Amir Khan raises doubt over controversial defeat to Peterson due to a mystery man at ringside

First topic message reminder :

Amir Khan has raised fresh doubts over the validity of his clash with Lamont Peterson last month, where the Briton controversially lost his IBF and WBO light-welterweight title belts in Washington.

Khan lost a dramatic battle with Peterson on points, after he was deducted two points for pushing.

Many pundits and fans questioned the judging after the fight, and Khan lodged an appeal, which will be held later this month.

The 26-year-old has now taken to Twitter to send out a number of images of the fight. He is particularly concerned with the appearance of one man ringside.

Here is the full list of Amir Khan's Tweets sent on Thursday afternoon:

'hey tweeps, i want to share with my fans the latest on the peterson fight situation, the truth is finaly coming out slowly but surely'

'i knew there was something dodgey with the scoring, forget about the fight and the ref for now, im my own biggest critic i know what'

'i done right and wrong, very close fight Peterson fought great but i still believe i won by 1 or 2 rounds, i aint whining or complaing'

'ther has been some crazy judging in 2011 n i want 2 put a stop to it'

'if I lost fair and square then fair enough I've lost n I move on, but does it really take over 10 minutes from the final bell to decide who's won? we've filed an appeal through and we should get a decision from the WBA and the IBF within the next 2 weeks'

'I'm angry as I want the rematch next to put things straight but it doesn't look like he wants it'

'watch the fight from 9.10 seconds of this video ther is a guy wearing a grey suit with a blue shirt wearing a hat'

'Sat on the main judges panel at the front on the right hand side 3rd to the end'

'No1 knows who this guy is and he is now bieng asked to move by Michael Walsh who is the main supervisor for the wba as he should be sat there'

'He now gets a chair and sits slightly infront of @OscarDeLaHoya and my father'

'At the beginning of round 2 he manages to squeeze in at the front again sat next to Michael Walsh'

'Now the IBF and the WBA have still not confirmed who this guy is till this date and what he was doing there.. Now the interesting part'

'I watched the whole fight again this time just concentrating on this guy wearing the hat, thanks to allot of friends and boxing experts who pointed this out to me'

'Now this guy doesn't do anything apart from watching the fight but that's only until round 6 when he starts to interfere!'

'From round 6 all the way through to round 12 this guy starts to interfere with what Michael Walsh is doing and they are both not watching the fight, watch the video and have a look for yourselfs'

'This is what I meant on how he was interfeering, as no one is allowed according to the rules to touch hold the scorescards or even talk to the judges n commision during the fight'

'There are 3 judges in a fight n all have different colour slips, n at the end of evry round thy get passed on to the wba ibf n dc commision'

'This pic shows here in round 6 the guy wearing the hat clearing picks up one of the judges white slips n if you watch the video slides it down and towards him'

'Another pic of the guy wearing the hat interfering different camera angle'

'And this guy doese it again at the beginning of round 7, n carries on throughout all the way to the end of the fight wtf?'

'Again in round 8 and round 9, cleary not watching the fight at all and not allowing Michael Walsh to watch too'

'This time in round 11 he's seen here clearly picking up a yellow judges slip.. Strictly againts the rules'

'I've read in some articles and people have also told me that after the fight Michael Walsh the guy in the red tie apparently said his score cards didn't match up to the others, it wasn't fair and he looked really scared and he was told to butt out and there was nothing he could do.. Since then no one has heard from him'

'I want Michael Walsh to come out and speak out about what was going on, its only right and fair to do so'

'Heres a Close up pic The question is.. Who is this guy? And what was he doing? I'm sure someone outthere knows'

'watch here for yourselfs round 6-12 will be interesting if we finally get our answer'


Source: Daily Mail : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/boxing/article-2082663/Amir-Khan-raises-fresh-doubts-Lamont-Peterson-win.html

The WBA are having an enquiry....

They are enquiring as to how a guy winning a fight by Boxing.. decides to lie on the ropes and get slapped about....and then moans when he loses a decision...

Because hey somebody that stupid only comes a long once in every lifetime!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The WBA are having an enquiry....

They are enquiring as to how a guy winning a fight by Boxing.. decides to lie on the ropes and get slapped about....and then moans when he loses a decision...

Because hey somebody that stupid only comes a long once in every lifetime!!

ShahenshahG wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Fundamentally nothing wrong with peering over once they've been recorded but that would then usually be the master card rather than the official cards, any handling at any point by anyone other than official should never happen.

I agree. Dont think I've said anything contrary to that.

I think you've said something contrary to every issue man has ever known

Never a truer word spoken on here.

As soon as the IBF shot him down, we should have known that one of the other slimebag worthless trinket organisations would pander to the Golden Boy cash cow.
Khan gets his WBA belt back if Peterson goes his own way.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Peterson fight Khan again, however. Ignoring the big first round to Khan - Peterson had the balance of the remaining rounds - Khan was throwing rounds away. Will that change? Maybe Khan will be more proactive - but Roach has never really taught his fighters an inside game, rather he tends to like them to throw flashy flurries and move out of harms way. If Peterson works the body and chases an inside fight from the first opportunity - lightning could strike twice.

I think my money would be on Khan for the rematch if im honest though

The plot thickens. Apparently WBA supervisor Michael Welsh also raised concerns about ?man to the commission and was ignored. President Gilberto Mendoza claims the commission didn't behave properly. The WBA themselves claim to be as mystified as we are about the man's identity, who claimed to be working with the IBF (which they have yet to confirm).

Pizza guy inquiring whether Welsh ordered a pepperoni and mushroom?

Amir Khan's promoter Richard Schaefer claims the Bolton boxer has been offered a rematch with Lamont Peterson by the WBA. Full story soon.

Adam D wrote:Amir Khan's promoter Richard Schaefer claims the Bolton boxer has been offered a rematch with Lamont Peterson by the WBA. Full story soon.

More on BBC about the rematch being ordered by wba. There hoping ibf follow suit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/mobile/boxing/16450797.stm

The IBF are seeking legal advice and won't make a statement until Jan 18th

Yep. And muppets will still scream about how Khan is only cheesed off with the scoring.

azania wrote:Yep. And muppets will still scream about how Khan is only cheesed off with the scoring.

Because the farce has definitely had the feel of reality thus far. Oh. Wait.

It now appears that the mystery man was from the IBF, but didn't have the proper accreditation. Clearly enough excuse for Lamont to be robbed of his belt for me.

Schaefer is now demanding the result of the fight be changed to a no contest (which would, conveniently, allow Khan to keep his "titles". Funny that.)

What a bunch of self serving, cynical, cheating curs. Oozing, pus filled sores amidst the nethers of the sport. You lost in the ring. Move on, try and secure a rematch. The WBA seem set on protecting their cash cow, doubtless Khan will be padded up to number 2/3 in the WW rankings if he decides to move up.

Its a disgrace and it doesn't help the image of boxing. Illusions of robberies are worse than actual robberies in some ways.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:Yep. And muppets will still scream about how Khan is only cheesed off with the scoring.

Because the farce has definitely had the feel of reality thus far. Oh. Wait.

It now appears that the mystery man was from the IBF, but didn't have the proper accreditation. Clearly enough excuse for Lamont to be robbed of his belt for me.

Schaefer is now demanding the result of the fight be changed to a no contest (which would, conveniently, allow Khan to keep his "titles". Funny that.)

What a bunch of self serving, cynical, cheating curs. Oozing, pus filled sores amidst the nethers of the sport. You lost in the ring. Move on, try and secure a rematch. The WBA seem set on protecting their cash cow, doubtless Khan will be padded up to number 2/3 in the WW rankings if he decides to move up.

Its a disgrace and it doesn't help the image of boxing. Illusions of robberies are worse than actual robberies in some ways.

Now you're getting the drift. Khan has said all he wants is a rematch. I stated a fewdays age - before hatman - that the error was not inserting a rematch clause in the contract. GBP are the ones calling for a no contest....not Khan. But no doubt Khan will be blamed.

It isn't good but its hardly gbp/khan's fault that hatman was there.

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:What i find a joke is that Khan was the massive odds on favourite, how many underdogs win and the loser/big fish/big GBP hope cries foul that he was screwed over? He lost a very close fight, it wasn't the judges fault that his laughable defensive limitations were exposed and that he didn't do enough to nick a close decision.

Amir Khan, you're a disgrace to British boxing, the British public and yourself. Stop whining like the little pathetic brat you are.

Yes, Khan should be humble and classy. Accept that he got 2 points deducted for an 'offense' that no other boxers gets points dducted for. He should ce humble and accept someone interfering with a judge, looking at the card, handling the card. Distracting the judge. Yep every other boxer would have accepted that and just moved on without a squeek.

Why cant he be like Hatton. That man of the people who was very humble and gracious after losing to Floyd. A credit to British boxing and public.

Sorry that's hog wash. fighters do get warned for stuff like holding and pushing.. its just fighters take note of the warning and stop doing it. Khan ignored him. and his excuse of Peterson headbutting was bull, he just needs a reason to stop fighters getting inside.

Also his pushed was very prominent, they were not little shoves so has could create a bit of space for a upper cut or something, they would complete pushes with arms fully extended completely pushing Peterson away.

He was warned many times but ignored him, hence the point deduction was legit, both of them.

Peterson had more right to complain about the know down in the first round which was caused by being off balance and a shove from Khan. Peterson actually landed the better shot while going down.

So lets take the second point deduction away and the false know down away and we are still left with a close fight that could have gone either way.

The fight should be a no contest like the Hopkins fight and there should be a rematch.

Peterson is trying to duck Khan he knows he got lucky in that fight and there has been so much controversy that it looks like Khan got well and truly shafted. I like Peterson but America loves a good hollywood sstory and a homeless kid becoming a champ is the kind of thing they make movies about. Peterson should give Khan a rematch to show he can beat him fair and square. The rematch should be in Las Vegas I think many people would like to see this fight again.

Shafted?

The majority of people had Peterson winning, looks at the though team Khan are trying to get the result over turned on a technicality.

Waingro wrote:The fight should be a no contest like the Hopkins fight and there should be a rematch.

Peterson is trying to duck Khan he knows he got lucky in that fight and there has been so much controversy that it looks like Khan got well and truly shafted. I like Peterson but America loves a good hollywood sstory and a homeless kid becoming a champ is the kind of thing they make movies about. Peterson should give Khan a rematch to show he can beat him fair and square. The rematch should be in Las Vegas I think many people would like to see this fight again.

Why should it be a no contest?

Did either fighter do anything in the ring to make it a no contest? Peterson was the better fighter on the night. Khan continually pushed after being told to stop and was rightly docked points. Everything wrong about Khans situation is of Khans doing - no rematch. points being docked, choosing Washington (although to me that hasnt had an impact on the result).

Peterson fought well, deserved the win.

What he doesnt deserve is to have the fight overturned due to a guy at ringside.

If any of these factors had contributed to a injustice then by all means consider a No Contest but it was a close that fight that could have gone either way. The Judges, the referee and Hatman did not directly affect Khans performance, he should have put the result beyond doubt but didn't.

Adam D wrote:

Waingro wrote:The fight should be a no contest like the Hopkins fight and there should be a rematch.

Peterson is trying to duck Khan he knows he got lucky in that fight and there has been so much controversy that it looks like Khan got well and truly shafted. I like Peterson but America loves a good hollywood sstory and a homeless kid becoming a champ is the kind of thing they make movies about. Peterson should give Khan a rematch to show he can beat him fair and square. The rematch should be in Las Vegas I think many people would like to see this fight again.

Why should it be a no contest?

Did either fighter do anything in the ring to make it a no contest? Peterson was the better fighter on the night. Khan continually pushed after being told to stop and was rightly docked points. Everything wrong about Khans situation is of Khans doing - no rematch. points being docked, choosing Washington (although to me that hasnt had an impact on the result).

Peterson fought well, deserved the win.

What he doesnt deserve is to have the fight overturned due to a guy at ringside.

You are right mate, Khan was very foolish to choose Washington and have no rematch clause. Tbh I think he thought this would be an easy fight he saw how Bradley schooled Peterson and he was thinking about a fight with Mayweather. I also think Freddie Roach is past it so his training camp could have been bad. This is Khans own fault he cannot blame anyone else for this.

But lets be honest there has been no big time boxing in washinton for over 20 years and the ref deducted wo points for pushing which has never happened before. We also have some mystery guy who was sitting with the judges who was seen celebratig with Peterson this is unnacceptable I think if we are honest then we have to realise this was a robbery and Khan got shafted if this fight happened anywhere else then Khan would still be champ this is why there needs to be a rematch.

There was no robbery, Peterson won fair and square and yes point have been deducted for pushing in the past, only as recently as Wlad against Haye.

Waingro wrote:
But lets be honest there has been no big time boxing in washinton for over 20 years and the ref deducted wo points for pushing which has never happened before. We also have some mystery guy who was sitting with the judges who was seen celebratig with Peterson this is unnacceptable I think if we are honest then we have to realise this was a robbery and Khan got shafted if this fight happened anywhere else then Khan would still be champ this is why there needs to be a rematch.

Absolute nonsense.

Pushing is illegal.

The ref didnt randomly deduct points.

He warned Khan time and time again. Khan deserved to have the points deducted. Its irrelevant if other judges dont warn about pushing - they should. He did warn and when his numerous warnings were ignored, he punished Khan and rightly so.

It has nothing to do with British fighters ir the venue. The factor here is that the referee is the boss in the ring and you listen to what he says. If he is cheating by making up rules, then complain. But these are proper rules he asked fairly for Khan to abide by.

Adam D wrote:

Waingro wrote:
But lets be honest there has been no big time boxing in washinton for over 20 years and the ref deducted wo points for pushing which has never happened before. We also have some mystery guy who was sitting with the judges who was seen celebratig with Peterson this is unnacceptable I think if we are honest then we have to realise this was a robbery and Khan got shafted if this fight happened anywhere else then Khan would still be champ this is why there needs to be a rematch.

Absolute nonsense.

Pushing is illegal.

The ref didnt randomly deduct points.

He warned Khan time and time again. Khan deserved to have the points deducted. Its irrelevant if other judges dont warn about pushing - they should. He did warn and when his numerous warnings were ignored, he punished Khan and rightly so.

It has nothing to do with British fighters ir the venue. The factor here is that the referee is the boss in the ring and you listen to what he says. If he is cheating by making up rules, then complain. But these are proper rules he asked fairly for Khan to abide by.

So you think the referee should deduct points off Ali against Frazier in the 2nd fight for pushing? Likewise Foreman did against Frazier as well...What about the ref not deducting points off Peterson was using his head against Khan?...Or is it one rule for one and another for Peterson

When has a Referee ever deducted points off for holding it is laughable and disgraceful...As for Peterson deserving the win I dispute that it is a fight that could have gone either way...A lot of people are split on who won this fight.

The genius of PBF wrote:[

So you think the referee should deduct points off Ali against Frazier in the 2nd fight for pushing? Likewise Foreman did against Frazier as well...What about the ref not deducting points off Peterson was using his head against Khan?...Or is it one rule for one and another for Peterson

When has a Referee ever deducted points off for holding it is laughable and disgraceful...As for Peterson deserving the win I dispute that it is a fight that could have gone either way...A lot of people are split on who won this fight.

If the ref in those fights had warned them on numerous occasions, then yes.

Each referee is different, Khan was warned and didn't listen to the warnings so was deducted points. Akinwande was warned for holding against Lewis, kept doing it and was disqualified.

I think this alot of hot air really now. The cards werent tampered with and produced a reasonably accurate reflection of the fight. Imnot sure what Hatman could have done to either make the ref deduct points or make the judges score diferently. Id admit it seems to be a bit weird but if anything the scorecard in fvour of Khan seemed to be the most lopsided.

I think there should be a rematch, but on merit, rather than these kind of desparation tactics. Khan gave Peterson the opportunity, went to his back yard and the fight itself could have gone either way. It was also a great fight. So on that basis a rematch would be warrnted.

Instead it looks like Peterson camp have balked at the idea of a rematch, at least an immediate one. Cant say that surprises me. And as a result Khan/GBP have become pretty desperate and have basically pulled out all the stops to lean on the commissions and sanctioning bodies to get a rematch. Unfortunately it seems that this will propbably work and while I have no objections to the rematch, I would rather it was done by agreement or merit rather than another example of spineless organisations caving in to a big shot promoters pressure.

An accurate and sensible post from Manos yet again. This was all about the rematch - I think they feel their man got lucky - judging by hunters "We know what its like to be robbed" comment to Khan after the fight and aren't confident enough to chance their arm immediately. A tight excellent fight has been ruined by arsiness from both camps and there will be alot of bad blood in the rematch should there be one. Peterson is in a tight spot though - should the IBF also agree on a immediate rematch then he has to take the fight - any vacating of his titles would be deemed cowardice on his part - innaccurately I feel because Peterson has a reasonable chance to do the same thing again. As for GBP - I'm not sure if its in the rules or just arrogance on GBP's part but they left out the rematch clause - daft in any circumstance. If of course its in the rules (Can anyone clarify) then fair enough.

What interests me is if there is, as seems likely now, an immediate rematch ordered - what status does Khan hold? I would guess its not mandatory so what I wonder is how they do the purse splits. According to Team Khan they offered Peterson 800k for a rematch. This would seem a little low to me given his now champion status and the liklihood that a rematch would sell alot better. So if the WBA/IBF force the rematch what kind of purse split/terms is Peterson obliged to take?

I think Peterson was offered $1 Million - which seems about fair - but you are right - its going to be a bitch negotiating and lot more whining - he said, she said. Probably have to do a 50-50 split - especially judging how much coverage this fight got all over the news - broadcasters will be climbing over each other to get the rights.

I wasn't sure if I should open a new topic or not based on this BUT:

##########################################

Richard Schaefer CEO of GBP has gone on to say "he expects the fight to be ruled a NC within the next couple of days".

If this is the case, then we know Uncle Schaefer would have got his way for his favourate little cherub Amir.

Think Khan should get at least 50/50....

Certainly the bigger name and brings more bread to the table....

School Project wrote:I wasn't sure if I should open a new topic or not based on this BUT:

##########################################

Richard Schaefer CEO of GBP has gone on to say "he expects the fight to be ruled a NC within the next couple of days".

If this is the case, then we know Uncle Schaefer would have got his way for his favourate little cherub Amir.

The fight being rules a NC is pretty stupid. But if it is declared a NC there must be a damn good reason. If there is a reason behind it then those involved should be exposed and fined heavily.

If something untoward happened for it to be declared a NC, then the titles should be declared vacant and not to be given to Khan. A rematch should be ordered and Peterson to win without any controversy.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Think Khan should get at least 50/50....

Certainly the bigger name and brings more bread to the table....

Not with the controversy. Peterson's status has been elevated no end. 60/40 as Peterson is the champ. Or at least he should get the lion's share/ Team Khan are notorious for giving opponents relative peanuts and drive a hard financial package. Let's see how they take it when the shoe's on the other foot. They always say that the champ gets the bigger share. Live with that knowledge.

Bruno was the champ when he fought Tyson 2....

He got 3.1 million..Tyson 21 million...

It's about who brings in the bucks..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Bruno was the champ when he fought Tyson 2....

He got 3.1 million..Tyson 21 million...

It's about who brings in the bucks..

Khan isn't that big a name or draw.

Never said he was!!!!!!!!!!

Bu he's bigger than petersen.............

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Never said he was!!!!!!!!!!

Bu he's bigger than petersen.............

Peterson's status is being elevated daily and as such he is becoming a bigger draw that he was. The controversy surrounding the bout has ensured that he is no longer AN Other.

The genius of PBF wrote:So you think the referee should deduct points off Ali against Frazier in the 2nd fight for pushing? Likewise Foreman did against Frazier as well...What about the ref not deducting points off Peterson was using his head against Khan?...Or is it one rule for one and another for Peterson

When has a Referee ever deducted points off for holding it is laughable and disgraceful...As for Peterson deserving the win I dispute that it is a fight that could have gone either way...A lot of people are split on who won this fight.

An odd point of view. The referee who was in charge of Ali Frazier, or Foreman Frazier was not the same referee in charge of Khan-Peterson. So its an irrelevant point, unless you're on a grand moral crusade for the universal implementation of the same interpretations of rules across the sport.

oxring wrote:

The genius of PBF wrote:So you think the referee should deduct points off Ali against Frazier in the 2nd fight for pushing? Likewise Foreman did against Frazier as well...What about the ref not deducting points off Peterson was using his head against Khan?...Or is it one rule for one and another for Peterson

When has a Referee ever deducted points off for holding it is laughable and disgraceful...As for Peterson deserving the win I dispute that it is a fight that could have gone either way...A lot of people are split on who won this fight.

An odd point of view. The referee who was in charge of Ali Frazier, or Foreman Frazier was not the same referee in charge of Khan-Peterson. So its an irrelevant point, unless you're on a grand moral crusade for the universal implementation of the same interpretations of rules across the sport.

Hardly an irrelevant point seeing as the rules are the rules and should be applied equally and evenly across the board. Nothing subjecting about it. Every single boxer that ever existed has pushed an opponent away to make space.

I just watched the fight back again, mainly to look at the guy who was messing about with the cards.

One thing I noticed about the points deductions is that Khan was pushing and getting his elbows in the mix every time.

The ref had a decent enough reason to deduct for pushing, seeing as the elbows were being used at every opportunity.

He was constantly fouling, he would get away with it here even though he shouldn't, but you wouldn't catch Lamont crying all the way to a rematch. The men are clearly discussing the mess up on the cards and none were judges.

Don't know if this has been posted as haven't read full article but Hatman has been found out.

It is the legendary Mustafa Ameen!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/16458000.stm

Roach says he isn't an official, the plot thickens ARGH!

Roach, speaking from the Wild Card gym in Los Angeles where Khan regularly trains, told BBC Sport he also believes that the man, identified by the fight's promoter as Mustafa Ameen, is not an International Boxing Federation (IBF) official as has been claimed.

"He comes to my gym. He came to the [US] Olympic training centre and I actually had him removed one time," he said.

"I told the coaches, 'There's no need for him to be here.'

He goes to gyms and talks to other people's fighters.

"But he does know the boundaries because he doesn't go after my fighters - but he does talk to other people's fighters and he's been told not to a couple of times, even here in my gym."

"[Ameen] has no credentials; he's not a member of any boxing organisation," he said.

"There's no reason for him to be at ringside.

"Why he was ringside and why he was in the ring afterwards celebrating and so forth I have no idea."

"You've got a guy sitting beside [Michael Welsh, World Boxing Association supervisor] that's talking about who's winning rounds and so forth - we can only speculate on what they were talking about but most likely they are talking about the fight.

"And people get influenced by other people easily. And that's why the rules are that no-one but officials are at ring-side.

"It should be no-contest or a mandated re-match."

Getting a bit odd this story. Who the heck is this Mustafa guy?

AlexHuckerby wrote:Getting a bit odd this story.

If it can now add interesting to the mix I'll be hooked.

rowley wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:Getting a bit odd this story.

If it can now add interesting to the mix I'll be hooked.

To be fair it is getting a bit tiresome, it's like ok we heard you Amir, now get in the ring and punch him.

AlexHuckerby wrote: it's like ok we heard you Amir, now get in the ring and punch him.

About sums it up mate.

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

The genius of PBF wrote:So you think the referee should deduct points off Ali against Frazier in the 2nd fight for pushing? Likewise Foreman did against Frazier as well...What about the ref not deducting points off Peterson was using his head against Khan?...Or is it one rule for one and another for Peterson

When has a Referee ever deducted points off for holding it is laughable and disgraceful...As for Peterson deserving the win I dispute that it is a fight that could have gone either way...A lot of people are split on who won this fight.

An odd point of view. The referee who was in charge of Ali Frazier, or Foreman Frazier was not the same referee in charge of Khan-Peterson. So its an irrelevant point, unless you're on a grand moral crusade for the universal implementation of the same interpretations of rules across the sport.

Hardly an irrelevant point seeing as the rules are the rules and should be applied equally and evenly across the board. Nothing subjecting about it. Every single boxer that ever existed has pushed an opponent away to make space.

Stop trying to be contrary.

Sam Warburton got red carded, according to the letter of the law, in the world cup final. The same referee failed to card Haskell for a similar offence (legs above head and shoulders tackle) in a 6N match between Wales and England. I have seen similar offences be awarded yellow cards (eg pool game between Tonga and France), be awarded mere penalties and be awarded reds. By the letter of the law, all of them should be red cards.

As a patriotic Welshman, I was fuming at Rolland's decision to card Warburton. However - it is in the letter of the law - so I can't complain about his decision.

I can complain about consistency of rules being applied by different referees - but that's a different subject.

See the analogy?

Pushing is banned according to the letter of the law. Khan can complain about refereeing consistency across the boxing world - but NOT that he was penalised for blatantly pushing.

Marijuana is illegal. More than half of young people have tried it at some point in their lives. ITS STILL ILLEGAL.

In summary, therefore.
1) Khan shouldn't whinge that he was deducted points for breaking rules.
2) Taking drugs is bad. Don't do it.

All seems like sour grapes.

Peterson should come out and say "Alright - lets do this again"

Amir should say "Thanks Lamont - sorry about all this, I just wanted another fight"

oxring wrote:
2) Taking drugs is bad. Don't do it.

Just Say No.

rowley wrote:

oxring wrote:
2) Taking drugs is bad. Don't do it.

Just Say No.

Let this be a lesson and a shining beacon of light to all. If Rowley can get through the grim and harsh realities of a South Yorkshire upbrining without resorting to smack, there really is no excuse for the rest of us.

88Chris05 wrote:

rowley wrote:

oxring wrote:
2) Taking drugs is bad. Don't do it.

Just Say No.

Let this be a lesson and a shining beacon of light to all. If Rowley can get through the grim and harsh realities of a South Yorkshire upbrining without resorting to smack, there really is no excuse for the rest of us.

It's a fair point, I live in Rotherham and spend most of my day listening to how Haye is quality IMO and that Rocky Marciano would lose to Pele Reid and manage to do so on nothing stronger than Guinness and a healthy dose of can do spirit

It's all very strange. Most neutrals (at least in the UK) scored the fight, after the two point deductions (one in the seventh and the other in the twelth), as about 113-112 in favour of Peterson. That is with the point deductions a one round win to Peterson (and a one round win for Khan without the deductions).

The judges scored the bout (with the two point deduction):
Judge George Hill 113-112 in favour of Peterson
Judge Valerie Dorsett 113-112 in favour of Peterson
Judge Nelson Vasquez 115-110 in favour of Khan

So why isn't anyone questioning Judge Nelson Vasquez' score card? No-one had Khan winning by five rounds (or seven rounds if we exclude the deductions).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/boxing/8997850/How-the-scoring-was-calculated-in-the-Amir-Khan-v-Lamont-Petersen-bout.html

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

The genius of PBF wrote:So you think the referee should deduct points off Ali against Frazier in the 2nd fight for pushing? Likewise Foreman did against Frazier as well...What about the ref not deducting points off Peterson was using his head against Khan?...Or is it one rule for one and another for Peterson

When has a Referee ever deducted points off for holding it is laughable and disgraceful...As for Peterson deserving the win I dispute that it is a fight that could have gone either way...A lot of people are split on who won this fight.

An odd point of view. The referee who was in charge of Ali Frazier, or Foreman Frazier was not the same referee in charge of Khan-Peterson. So its an irrelevant point, unless you're on a grand moral crusade for the universal implementation of the same interpretations of rules across the sport.

Hardly an irrelevant point seeing as the rules are the rules and should be applied equally and evenly across the board. Nothing subjecting about it. Every single boxer that ever existed has pushed an opponent away to make space.

Stop trying to be contrary.

Sam Warburton got red carded, according to the letter of the law, in the world cup final. The same referee failed to card Haskell for a similar offence (legs above head and shoulders tackle) in a 6N match between Wales and England. I have seen similar offences be awarded yellow cards (eg pool game between Tonga and France), be awarded mere penalties and be awarded reds. By the letter of the law, all of them should be red cards.

As a patriotic Welshman, I was fuming at Rolland's decision to card Warburton. However - it is in the letter of the law - so I can't complain about his decision.

I can complain about consistency of rules being applied by different referees - but that's a different subject.

See the analogy?

Pushing is banned according to the letter of the law. Khan can complain about refereeing consistency across the boxing world - but NOT that he was penalised for blatantly pushing.

Marijuana is illegal. More than half of young people have tried it at some point in their lives. ITS STILL ILLEGAL.

In summary, therefore.
1) Khan shouldn't whinge that he was deducted points for breaking rules.
2) Taking drugs is bad. Don't do it.

Am I ever contrary??????

Your analogy is flawed. Not least because northern hemisphere rugby is almost near on deadly boring. No expanse, just kick for placement.

Khan has complained about the refereeing in that fight and the validity of points deductions. GBP gave their reasoning also. Khan has every right to make as much noise as possible about that. If was unfair imo. Someone raised the issue of Wlad pushing Haye. Wlad was pushing Haye downwards in a deliberate attemp to tire him out. Khan was pushing, as do all other boxers, to create space for himself. Imagine a fight where no pushing occurs. We'd have a hugging contest and Mayweather would be on a constant 9 point round or below.

Nore Staat wrote:It's all very strange. Most neutrals (at least in the UK) scored the fight, after the two point deductions (one in the seventh and the other in the twelth), as about 113-112 in favour of Peterson. That is with the point deductions a one round win to Peterson (and a one round win for Khan without the deductions).

The judges scored the bout (with the two point deduction):
Judge George Hill 113-112 in favour of Peterson
Judge Valerie Dorsett 113-112 in favour of Peterson
Judge Nelson Vasquez 115-110 in favour of Khan

So why isn't anyone questioning Judge Nelson Vasquez' score card? No-one had Khan winning by five rounds (or seven rounds if we exclude the deductions).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/boxing/8997850/How-the-scoring-was-calculated-in-the-Amir-Khan-v-Lamont-Petersen-bout.html

Any evidence that most neutrals scored it to Peterson after the deductions? I agree with you on vasquez. Poor judging. But I had Khan winning by a point with the deductions. As far as I'm concerned, the scoring is not controversial (Vasquez excepted). A fight that close, with deductions, can go either way.