Ricky Hatton + Amir Khan live tomorrow at 8 to answer questions...

Rather timely time to ask a few questions to the fellows, especially Amir. Can field questions in advance (now!) by email and twitter:

http://www.secondsout.com/news/main-news/ask-amir-live-on-youtube-february-3

What would you ask the former world champions?

Oh dear.

To Amir: Why did you continue pushing Lamont Peterson after repeated warnings from the ref?

To Ricky: At your peak, could you have taken Khan?

Nothing to ask Khan but I would ask Ricky how he would deal with a young fighter that was struggling outside the ring like Frankie Gavin if he promoted them.

To Hatton. Why do you continually blame the ref for the loss to Floyd. Dont you think that is classless?

He doesn't blame Joe Cortez for the defeat he just says that Cortez never let him have a fair shot at Mayweather. I've never heard Ricky say he would have beat Mayweather if he had a better ref.

Joe Cortez, the inverse of Joe Cooper.

Az, that was wrong, he never said that, he did think the ref was unfair, and to be honest I don't think Cortez should have taken a point as he never received a warning for the punch at the back of th ehead, plus he broke them up very fast which isn't something Cortez does all that often to be fair. He just felt that the referee was a bit unfair on him, he never said he lost due to this.

I hope it will be an interesting Q+A that puts Amir on the spot and that hand picked, media friendly questions.

Shame I'm going to miss it!

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:He doesn't blame Joe Cortez for the defeat he just says that Cortez never let him have a fair shot at Mayweather. I've never heard Ricky say he would have beat Mayweather if he had a better ref.

Semantics. He's still criticising Cortez. He should show more class and move on dont you think. I mean that was 4 years ago. Let it go Ricky.

AlexHuckerby wrote:Az, that was wrong, he never said that, he did think the ref was unfair, and to be honest I don't think Cortez should have taken a point as he never received a warning for the punch at the back of th ehead, plus he broke them up very fast which isn't something Cortez does all that often to be fair. He just felt that the referee was a bit unfair on him, he never said he lost due to this.

And if asked he would say the same thing. Not classy at all. He is the only boxer making excuses after a loss. No other boxer does that.

Punching in the back of the head is dangerous, against the rules and worthy of an immediate point deduction. Where in the rules does it say that the ref will initially warn you if you break the rules?

azania wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:Az, that was wrong, he never said that, he did think the ref was unfair, and to be honest I don't think Cortez should have taken a point as he never received a warning for the punch at the back of th ehead, plus he broke them up very fast which isn't something Cortez does all that often to be fair. He just felt that the referee was a bit unfair on him, he never said he lost due to this.

And if asked he would say the same thing. Not classy at all. He is the only boxer making excuses after a loss. No other boxer does that.

Punching in the back of the head is dangerous, against the rules and worthy of an immediate point deduction. Where in the rules does it say that the ref will initially warn you if you break the rules?

Is that your question to Amir?

Nope. Question to Alex. He was claiming that the ref was harsh on Ricky. Same prinicples apply then.

Funny thing is, he didn't actually punch him at the back of the head, he actually hit the rope.

Was Cortez that didn't see it properly and deducted the point away.

Worthy of criticism of the referee in my view.

AlexHuckerby wrote:Funny thing is, he didn't actually punch him at the back of the head, he actually hit the rope.

Was Cortez that didn't see it properly and deducted the point away.

Worthy of criticism of the referee in my view.

It still hit his head which is against the laws of boxing and as such worthy of points deduction. In fact every infringement should be punished with a point deduction every time it happened. That'll teach em.

Show me when the glove touched the head Az? Please, show me.

Dont have access to youtube at work. What round was it again? I'll do so tonight.

Ricky was never going to beat Mayweather,but Cortez was crap that night awful refereeing.

As for hitting behind the bag of the head there would be points deducted in every fight and Bruno would have been disqualified in most of his bouts.

Question to Amir.

Why did you write to the IBF about the identity of the mystery man when Roach said he knew who he was and has known him for years?

Somebody seriously needs to stand up and start asking these types of questions instead of constantly massaging ego's.

Nico the gman wrote:Ricky was never going to beat Mayweather,but Cortez was crap that night awful refereeing.

As for hitting behind the bag of the head there would be points deducted in every fight and Bruno would have been disqualified in most of his bouts.

Still against the rules and only dubious reffing........

The Galveston Giant wrote:Question to Amir.

Why did you write to the IBF about the identity of the mystery man when Roach said he knew who he was and has known him for years?

Somebody seriously needs to stand up and start asking these types of questions instead of constantly massaging ego's.

GBP wrote the letter.

Round 5 or 6 or so, the glove never touches the head, it loosk like it from the angle where it happens live but you see on the replay (And more from the ref's point of view incidentally) that the glove never touches the head.

Just admit for ocne Az, you were wrong. Though I agree that hitting behind the back of the head isn't right and worthy of point deductions, though I think very harsh to do it with no warnings, especially in Ricky's case, seeing as he didn't hit him.

AlexHuckerby wrote:Round 5 or 6 or so, the glove never touches the head, it loosk like it from the angle where it happens live but you see on the replay (And more from the ref's point of view incidentally) that the glove never touches the head.

Just admit for ocne Az, you were wrong. Though I agree that hitting behind the back of the head isn't right and worthy of point deductions, though I think very harsh to do it with no warnings, especially in Ricky's case, seeing as he didn't hit him.

It wasn't the first time he went to hit at the back of the head was it. Ref was within his rights and the rules to deduct a point. He is lucky the ref didn't DQ him.

Why make up rules as you go along?

Technically you can be deducted points without warning if the offence is serious enough (ala Ortiz v Mayweather). As pushing is less serious a warning was fair, repeat offences need to be punished.

Dave Paris dq'd a fighter for holding a few year back, doesnt make it wrong as the fella was constantly holding, just like Amir was pushing.

azania wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:Round 5 or 6 or so, the glove never touches the head, it loosk like it from the angle where it happens live but you see on the replay (And more from the ref's point of view incidentally) that the glove never touches the head.

Just admit for ocne Az, you were wrong. Though I agree that hitting behind the back of the head isn't right and worthy of point deductions, though I think very harsh to do it with no warnings, especially in Ricky's case, seeing as he didn't hit him.

It wasn't the first time he went to hit at the back of the head was it. Ref was within his rights and the rules to deduct a point. He is lucky the ref didn't DQ him.

Why make up rules as you go along?

Why are you supporting following the rules against Hatton but attacking the enforcement of them against Khan? Is this you trying to 'redress the balance' of all the apparent 'Khan-haters' on here?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:Round 5 or 6 or so, the glove never touches the head, it loosk like it from the angle where it happens live but you see on the replay (And more from the ref's point of view incidentally) that the glove never touches the head.

Just admit for ocne Az, you were wrong. Though I agree that hitting behind the back of the head isn't right and worthy of point deductions, though I think very harsh to do it with no warnings, especially in Ricky's case, seeing as he didn't hit him.

It wasn't the first time he went to hit at the back of the head was it. Ref was within his rights and the rules to deduct a point. He is lucky the ref didn't DQ him.

Why make up rules as you go along?

Why are you supporting following the rules against Hatton but attacking the enforcement of them against Khan? Is this you trying to 'redress the balance' of all the apparent 'Khan-haters' on here?

What Az is trying to do is wind everybody up, but me I ain't biting.

Does every thread that mentions Khan now have to disolve into this?

Will Khan answer questions about Isaac Newton?

superflyweight wrote:Will Khan answer questions about Isaac Newton?

Haha, don't start that again!

rowley wrote:Does every thread that mentions Khan now have to disolve into this?

Yep, in the same way every Marciano thread ends up going one way.

Spot the link...?

Yeah we don't want kev to change his name again!

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:Round 5 or 6 or so, the glove never touches the head, it loosk like it from the angle where it happens live but you see on the replay (And more from the ref's point of view incidentally) that the glove never touches the head.

Just admit for ocne Az, you were wrong. Though I agree that hitting behind the back of the head isn't right and worthy of point deductions, though I think very harsh to do it with no warnings, especially in Ricky's case, seeing as he didn't hit him.

It wasn't the first time he went to hit at the back of the head was it. Ref was within his rights and the rules to deduct a point. He is lucky the ref didn't DQ him.

Why make up rules as you go along?

Why are you supporting following the rules against Hatton but attacking the enforcement of them against Khan? Is this you trying to 'redress the balance' of all the apparent 'Khan-haters' on here?

You guys should ask yourself that question. YOu want the rules applied so dont complain when the ref does just that.....especially when its a boxer you like. YOu cant say the ref is being harsh in applying the rules to one boxer but ok to another. Rules are rules and apply them evenly. Cut the cherry picking stuff out.

Nico the gman wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:Round 5 or 6 or so, the glove never touches the head, it loosk like it from the angle where it happens live but you see on the replay (And more from the ref's point of view incidentally) that the glove never touches the head.

Just admit for ocne Az, you were wrong. Though I agree that hitting behind the back of the head isn't right and worthy of point deductions, though I think very harsh to do it with no warnings, especially in Ricky's case, seeing as he didn't hit him.

It wasn't the first time he went to hit at the back of the head was it. Ref was within his rights and the rules to deduct a point. He is lucky the ref didn't DQ him.

Why make up rules as you go along?

Why are you supporting following the rules against Hatton but attacking the enforcement of them against Khan? Is this you trying to 'redress the balance' of all the apparent 'Khan-haters' on here?

What Az is trying to do is wind everybody up, but me I ain't biting.

Nope. Just exposing hypocracy, double standards and irrationality.

Except as Alex has already pointed out, 1) Hatton didn't actually transgress as the punch never landed; and 2) Was never warned, unlike Khan who was repeatedly. Therefore the two situations aren't actually the same.

But why let the facts get in the way of a good story, hey, Az.....

TopHat24/7 wrote:Except as Alex has already pointed out, 1) Hatton didn't actually transgress as the punch never landed; and 2) Was never warned, unlike Khan who was repeatedly. Therefore the two situations aren't actually the same.

But why let the facts get in the way of a good story, hey, Az.....

Where is it written in the rules that the boxer who transgressed has to be warned?

I said it was a difference between the two circumstances you were trying to infer a parallel between, not talking about what was right or wrong.

TopHat24/7 wrote:I said it was a difference between the two circumstances you were trying to infer a parallel between, not talking about what was right or wrong.

Both were guilty of breaking the rules. Both punished according to the rules. Why make allowances for Hatton?

Never said they should. But equally the situations are different, arguably materially so, therefore I see no reason to compare them.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Never said they should. But equally the situations are different, arguably materially so, therefore I see no reason to compare them.

Can you show the point deduction for Hatton?

'Show'?

[quote="TopHat24/7"]'Show'?[/quote

YOu tube or something. I cant find it.

Not sure what you're getting at really, and I have no real interest pandering to it.