota system and say there has to be x amount of women in their 10.

If women want to be on their list, then they must pull their socks up.

EDIT
I just googler her name and lo and behold. In the 2008 olympics the UK team launched an appeal to get a judging decision reversed which was successful. Interesting. Was she whining like a baby? Of course not. An error was made by the judges which reversed the decision.

Ive just read this thread, and it seems that the whole argument about the appeal would disappear if az went away and looked up the definition of complicit.

Also, oxring gets the red pen out too often sometimes. I have a lot of time for oxy and he knows a great deal about boxing, but just my opinion as the thread seemed ok before the random red pen intrusion.

joeyjojo618 wrote:Ive just read this thread, and it seems that the whole argument about the appeal would disappear if az went away and looked up the definition of complicit.

Also, oxring gets the red pen out too often sometimes. I have a lot of time for oxy and he knows a great deal about boxing, but just my opinion as the thread seemed ok before the random red pen intrusion.

Ha. Yep. Blame Khan. He controls GBP.

Get real!

I see you didnt take my advise az.

joeyjojo618 wrote:I see you didnt take my advise az.

Well, I'm as stubborn as they come and then add some more.

azania wrote:

joeyjojo618 wrote:I see you didnt take my advise az.

Well, I'm as stubborn as they come and then add some more.

Proof that you are not always wrong

ShahenshahG wrote:

azania wrote:

joeyjojo618 wrote:I see you didnt take my advise az.

Well, I'm as stubborn as they come and then add some more.

Proof that you are not always wrong

That was funny.

Add always a good sport.

azania wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:You used the term 'inherent hatred' and there was certainly talk of racism brought up in the other thread. That's what I was referring to. I couldn't argue with any authority that race has no bearing in terms of other people's poor perception of Khan, but I can say that my general impression of people's opinions here is that they see him as a bit of a crybaby, nothing more. They see this appeal as the actions of a crybaby running to their mum (rightly or wrongly).

Was the appeal launched by his management? Ultimately, yes. But, was Khan fully behind it and does he think that the ref (rather than Peterson's performance, or his own flaws) was to blame? I think, for the most part, yes. You think no, he should be largely free from criticism surrounding the appeal. It's almost impossible to tell for sure, so you can only be left with your own interpretation of events.

As for his fighting style/opponents. I have no problem with his list of opponents recently. Although the tight fights with Peterson and Maidana show me that he's in that throughly mixed in with that 2nd tier of LWWs rather than being above them. He's certainly in exciting fights, but I'm beginning to really dislike the way that he has to panic and run due to the fact that he can't handle himself on the inside.

I think it's unfair for you to imply that I, and many others, have an irrational dislike for Khan. I think there has been a genuine combination of behaviours and actions that have lead to this perception of him. I certainly don't 'hate' the guy, and would be happy to see him redeem himself by acting in what I would consider to be a manner more worthy of respect. I see where your arguments are coming from, and there are singular points that appear to be fair enough, but I remain pretty unconvinced with the overall picture you're painting.

I can't believe how much time I've put in to this today - supposed to be writing my phd thesis, but have been hit by some serious spells of procrastination. 606 does not help.

In that thread I didn't bring up the issue of racism. Other posters stated that they believe that some of the criticism of Khan has a racial tinge to it. Boxers of African orign have been in boxing since it began. But not from the Sub-Continent. The shortened term for someone from Pakistan has been used to describe him on yahoo comments pages. I dont believe that much, even a significant minority or posters here display any of those characteristics when being critical of Khan either. But some are imo and will deny it when questioned. There is no Suarez enquiry to ascertain whether true or not.

by azania on Wed 07 Dec 2011, 2:53 pm

Why are so many hating on him? He wants to fight Floyd. Good for him. Yet some criticise him for that. He beat Maidana. Many criticise him for not standing toe to toe. He says he wants to fight the best. He's called arrogant.

When Hatton said the sme thing he became a british institution and hero or the masses.

Why the double standards? Has Khan got a point when he claims its his ethnicity that many of his detractors have issues with?

azania

Posts: 5600
Join date: 2011-01-29
Age: 99

You brought racism into it in the OP!

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:You used the term 'inherent hatred' and there was certainly talk of racism brought up in the other thread. That's what I was referring to. I couldn't argue with any authority that race has no bearing in terms of other people's poor perception of Khan, but I can say that my general impression of people's opinions here is that they see him as a bit of a crybaby, nothing more. They see this appeal as the actions of a crybaby running to their mum (rightly or wrongly).

Was the appeal launched by his management? Ultimately, yes. But, was Khan fully behind it and does he think that the ref (rather than Peterson's performance, or his own flaws) was to blame? I think, for the most part, yes. You think no, he should be largely free from criticism surrounding the appeal. It's almost impossible to tell for sure, so you can only be left with your own interpretation of events.

As for his fighting style/opponents. I have no problem with his list of opponents recently. Although the tight fights with Peterson and Maidana show me that he's in that throughly mixed in with that 2nd tier of LWWs rather than being above them. He's certainly in exciting fights, but I'm beginning to really dislike the way that he has to panic and run due to the fact that he can't handle himself on the inside.

I think it's unfair for you to imply that I, and many others, have an irrational dislike for Khan. I think there has been a genuine combination of behaviours and actions that have lead to this perception of him. I certainly don't 'hate' the guy, and would be happy to see him redeem himself by acting in what I would consider to be a manner more worthy of respect. I see where your arguments are coming from, and there are singular points that appear to be fair enough, but I remain pretty unconvinced with the overall picture you're painting.

I can't believe how much time I've put in to this today - supposed to be writing my phd thesis, but have been hit by some serious spells of procrastination. 606 does not help.

In that thread I didn't bring up the issue of racism. Other posters stated that they believe that some of the criticism of Khan has a racial tinge to it. Boxers of African orign have been in boxing since it began. But not from the Sub-Continent. The shortened term for someone from Pakistan has been used to describe him on yahoo comments pages. I dont believe that much, even a significant minority or posters here display any of those characteristics when being critical of Khan either. But some are imo and will deny it when questioned. There is no Suarez enquiry to ascertain whether true or not.

by azania on Wed 07 Dec 2011, 2:53 pm

Why are so many hating on him? He wants to fight Floyd. Good for him. Yet some criticise him for that. He beat Maidana. Many criticise him for not standing toe to toe. He says he wants to fight the best. He's called arrogant.

When Hatton said the sme thing he became a british institution and hero or the masses.

Why the double standards? Has Khan got a point when he claims its his ethnicity that many of his detractors have issues with?

azania

Posts: 5600
Join date: 2011-01-29
Age: 99

You brought racism into it in the OP!

Yep. I asked the question.

[quote="azania]. The shortened term for someone from Pakistan has been used to describe him on yahoo comments pages. [/quote]

Az for you to be comparing comments on yahoo (I'll throw youtube in there as well) to people here is a bit much. 95% of the people on places like that are idiots or kids looking to rile people up, whereas 99% of the people on here are level headed and intelligent posters.

Yep, at the risk of appearing to be bring race back into it (not the intention), Az only sees things in black or white. There are no shades of grey and apparently acknowledging all sides of an argument is just not cricket! He's taken Truss' ability to argue the irrational pants out of a contrary point to bionic levels.

superflyweight wrote:Yep, at the risk of appearing to be bring race back into it (not the intention), Az only sees things in black or white. There are no shades of grey and apparently acknowledging all sides of an argument is just not cricket! He's taken Truss' ability to argue the irrational pants out of a contrary point to bionic levels.

Come of it fly. What gives you that impression. Certainly nothing I've written.

trottb wrote:[quote="azania]. The shortened term for someone from Pakistan has been used to describe him on yahoo comments pages.

Az for you to be comparing comments on yahoo (I'll throw youtube in there as well) to people here is a bit much. 95% of the people on places like that are idiots or kids looking to rile people up, whereas 99% of the people on here are level headed and intelligent posters.[/quote]

I think if you read the post of mide where I mentioned yahoo, you will see I said something similar to you about posters here.

But level headed and intelligent? Get outta here.

azania wrote: The tight fights he's had with pressure fighters lends me to believe that Khan should change trainers

Something we can agree on 100%. Roach seems to breed these ambush type fighters that hit in flurries and get success from the speed and angles of their punches. He's really good at that. But, he doesn't like his guys to be on the ropes. Khan either needs a more useful jab (his jab when he's got his distance is good, but it's ineffective when the distance is closed i.e. he can't stop pressure), or he need someone to teach him some old pro 'on the ropes' tricks (which I'm not too confident he can learn well).

And yes I did think Froch was a crybaby after Kessler, but he quickly toned it down, and went about the business of winning a title back and fighting a bunch of really tough guys. I hope Khan does the same.

Ok Az, I take it back!!

Boxtthis wrote:

azania wrote: The tight fights he's had with pressure fighters lends me to believe that Khan should change trainers

Something we can agree on 100%. Roach seems to breed these ambush type fighters that hit in flurries and get success from the speed and angles of their punches. He's really good at that. But, he doesn't like his guys to be on the ropes. Khan either needs a more useful jab (his jab when he's got his distance is good, but it's ineffective when the distance is closed i.e. he can't stop pressure), or he need someone to teach him some old pro 'on the ropes' tricks (which I'm not too confident he can learn well).

And yes I did think Froch was a crybaby after Kessler, but he quickly toned it down, and went about the business of winning a title back and fighting a bunch of really tough guys. I hope Khan does the same.

Another problem with Khan is he fights scared. When a fighter attacks, his hands flail everywhere. No control of distance also. He needs a Manny Steward to teach him how to sit on his jab and throw it with authority.

As for froch. I dont agree. Because all boxers are cut from the same cloth when close decisions go against them. Its in their nature in not accepting defeat.

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:http://in.news.yahoo.com/amir-khan-slammed-jibe-female-athletes-094007878--spt.html

Doing a lot to help his popularity, again.

He does have a point though.

Quiz for you:
Q: What's the difference between Sarah Stevenson and Amir Khan?

(keep it clean)

A: Stevenson is still World Champion.

Martial arts is a minority with little public following. The bbc is a very PC organisation. I doubt that there were no women in their list escaped them. The list isn't based on a quota system and say there has to be x amount of women in their 10.

If women want to be on their list, then they must pull their socks up.

EDIT
I just googler her name and lo and behold. In the 2008 olympics the UK team launched an appeal to get a judging decision reversed which was successful. Interesting. Was she whining like a baby? Of course not. An error was made by the judges which reversed the decision.

But no error was made.

I think any fighter that makes as big a deal as Khan and his team are about losing a close fight is going to get stick.

Froch got a bit a flak when he complained about the decision in Denmark, but he would have got a heck of alot more had he the audacity to try and get it overturned. I dont think he ever went as far as saying it was a robbery either, I think he accepted it was close but thought he won and was critical of one of the cards. Big difference from the tantrum Khan is throwing in my view anyhow.

Incidents like this will inneviteably make Khan more unpopular. I dont see it being unique to Khan though. Look at Haye for example, his popularity plummented after his behaviour before, during and after his fight with Klitschko. I dont think it was driven by any agenda other than a dislike for his behaviour and disappointment in his performance.

I can summarise this so far - just so everyone's clear.

Everyone but Az feels Khan is being a bit whiney and should just man up and accept the loss, they feel that Khan, although promoted by GBP, has the ability to control his own mouth. This isn't racial, its nothing but human instinct to dislike someone who complains as much.

Az, I like you - reading your posts made me gain a lot of respect for you, although its not debated that GBP are assisting Khan in the appeal and whether or not he has a say in the matter is of no consequence, what he CAN control is his mouth, and all he's done is complain and make out as if he's a sore loser. If GBP and/or Khan feel the need to make a complaint then thats well and good, but Khan doesn't need to make it public. He doesn't. He could just say "we're appealing, can't comment until after that" and GBP wouldn't have a damn thing to say about it.

Az, you should really consider not progressing - I don't see how you can't accept that the problem is Amirs mouth. I've met the guy, and although polite and likeable - he talks about himself constantly, how good he is, how good he's gonna be, and he's surrounded himself with people like that who won't keep his feet on the ground. Its a shame - he could have been the Pride of Britain.

Jab Manos you don't understand the appeal is nothing to do with Khan, he does not want to appeal but evil Oscar and Hopkins have kidnapped his cat and if he speaks out against the appeal the moggy gets it.

rowley wrote:Jab Manos you don't understand the appeal is nothing to do with Khan, he does not want to appeal but evil Oscar and Hopkins have kidnapped his cat and if he speaks out against the appeal the moggy gets it.

Really? I thought everything was Pacquiaos fault?

Robberies, jail sentances, British losing their titles, catchweights, global economic failure, E.U meltdown, Tyson Fury....

It all seemed to start the day Pacquaio refused to take some kind of test.

JabMachine wrote:I can summarise this so far - just so everyone's clear.

Everyone but Az feels Khan is being a bit whiney and should just man up and accept the loss, they feel that Khan, although promoted by GBP, has the ability to control his own mouth. This isn't racial, its nothing but human instinct to dislike someone who complains as much.

Az, I like you - reading your posts made me gain a lot of respect for you, although its not debated that GBP are assisting Khan in the appeal and whether or not he has a say in the matter is of no consequence, what he CAN control is his mouth, and all he's done is complain and make out as if he's a sore loser. If GBP and/or Khan feel the need to make a complaint then thats well and good, but Khan doesn't need to make it public. He doesn't. He could just say "we're appealing, can't comment until after that" and GBP wouldn't have a damn thing to say about it.

Az, you should really consider not progressing - I don't see how you can't accept that the problem is Amirs mouth. I've met the guy, and although polite and likeable - he talks about himself constantly, how good he is, how good he's gonna be, and he's surrounded himself with people like that who won't keep his feet on the ground. Its a shame - he could have been the Pride of Britain.

The point is Khan gets criticised to a level unwarranted for doing what others would do if being put in the same situation. By blaming Khan for the appeal, you are assuming that he controls GBP. Much like the appeal to over-turn the douglas was done on Tyson's behalf by Don King, no-one could or should have blamed Tyson for that seeing as it was clear King was behind it all. Unfortunately I cant get sky sports here or their teletext service, but in their report it names GBP as launching the appeal.

Name me a boxer who will accept defeat in a close fight?

rowley wrote:Jab Manos you don't understand the appeal is nothing to do with Khan, he does not want to appeal but evil Oscar and Hopkins have kidnapped his cat and if he speaks out against the appeal the moggy gets it.

Amir controls GBP it seems. What do people expect him to do? Say yes I lost fair and square, the appeal is stupid and GBP are wrong for doing it on my behalf? See how many big fights he has after that.

Can't be bothered to get into it again Az, life is too short, myself and many others have pointed out the difference between the Tyson and Khan situations and you know enough about the game to know the differences yourself. You continually cling to it out of nothing but stuborness as a selective presentation of the facts in that situation is the one thing that supports your theory that either Khan is not in any way behind this appeal or the reaction of people to the appeal is disproportionate.

rowley wrote:Can't be bothered to get into it again Az, life is too short, myself and many others have pointed out the difference between the Tyson and Khan situations and you know enough about the game to know the differences yourself. You continually cling to it out of nothing but stuborness as a selective presentation of the facts in that situation is the one thing that supports your theory that either Khan is not in any way behind this appeal or the reaction of people to the appeal is disproportionate.

Well said old bean.

It doesn't matter who launches the appeal, the issue is Khan, I don't doubt in the slightest that GBP came to Khan afterwards and said "Listen son, we're gonna appeal - you should have won" etc

But did Khan really have to go about things the way he has? Bitching and moaning? He could have let GBP do whatever it is they wanted and just gonna back into his camp, talking about future fights and the possibility of what to do post-appeal, positive or negative.

All I've heard about is "robbery" (a fight scored at 115-113 with a 2 point deduction is never a "robbery" if its actually a close fight with no clear winner) "headbutting" - not once did I see a deliberate headbutt from Peterson, he just fought inside really well.

Bit sick of it to be honest, and I'm a Khan fan....or rather was. Next time I see him fight, the chances are I'm going to be hoping he loses. Not because I'm unpatriotic, not because I'm racist, not because I'm jealous. Just because I want to see how he takes a loss where he can't complain and moan.

This isn't about other fighters complaining and getting stick - they got theirs back in the day, and will continue to do so in the future. This is about Khan, not boxers complaining in general - so stop deviating from that otherwise you're sounding like "well....he did it, and he got away with it so why can't x?"

The appeal isn't about point deductions it's about the fact GBP said the scorecards were changed after the fight. GBP claim they were told Khan had won the fight on 2 scorecards and then one was changed.

Khan and his team are claiming the point deductions were unfair. Schaefer mentioned this as well but the IBF already dismissed that saying it is in the rules that the ref can dock points for a push because it is a foul even if it is rare that you see it happen.