Khan vs Peterson - WBA order immediate rematch

First topic message reminder :

IBF meeting next week to decide on the matter.

Question, if IBF don't order immediate rematch do you think Peterson will only put WBA belt on the line as a safety measure so that if he loses he still retains a title?

Does anyone know the reason they have ordered a rematch?

It seems a bit strange that they would order a rematch for what is nothing more than a close decision that could have gone either way. They are leaving themselves open to a lot of appeals.

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:Does anyone know the reason they have ordered a rematch?

It seems a bit strange that they would order a rematch for what is nothing more than a close decision that could have gone either way. They are leaving themselves open to a lot of appeals.

Two fairly irregular and harsh points deductions that altered the result of the fight may be the reason.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:Does anyone know the reason they have ordered a rematch?

It seems a bit strange that they would order a rematch for what is nothing more than a close decision that could have gone either way. They are leaving themselves open to a lot of appeals.

Two fairly irregular and harsh points deductions that altered the result of the fight may be the reason.

Khan did break rules and the ref deducted points. I don't see how that is enough to order a re match.

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:Does anyone know the reason they have ordered a rematch?

It seems a bit strange that they would order a rematch for what is nothing more than a close decision that could have gone either way. They are leaving themselves open to a lot of appeals.

Two fairly irregular and harsh points deductions that altered the result of the fight may be the reason.

Khan did break rules and the ref deducted points. I don't see how that is enough to order a re match.

Without the deductions he wins that is why the rematch has been ordered as well as refereeing inconsistency, by the letter of the rulebook he should have been docked points but it's a rarely enforced rule. A rematch is both logical and the right thing.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:Does anyone know the reason they have ordered a rematch?

It seems a bit strange that they would order a rematch for what is nothing more than a close decision that could have gone either way. They are leaving themselves open to a lot of appeals.

Two fairly irregular and harsh points deductions that altered the result of the fight may be the reason.

Khan did break rules and the ref deducted points. I don't see how that is enough to order a re match.

Without the deductions he wins that is why the rematch has been ordered as well as refereeing inconsistency, by the letter of the rulebook he should have been docked points but it's a rarely enforced rule. A rematch is both logical and the right thing.

I don't have a problem with the re match it was a great fight and one I would like to see again. I was wondering what they gave as the reason for ordering it. They need to be careful because it could leave them open to a lot more.

Not really, it is quite a unique case, not many fights are decided by the referee docking points.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:Does anyone know the reason they have ordered a rematch?

It seems a bit strange that they would order a rematch for what is nothing more than a close decision that could have gone either way. They are leaving themselves open to a lot of appeals.

Two fairly irregular and harsh points deductions that altered the result of the fight may be the reason.

Khan did break rules and the ref deducted points. I don't see how that is enough to order a re match.

Without the deductions he wins that is why the rematch has been ordered as well as refereeing inconsistency, by the letter of the rulebook he should have been docked points but it's a rarely enforced rule. A rematch is both logical and the right thing.

but how can they ORDER a rematch? surely ordering a rematch is just rewarding khan for breaking the rules. he broke the rule and got points deducted.

lovely_london wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:Does anyone know the reason they have ordered a rematch?

It seems a bit strange that they would order a rematch for what is nothing more than a close decision that could have gone either way. They are leaving themselves open to a lot of appeals.

Two fairly irregular and harsh points deductions that altered the result of the fight may be the reason.

Khan did break rules and the ref deducted points. I don't see how that is enough to order a re match.

Without the deductions he wins that is why the rematch has been ordered as well as refereeing inconsistency, by the letter of the rulebook he should have been docked points but it's a rarely enforced rule. A rematch is both logical and the right thing.

but how can they ORDER a rematch? surely ordering a rematch is just rewarding khan for breaking the rules. he broke the rule and got points deducted.

Refereeing inconsistencies is the reason, fairly rarely do fighters get one point docked let alone two for pushing.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

lovely_london wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:Does anyone know the reason they have ordered a rematch?

It seems a bit strange that they would order a rematch for what is nothing more than a close decision that could have gone either way. They are leaving themselves open to a lot of appeals.

Two fairly irregular and harsh points deductions that altered the result of the fight may be the reason.

Khan did break rules and the ref deducted points. I don't see how that is enough to order a re match.

Without the deductions he wins that is why the rematch has been ordered as well as refereeing inconsistency, by the letter of the rulebook he should have been docked points but it's a rarely enforced rule. A rematch is both logical and the right thing.

but how can they ORDER a rematch? surely ordering a rematch is just rewarding khan for breaking the rules. he broke the rule and got points deducted.

Refereeing inconsistencies is the reason, fairly rarely do fighters get one point docked let alone two for pushing.

but the law book says it is an offence which is punishable by a points deduction.

if the fighter pushes he gets warned then he gets points deducted. if he continues to push why cant the ref dock another point?

Is it really rocket science to understand?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Is it really rocket science to understand?

yes!!!!

makes no sense to have a rule and then basically say that the rule is meaningless.

How often is that rule enforced? Hence the refereeing inconsistencies, it really isn't that difficult to understand.

Ghosty it may not be a rule that is enforced that often but it is a rule. What's the point in having rules that if they are enforced you order a rematch for that fight?

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:Ghosty it may not be a rule that is enforced that often but it is a rule. What's the point in having rules that if they are enforced you order a rematch for that fight?

Because of that word inconsistency, it's not difficult to understand.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:Ghosty it may not be a rule that is enforced that often but it is a rule. What's the point in having rules that if they are enforced you order a rematch for that fight?

Because of that word inconsistency, it's not difficult to understand.

It is very difficult to understand. The rule book says pushing is an offence that can be punished by points deductions. How can that be an inconsistency? Just because it is not often used does not make it an inconsistency.

This whole forced rematch looks so fishy to me.

London, read the article I posted on page 2, the points in bold are the reason. As IG says, the referee inconsistencys, coupled with the knockdown given as a slip in the first round because the ref was in the way, everyone seems to ignore that knockdown.

hampo171 wrote:London, read the article I posted on page 2, the points in bold are the reason. As IG says, the referee inconsistencys, coupled with the knockdown given as a slip in the first round because the ref was in the way, everyone seems to ignore that knockdown.

But wasn´t the first knockdown not actually a knockdown but it was given as a knockdown.

And there is no way you can argue that the points deductions mean that a rematch should be given.

I'm not arguing that, but the WBA have said that there where inconsistencys.

No the first knockdown, Khan came in and caught him with some sharp shots, and sent him down, on his way down he bumped into the ref who for some reason and stood behind Peterson. The second one again, he was caught by a shot and although it may have been a stumble backwards, there was a shot that landed.

The same people who have said that wasn't a knockdown are the same people who said Kessler should have been given a knockdown when he stumbled backwards and fell over without a punch even landing.

The question I find myself pondering is whether or not, had the roles been reversed and the champion and favourite had been given the decision, the WBA would still have ordered a rematch.

I must say that I suspect that they wouldn't have done so.

If Khan feels genuinely aggrieved it's fair enough. I'm sure he genuinely believes that he won the fight and so I can't really blame him for milking every opportunity - however tenuous - to secure a rematch. However, I have every sympathy for Peterson, also, whose only crime was to disturb the status quo.

All in all, I believe the outcome of all this to be unfair but inevitable.

lovely_london wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:Ghosty it may not be a rule that is enforced that often but it is a rule. What's the point in having rules that if they are enforced you order a rematch for that fight?

Because of that word inconsistency, it's not difficult to understand.

It is very difficult to understand. The rule book says pushing is an offence that can be punished by points deductions. How can that be an inconsistency? Just because it is not often used does not make it an inconsistency.

This whole forced rematch looks so fishy to me.

I think when you have a round that Khan is winning, then docked a point at the end of the round for pushing should not be a 10-8 point swing to the opponent. Combined that with the fact you have someone sitting next to the judges pointing at scorecards/interfering etc

With that said, i agree with Windy on the roles being reversed point.

Either way the first scrap was good, so looking forward to the next.

I think its a bad decision to order a rematch and it sets a dangerous precedent. The rules are in place, its up to the referee to interpret them. In this fight I think the rules were enforced according to the rulebook. Thats at the referees discretion. Khan was guilty of the offence numerous times, he was warned amply and he continued to infract. The ref was in his rights to deduct points. Rematches should only be enforced if the rules have not been followed, as opposed to when they have. Whats the point of having the rule at all then? I dont think wht the referee did was a gross misinterretation so I dont see what the issue is.

This just gives big promotes licence to try and turn over any result that the referee has given their own interpretation in. Will any early stoppage now be overturned, anytime some hits low with/without a point being taken off. Inconsistencies in refereeing happen across the board, it is the referees discretion. I dont see how correct application of the rules (as I see it) should demand a rematch.

And lets be realistic, even getting away from the point of principle I think everyone and their mother knows the reason that this rematch has been ordered was because GBP took their eye off the ball, didnt have a rematch clause and Peterson was going to go elsewhere for his next fight. Would they be demanding a rematch or an overturned result if Peterson had given an immediate rematch? The whole episode is bad for boxing in several ways.l

kevchadders wrote:

lovely_london wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:Ghosty it may not be a rule that is enforced that often but it is a rule. What's the point in having rules that if they are enforced you order a rematch for that fight?

Because of that word inconsistency, it's not difficult to understand.

It is very difficult to understand. The rule book says pushing is an offence that can be punished by points deductions. How can that be an inconsistency? Just because it is not often used does not make it an inconsistency.

This whole forced rematch looks so fishy to me.

I think when you have a round that Khan is winning, then docked a point at the end of the round for pushing should not be a 10-8 point swing to the opponent. Combined that with the fact you have someone sitting next to the judges pointing at scorecards/interfering etc

With that said, i agree with Windy on the roles being reversed point.

Either way the first scrap was good, so looking forward to the next.

Didnt happen like that, it was the master card which is not the one the judge fills out at the end of each round.

Basically the WBA are saying:

Khan broke the rules, a number of times, but because most refs dont doc points this is unfair, even though he broke the rules.

The WBA official may have been corrupted by strange hat man, infront of camera's and a large world wide audience.

If this was the other way round they would not even entertain an appeal. This is why Khan is so easy to dislike.

It's annoyed me a little how this has panned out. Khan is going to look an even bigger fool if Peterson continues where he left off and takes a clear decision. Will be a great fight again hopefully and will be a good build up.

One of the bad things about this apart from the issue of precedent Manos has outlined is that in someway this seeks to, or in some peoples mind detracts or diminishes Lamont's acheivement. Comments from Khan such as all I want is a level playing field or justice has been done suggest the playing field was not level last time or an injustice was done, the inference that Petersen only won as the beneficiary of an injustice is unwarranted.

manos de piedra wrote:I think its a bad decision to order a rematch and it sets a dangerous precedent. The rules are in place, its up to the referee to interpret them. In this fight I think the rules were enforced according to the rulebook. Thats at the referees discretion. Khan was guilty of the offence numerous times, he was warned amply and he continued to infract. The ref was in his rights to deduct points. Rematches should only be enforced if the rules have not been followed, as opposed to when they have. Whats the point of having the rule at all then? I dont think wht the referee did was a gross misinterretation so I dont see what the issue is.

This just gives big promotes licence to try and turn over any result that the referee has given their own interpretation in. Will any early stoppage now be overturned, anytime some hits low with/without a point being taken off. Inconsistencies in refereeing happen across the board, it is the referees discretion. I dont see how correct application of the rules (as I see it) should demand a rematch.

And lets be realistic, even getting away from the point of principle I think everyone and their mother knows the reason that this rematch has been ordered was because GBP took their eye off the ball, didnt have a rematch clause and Peterson was going to go elsewhere for his next fight. Would they be demanding a rematch or an overturned result if Peterson had given an immediate rematch? The whole episode is bad for boxing in several ways.l

entirely my view on this unsavoury little episode... cheers for saving me the typing time manos

Interesting that Ameen has now admitted tampering with the scorecards to allegedly "correct" a mathmatical error. WTF.

And Peterson's team are willing to fight Khan again.......in Washington. Prepare for an increase offer to Peterson to fight in Vegas.

azania wrote:Interesting that Ameen has now admitted tampering with the scorecards to allegedly "correct" a mathmatical error. WTF.

And Peterson's team are willing to fight Khan again.......in Washington. Prepare for an increase offer to Peterson to fight in Vegas.

Before anyone makes the mistake of believing Az's words at face value - Ameen is admitting to notifying an official of a mathematical mistake.

[quote="azania"]Interesting that Ameen has now admitted tampering with the scorecards to allegedly "correct" a mathmatical error. WTF.

And Peterson's team are willing to fight Khan again.......in Washington. Prepare for an increase offer to Peterson to fight in Vegas.[/quote

He didnt say he tampered with the cards. He said he brought a couple of errors to attention. Given that one of the cards had failed to initially acknowledge the point deduction against Khan and erroneously awarded the round as a 10-8 to Khan when it should not have been I dont think its a huge issue. In fact you could argue it was beneficial he was there to spot the error and his prescence actually assisted a fair outcome.

I still think the 115-110 card in favour of Khan including both points deductions is the most inaccurate card of the lot.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:Interesting that Ameen has now admitted tampering with the scorecards to allegedly "correct" a mathmatical error. WTF.

And Peterson's team are willing to fight Khan again.......in Washington. Prepare for an increase offer to Peterson to fight in Vegas.

Before anyone makes the mistake of believing Az's words at face value - Ameen is admitting to notifying an official of a mathematical mistake.

He had no business being there and no business looking over the shoulder of the guy let alone talking to him. Plus if there was a maths error, it would have been spotted later. He's hardly likely to say he was doing something untoward would he.

http://sport.uk.msn.com/ameen-i-helped-correct-scorecards

'Mystery man' Mustafa Ameen has admitted he did get involved with the scorecards during Amir Khan's controversial defeat by Lamont Peterson on December 10 but claims he was simply helping to correct mistakes.

Ameen's unexplained involvement at ringside recently became the latest in a line of complaints from Englishman Khan following his split decision loss in Washington, which saw the local fighter snatch his WBA and IBF light-welterweight titles. The IBF admitted he was loosely affiliated to them, but insisted was not carrying out any official duties.

Yet Ameen - who denies any wrongdoing - has admitted he did get involved with WBA supervisor Michael Welsh. "I noticed one error and a subsequent error. I assisted him in correcting it without touching anything," he told BBC Sport.

"I happened to look down, I believe at the end of the third round, I looked down and I saw Mr Welsh's score," said Ameen.

"I saw, I believe, it could have been nine, nine and nine - which is 27 all day long. There was an error. It might have been 26 or 28 but he was off by a point or two.

"I happened to look down and I said 'Michael, nine times three is 27'. He said 'oh my God' and corrected himself.

"And he said 'I'm not feeling well this evening, thank you very much'."

[quote="manos de piedra"]

azania wrote:Interesting that Ameen has now admitted tampering with the scorecards to allegedly "correct" a mathmatical error. WTF.

And Peterson's team are willing to fight Khan again.......in Washington. Prepare for an increase offer to Peterson to fight in Vegas.[/quote

He didnt say he tampered with the cards. He said he brought a couple of errors to attention. Given that one of the cards had failed to initially acknowledge the point deduction against Khan and erroneously awarded the round as a 10-8 to Khan when it should not have been I dont think its a huge issue. In fact you could argue it was beneficial he was there to spot the error and his prescence actually assisted a fair outcome.

I still think the 115-110 card in favour of Khan including both points deductions is the most inaccurate card of the lot.

He wasn't there in any official capacity and forgive my cynicism but I dont see any good samaritans in boxing, especially one that celebrates in the winner's corner in a very close fight. Plus we dont know which rounds he was allegedly correcting.

Agreed that the 115-110 card was way off.

Not arguing the result manos - but did khan win that round? I cant remember which way i scored it. If he did then 9-9 should be the score no? If not then my apologies.

ShahenshahG wrote:Not arguing the result manos - but did khan win that round? I cant remember which way i scored it. If he did then 9-9 should be the score no? If not then my apologies.

I gave it a 10-8 to Peterson, as did the other two judges. I one thought Khan won the round though then it could theoretically be 9-9 too. But not 10-8 to Khan.

TopHat24/7 wrote:http://sport.uk.msn.com/ameen-i-helped-correct-scorecards

'Mystery man' Mustafa Ameen has admitted he did get involved with the scorecards during Amir Khan's controversial defeat by Lamont Peterson on December 10 but claims he was simply helping to correct mistakes.

Ameen's unexplained involvement at ringside recently became the latest in a line of complaints from Englishman Khan following his split decision loss in Washington, which saw the local fighter snatch his WBA and IBF light-welterweight titles. The IBF admitted he was loosely affiliated to them, but insisted was not carrying out any official duties.

Yet Ameen - who denies any wrongdoing - has admitted he did get involved with WBA supervisor Michael Welsh. "I noticed one error and a subsequent error. I assisted him in correcting it without touching anything," he told BBC Sport.

"I happened to look down, I believe at the end of the third round, I looked down and I saw Mr Welsh's score," said Ameen.

"I saw, I believe, it could have been nine, nine and nine - which is 27 all day long. There was an error. It might have been 26 or 28 but he was off by a point or two.

"I happened to look down and I said 'Michael, nine times three is 27'. He said 'oh my God' and corrected himself.

"And he said 'I'm not feeling well this evening, thank you very much'."

What bearing would that have on the cards though? Welsh wasnt a judge? Welshs score would not impact the fight result as he wasnt a judge. How could he have 9,9,9 either for the first 3 rounds?? Round 1 was clearly a 10-8 to Khan.

That isn't the issue manos. The issue is that he shouldn't be talking to Walsh let alone looking over his shoulder at the scorecards. I dont know what difference it made if any at all. But that he was in LP's corner after the fight lends itself to greater scrutiny. After all this is boxing.

azania wrote:That isn't the issue manos. The issue is that he shouldn't be talking to Walsh let alone looking over his shoulder at the scorecards. I dont know what difference it made if any at all. But that he was in LP's corner after the fight lends itself to greater scrutiny. After all this is boxing.

How do you know he wouldnt have been in Khans corner if Khan had won?

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:That isn't the issue manos. The issue is that he shouldn't be talking to Walsh let alone looking over his shoulder at the scorecards. I dont know what difference it made if any at all. But that he was in LP's corner after the fight lends itself to greater scrutiny. After all this is boxing.

How do you know he wouldnt have been in Khans corner if Khan had won?

I dont. Have you heard of a spectator looking over the corner of someone with the scorecard and then claiming he corrected the errors on the scoring....and was later seen celebrating with the winner?

As I said, this is boxing and when people in boxing say something, my first instinct is "why is this lying bar steward lying to me".

Probably because he s a lying bar steward - its in the job description

ShahenshahG wrote:Probably because he s a lying bar steward - its in the job description

To me he sounds like that Italian ship captain.

My god that was cringeworthy - playing it all over the news - his cowardice. He was begging to go on the rescue boat.

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:That isn't the issue manos. The issue is that he shouldn't be talking to Walsh let alone looking over his shoulder at the scorecards. I dont know what difference it made if any at all. But that he was in LP's corner after the fight lends itself to greater scrutiny. After all this is boxing.

How do you know he wouldnt have been in Khans corner if Khan had won?

I dont. Have you heard of a spectator looking over the corner of someone with the scorecard and then claiming he corrected the errors on the scoring....and was later seen celebrating with the winner?

As I said, this is boxing and when people in boxing say something, my first instinct is "why is this lying bar steward lying to me".

I think rules were broken or procedures not followed. But I dont think it had any impact on the result, the cards, the referee or ultimately what went on in the ring. I cant see it fitting in any shape or form that this guy was sent to rig the cards. The fight and result were independant of the Hatman. I dont see what he could have done to change what went on in the ring or how the fight was scored. This is not a valid reason for a rematch to be ordered or a NC declared in my view.

It looks more likely he simply used his loose IBF affiliation to help himself to a ringside seat and while there began to stick his nose in where it wasnt wanted. Yes certain rules may have been breached but I dont think it had any bearing on the outcome. I dont know how it could have. We have seen the cards, we have seen the fight, where is this guy supposed to have altered the outcome?

Ameen is talking absolute rubbish but i'm not all that bothered but must ask Manos have we seen the official cards because I haven't?

Who is Mr Welsh? The three judges were, George Hill, Valerie Dorsett and Nelson Vasquez.

Their score cards are photocopied here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/boxing/8997850/How-the-scoring-was-calculated-in-the-Amir-Khan-v-Lamont-Petersen-bout.html

The BBC Report of the "mystery mans" comments is here http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/16618791.stm

Why don't they just hand the cards straight out to buffer or whoever the announcer is - rather than getting rid of them an inviting this controversy. Stick the original cards in the media and we'll all know what happened one way or another. Then from there on the cards go straight to the announcer at the ring of the bell and he reads em out and holds em out on the camera - so we can all see for ourselves. This moaning and groaning has been ding my nut in - because much like pac/mayweather all of this carp is spilling over into other threads.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Ameen is talking absolute rubbish but i'm not all that bothered but must ask Manos have we seen the official cards because I haven't?

Dont mince your words will you.

Well he is, nothing he's said makes any sense.

I think rules were broken or procedures not followed. But I dont think it had any impact on the result, the cards, the referee or ultimately what went on in the ring. I cant see it fitting in any shape or form that this guy was sent to rig the cards. The fight and result were independant of the Hatman. I dont see what he could have done to change what went on in the ring or how the fight was scored. This is not a valid reason for a rematch to be ordered or a NC declared in my view.

It looks more likely he simply used his loose IBF affiliation to help himself to a ringside seat and while there began to stick his nose in where it wasnt wanted. Yes certain rules may have been breached but I dont think it had any bearing on the outcome. I dont know how it could have. We have seen the cards, we have seen the fight, where is this guy supposed to have altered the outcome?.

It could be something very innocent or it could be something more sinister. I dont know. Interestingly though, neither him or Walsh were prepared to give evidence making the apeal useless.

Bottom line is, he shouldn't have been there and he absolutely should not be looking over Walsh's shoulder and talking about the cards.

A NC is plainly ridiculous as I saw a contest taking place. Boxing needn't insult our inteligence anymore. A decision was reached and whatever the ills, people should live with it. Its a bitter pill for Khan and I have every sympathy with him. To me this absolutely stinks and dont blame Khan for boycotting the IBF.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Well he is, nothing he's said makes any sense.

It made perfect sense, but to me it was a pack of lies. Surprisingly it took him 2 weeks to come up with that story.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Well he is, nothing he's said makes any sense.

It made perfect sense, but to me it was a pack of lies. Surprisingly it took him 2 weeks to come up with that story.

Who could possibly have been scored three nines in the first three rounds, neither of them, it's a complete impossibility.