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

It would have been 117 - 111 if there wasn't any deductions, so that is 9 rounds to 3, from memory Peterson definitely won 4 rounds solidly with other conetentious for me, so he gave the contentious rounds to Khan and one of the ones I scored solidly to Peterson, not unbelievable scoring really if you think about it logically.

azania wrote:

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.

Key phrase in that is IMO, in your opinion it was unfair, however in the letter of the law and the rules it was not unfair, if a fighter breaks the rules the ref is well within his rights to dock points, particularly if he has issued a number of warnings which he did, whether you, me or anyone else, Khan included consider it harsh, picky or overly fussy is largely irrelevant. Khan only has a right to complain if the referee has acted contrary to the rules which he hasn't. The point about Wlad and Haye is the point Oxy was making about the rugby, sometimes you will get away with certain offences sometimes you won't, Khan did this time, next time out he may not, such are the vagaries of sport and indeed life.

Just looking at one of the scorecards, where round 7 was given 10-8 to Khan and then changed to Peterson. I have watched the fight recently, and scored 7 and 12 evenly. I don't think Peterson did enough to win either of those rounds, so they should have been scored even.

Maybe the commentators where listening to Jim Watts "If there's a point deduction then it has to go down as a 10-8 round" method of scoring

hampo171 wrote:Just looking at one of the scorecards, where round 7 was given 10-8 to Khan and then changed to Peterson. I have watched the fight recently, and scored 7 and 12 evenly. I don't think Peterson did enough to win either of those rounds, so they should have been scored even.

Maybe the commentators where listening to Jim Watts "If there's a point deduction then it has to go down as a 10-8 round" method of scoring

Love Jim Watt, but don't know if he truly knew what he meant when he was saying that, or he meant to say something different, one can only wonder.

azania wrote:

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.

The question, AZ, is 'is pushing illegal?'. The answer is yes so Khan can not have any reason for complaint for being deducted points.

Look at the Manchester derby yesterday. Kompany sent off for a two footed challenge. The fact most referee's would not blow for a freekick, or give a yellow at worst is besides the point. He broke the rule and can have no complaint about the refs decision.

azania wrote: 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.

I said "about" 113-112 to Peterson, corresponding to a smallish sample (BBC radio five live team, BBC web report, a few newspapers including the Telegraph (I provided a link to that one). I agree with you only the Vasquez score seems controversial (115-110 to khan including the two point deduction).

Johnson.

Man City said they would appeal against the red card. It wont change the result but if successful the red card wiwll be recinded. See the similarities here?

hampo171 wrote:Just looking at one of the scorecards, where round 7 was given 10-8 to Khan and then changed to Peterson. I have watched the fight recently, and scored 7 and 12 evenly. I don't think Peterson did enough to win either of those rounds, so they should have been scored even.

Maybe the commentators where listening to Jim Watts "If there's a point deduction then it has to go down as a 10-8 round" method of scoring

All three judges scored that round 10-8 to Peterson. Even the reporter in the telegraph scored that round 10-8 to Peterson (link shows all three judges cards):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/boxing/8997850/How-the-scoring-was-calculated-in-the-Amir-Khan-v-Lamont-Petersen-bout.html

Which you often see Nore, however there isn't anything in the rules that say it has to be a 10-8 round. The fact that Khan had done enough to win the round and then gets a point deducted on the bell should not give the Peterson the round, the same for the 12th, Khan won that round yet it was given as a 1-8 round even though Khan did the better work.

azania wrote:

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.

How. Hard. Is. This. To. Understand...

1.) Pushing is illegal and may result in a points deduction.
2.) Khan resorted to pushing Peterson away from him and was warned by the ref to the contrary.

Result - Khan was deducted points.

Khan may complain that rules should be enforced consistently - but NOT that he was deducted points.

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

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.

Key phrase in that is IMO, in your opinion it was unfair, however in the letter of the law and the rules it was not unfair, if a fighter breaks the rules the ref is well within his rights to dock points, particularly if he has issued a number of warnings which he did, whether you, me or anyone else, Khan included consider it harsh, picky or overly fussy is largely irrelevant. Khan only has a right to complain if the referee has acted contrary to the rules which he hasn't. The point about Wlad and Haye is the point Oxy was making about the rugby, sometimes you will get away with certain offences sometimes you won't, Khan did this time, next time out he may not, such are the vagaries of sport and indeed life.

Not arguing about the rules. But the application of it. In short it has never been applied. I dont believe that's the only grounds in which the appeal was launched.

hampo171 wrote:Which you often see Nore, however there isn't anything in the rules that say it has to be a 10-8 round. The fact that Khan had done enough to win the round and then gets a point deducted on the bell should not give the Peterson the round, the same for the 12th, Khan won that round yet it was given as a 1-8 round even though Khan did the better work.

All three judges scored the 12th 9-9 (after the points deductions), so agreeing with you on this one.

Anyway it looks like there is going to be an immediate rematch in a more "neutral" venue.

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

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.

Key phrase in that is IMO, in your opinion it was unfair, however in the letter of the law and the rules it was not unfair, if a fighter breaks the rules the ref is well within his rights to dock points, particularly if he has issued a number of warnings which he did, whether you, me or anyone else, Khan included consider it harsh, picky or overly fussy is largely irrelevant. Khan only has a right to complain if the referee has acted contrary to the rules which he hasn't. The point about Wlad and Haye is the point Oxy was making about the rugby, sometimes you will get away with certain offences sometimes you won't, Khan did this time, next time out he may not, such are the vagaries of sport and indeed life.

Not arguing about the rules. But the application of it. In short it has never been applied. I dont believe that's the only grounds in which the appeal was launched.

Nothing wrong with the application of it, provided the referee had pulled up Petersen for the same infringement if he had committed it. The referee is under no obligation to apply the standards set by any other fight or referee; his job is to enforce the rules, which is what he did.

Khan had warnings, and chose to ignore them.

From Round 1 or 2 Khan was warned, but it was the use of the elbow in Petersons face when he pushed that would have concerned me the most. Watch the fight back and he did it quite regularly.... the ref actually told him about it early on.

I don't understand how he became a mystery man if roach knew who he was all along.

The Galveston Giant wrote:I don't understand how he became a mystery man if roach knew who he was all along.

I thought the exact the same thing.

Because to come out straight away and reveal who he is doesn't garner any press or publicity.

rowley wrote:Because to come out straight away and reveal who he is doesn't garner any press or publicity.

It has been a fantastic exercise in obscuration from all at team Khan. Ask any lay person who hasn't seen the fight - they'll argue there was some sort of a robbery going on - worse than Lara-Williams. A great way of increasing and maintaining Khan's stock with the general public, rather than taking the hit it deserved from the defeat.