Losers

First topic message reminder :

Why do Brits like losers? You worship losers and give them huge praise. Look at Bruno. More popular after losing to Witherspoon, Smith and even more popular after getting his rear handed to him by Tyson.

Eubank is another. Not very popular even after extremely brilliant displays against Benn and Watson but became more popular after losing. The adjective "brave loser" must have been coined for the Brits.

Contrast that with Naz who was like Marmite and Eubank during his pomp. Any boxer displaying a winning mentality is automatically called arrogant, not humble and many will be baying for some Johnny Foreigner to KTFO of him.

Calzaghe is not Mr Popular even though he is britains only undefeated boxer. Too many people criticise his record, pick holes at him, criticise his social life yet few praise him for being a winner.

Instead you worship Bruno and his ilk. Sad but true.

Richard Dunne got a hero's welcome after getting mullered by Ali. I mean a hero's welcome. This guy spent as much time on his behind than on his feet. Yet he was called a brave loser.

What is it about you brits that makes you worship and isolise losers?

Whoever said "its the taking part that matters" came second in my opinnion.

oxring wrote:Wasn't that just because Chaka realised that when you throw long spears at the enemy - they can throw them back - thus inventing the assegai?

Given how revolutionary those tactics were - you can let the Shona off, surely?

For the record - I disliked Naz - probably because he was northern - but quite like Amir, although I have gone on record as describing him as a classless buffoon when he behaves like one.

Chaka also used the bullhorn approach to encircle his enemies and lure them into the middle where the assegai was used. Nkosi you are doing well.

Being north of watford is enough to dislike anyone. I need a translator to understand scouse and geordie in particular.

I liked Naz. Always watched him and cheared him on. Went to see him slap up Bungu but was happy nevertheless (no nationalism here except for rugby). But I dont get this classless stuff. It doesn't bother me. In fact I want a boxer to say he was robbed whenever he loses even if that loss is not contensious. But dont use a hurt pinkie for an excuse. That was too much even for me.

get a grip guys theres no hate towards these boxers because of racism, not on these boards anyway, sound pathetic (you dont like my boxer so your racist (there were quite a few of them on old 606)

the reasons we have all be through time and time again. and i wouldnt call it hate, more boxing fans passing judgement on what they see and hear

khan- numerous reasons all due to him mouthing off saying stupid things
fury - looking like he has potential but so far not taking himself serious (overweight and sparring with his brother are two examples)
chisora- weighing in more than fury despite being nearly a foot smaller!!
calzaghe- stayed at home and claims everyone avoided him, could have been truely great if traveled and wasted too many years with warren feeding him bums
naz- brash at first but in the end most people i know liked him
eubank-similar to naz

so wheres all this racism and hate?

manos de piedra wrote:I dont think the criticisms of Khan are anything unusual. The arguments for the race card are flimsy. Khan isnt as popular as Hatton..... therefore it must be race. Few fighters have been as popular as Hatton its a ridiculous benchmark to choose.

I guess criticisms of Haye or DeGale must be thinly disguise racism hidden behind their percieved arrogance. Haye wears a Cypriot flag on his shorts after all.

That's not the issue at all. Witter wasn't as popular as Hatton but had nothing to do with race. Hatton did everything to avoid fighting him. But no-one blamed Witter's ethnicity.

Hatred for Khan is OTT. Whatever he says people seem to want to twist it to suit their own ends. A prime example is when he said he wanted to fight Floyd. His arrigance was talked about. People said he hadn't earned it. He was criticised for saying he would not fight Manny.

Haye wearing the Cypriot flag was not used to bash him with. Neither was Witter wearing the Jamaican colours. Why single out Khan's shorts and gumshield? His brother decides to represent Pakistan because he wasn't selected for team England and UK. That is also questioned. Yet the english cricket team is a Proteus B team

Criticism of DeGale was more to do with a social critique of youth culture. He enter's the ring to funky house music, talks in a street language etc. Fact is that many london kids of all ethnicities talk that way. Bruv, blud, bredrin etc etc etc.

I dont see where the hatred of Kahn is OTT. Proportionately its no different to Haye, Calzaghe, DeGale in my view. Most of the criticisms I read of him are reasonable enough without any apparent agenda.

If I had to pick a guy that I think gets an unreasonable amount of criticism on here I would say its probably Pacquaio. But I dont think its anything to do with race.

manos de piedra wrote:I dont see where the hatred of Kahn is OTT. Proportionately its no different to Haye, Calzaghe, DeGale in my view. Most of the criticisms I read of him are reasonable enough without any apparent agenda.

If I had to pick a guy that I think gets an unreasonable amount of criticism on here I would say its probably Pacquaio. But I dont think its anything to do with race.

That's a matter of opinion. But some posters here seem to have an agenda when it comes to Khan. If he does one thing no matter how innocuous he will get criticised with no rationality. But that's just my take. Proportionally is more severe and more frequent than Haye and DeGale.

I believe a lot of it is due to his race. That's because of its severity and frequency and from the same people. Pity that there aren't more boxers of Pakistani/sub-continent origin to make a more valid comparison.

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I dont see where the hatred of Kahn is OTT. Proportionately its no different to Haye, Calzaghe, DeGale in my view. Most of the criticisms I read of him are reasonable enough without any apparent agenda.

If I had to pick a guy that I think gets an unreasonable amount of criticism on here I would say its probably Pacquaio. But I dont think its anything to do with race.

That's a matter of opinion. But some posters here seem to have an agenda when it comes to Khan. If he does one thing no matter how innocuous he will get criticised with no rationality. But that's just my take. Proportionally is more severe and more frequent than Haye and DeGale.

I believe a lot of it is due to his race. That's because of its severity and frequency and from the same people. Pity that there aren't more boxers of Pakistani/sub-continent origin to make a more valid comparison.

Some posters might not like Khan, there are one or two I can think of that seem to have it in for him especially. But I dont see why race should be consiered the primary cause. There are lots of posters on here that have their favourite fighters and fighters they dislike that results in less than impartial criticism/favouritism. Some would accuse you of having an agenda against Marciano. I would assume its not because he was white or Italian American.

You do put your foot in it sometimes Manos.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You do put your foot in it sometimes Manos.

I know its a risky move, but felt like it best illustrated the point.

manos de piedra wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You do put your foot in it sometimes Manos.

I know its a risky move, but felt like it best illustrated the point.

You can console yourself with that knowledge when you're still sat here at three in the morning.

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I dont see where the hatred of Kahn is OTT. Proportionately its no different to Haye, Calzaghe, DeGale in my view. Most of the criticisms I read of him are reasonable enough without any apparent agenda.

If I had to pick a guy that I think gets an unreasonable amount of criticism on here I would say its probably Pacquaio. But I dont think its anything to do with race.

That's a matter of opinion. But some posters here seem to have an agenda when it comes to Khan. If he does one thing no matter how innocuous he will get criticised with no rationality. But that's just my take. Proportionally is more severe and more frequent than Haye and DeGale.

I believe a lot of it is due to his race. That's because of its severity and frequency and from the same people. Pity that there aren't more boxers of Pakistani/sub-continent origin to make a more valid comparison.

Some posters might not like Khan, there are one or two I can think of that seem to have it in for him especially. But I dont see why race should be consiered the primary cause. There are lots of posters on here that have their favourite fighters and fighters they dislike that results in less than impartial criticism/favouritism. Some would accuse you of having an agenda against Marciano. I would assume its not because he was white or Italian American.

That may be the case, but I just wonder why the severity. I can speak personally in that I have an utter contempt for Patterson. That's because of what he said and the type of person he is. I have described him as someone's uncle and I stand by that. As for Rocky, I have said many times that I believe him to be a thorough gentleman and one who didn't play the race game at a time when racism was the norm. A great man if there ever was one. I criticise his boxing and will maintain and believe that the reason why he is held in such high esteem as a boxer has little to do with his ability but much to do with his ethnicity. Society and scribes described this man because he was undefeated as an unbeatable force of nature who would not be denied. His elevation to superhuman standard occurred after his death and when america was wondering when it will get its next white hope.

Why do you think Reagan put a phone in Cooney's dressing room so he could speak to him after he fought Holmes (assuming he could win) but not one in Holmes' dressing room? I'll also add that the boxers who were in the middle of racist fights (Schmelling, Rocky, Cooney, Quarry) were far removed from being racists. All were thoroughly honorable men.

And I dont like Italian Americans anyway. Go to New York and Little Italy and you'll know why. Badda bing! And ask for a coffee. For one I cant understand what they call coffee there (coorfee) and I have to ask for milk in it.

Do wonder where you make these things up sometimes.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Do wonder where you make these things up sometimes.

Ha. From a wide variety of sources.

Thought so.

Yeah but I have experienced many posters that appear to have irrational hatred for one boxer or another. I just dont think race comes into play in the vast majority of cases.

There have been threads on here that have found almost cringeworthy in their bias and unfairness against the likes of Pacquiao, Cotto, Mayweather, Calzaghe, Klitschko, Duran, Ali etc I dont think the ones about Khan are set apart on a racial basis. Its happened to many fighters and will continue to do so.

Have to say Manos - I'm a little suspicious that the hatred of Pacquiao has a little to do with race. We don't expect the p4p#1 to come from SE Asia.

manos de piedra wrote:Yeah but I have experienced many posters that appear to have irrational hatred for one boxer or another. I just dont think race comes into play in the vast majority of cases.

There have been threads on here that have found almost cringeworthy in their bias and unfairness against the likes of Pacquiao, Cotto, Mayweather, Calzaghe, Klitschko, Duran, Ali etc I dont think the ones about Khan are set apart on a racial basis. Its happened to many fighters and will continue to do so.

Perhaps. Perhaps some just want to make OTT remarks to get attention.

oxring wrote:Have to say Manos - I'm a little suspicious that the hatred of Pacquiao has a little to do with race. We don't expect the p4p#1 to come from SE Asia.

Bloody hell.

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:Have to say Manos - I'm a little suspicious that the hatred of Pacquiao has a little to do with race. We don't expect the p4p#1 to come from SE Asia.

Bloody hell.

Don't try telling me I've shocked you...

(for the record, I wasn't really thinking about the criticisms on here - most of that is just the standard "anti-hype" reaction)

Was more thinking eastsideboxing/youtube. I'd post links to back this up - but they're full of really, really vile abuse. So I won't. Google it - and you'll find it.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:Have to say Manos - I'm a little suspicious that the hatred of Pacquiao has a little to do with race. We don't expect the p4p#1 to come from SE Asia.

Bloody hell.

Don't try telling me I've shocked you...

(for the record, I wasn't really thinking about the criticisms on here - most of that is just the standard "anti-hype" reaction)

Was more thinking eastsideboxing/youtube. I'd post links to back this up - but they're full of really, really vile abuse. So I won't. Google it - and you'll find it.

I've read some of the,. Going by that source, you should read some of the heat Khan gets. Vile and nasty overt racist carp. I stopped reading the comments.

Khan gets a lot on there, no question - however, the anti-Manny stuff seems more vile (to me at least).

I'm quite naive to things on other sites as this is the only place I discuss boxing but judge perceptions based on the opinions of boxing fans not online trolls.

oxring wrote:Have to say Manos - I'm a little suspicious that the hatred of Pacquiao has a little to do with race. We don't expect the p4p#1 to come from SE Asia.

Ive never felt that at all. Pacquiao was very popular at the lower weights. I think the bulk of it has to do with his rivalry with Mayweather and the need for the two sets of fans to score points off each other. Another factor is Arum who increasingly is being seen as the root of all evil in boxing. I wouldnt be naive enough to dismiss race entirely. But I think its way way down the list of reasons, as I think it is with Khan.

Both way oxy - Manny Khan Floyd. Its where the nationilistic stuff comes in. People for and against Manny, Khan, anywhere where there is a nationalistic support there are racists. Britain has less because we don't tolerate it and openly mock those who do. In other - even european countries its considered the norm to call a black person a ni**er or a chinese a ch**k etc etc - was shocked when I went over to germany/italy/france for two weeks on a european tour and saw it happen and worse the victims just brushed it off as if it was a normal occurence and advised me to do the same.

manos de piedra wrote:

oxring wrote:Have to say Manos - I'm a little suspicious that the hatred of Pacquiao has a little to do with race. We don't expect the p4p#1 to come from SE Asia.

Ive never felt that at all. Pacquiao was very popular at the lower weights. I think the bulk of it has to do with his rivalry with Mayweather and the need for the two sets of fans to score points off each other. Another factor is Arum who increasingly is being seen as the root of all evil in boxing. I wouldnt be naive enough to dismiss race entirely. But I think its way way down the list of reasons, as I think it is with Khan.

Maybe - but its sad that the first recourse (seems to me at least) was to mock Manny for his racial origin - rather than his fistic limitations.

Its all a bit pathetic really. Seems these days one can't just be a boxing fan - even on here sometimes (ref pbf's rant at Fists of the other day) - one has to be in a faction. Impartiality is a rarity.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:He's Seth Efrican...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkTnc3FfcEw

;-)

Classic stuff. Never seen that before.

Glad you enjoyed it. I particularly love the extra big-game animal being added at the end of every verse.

Maybe I'm going soft - but of all the articles you've posted on here - I reckon this is your best. Commendations sir.

From my perspective - surely if a boxer is winning that's all that matters?

Tyson Fury receives an incredible amount of shtick on here. Thus far, he hasn't lost a fight. He talks a lot of trash and he comes out and tries hard. So why the hate? Is it his gypsy background? If so - that's racism. Is it that he talks himself to be better than he is? So why not hate on Haye during his HW reign. Or Hatton in the run up to the Floyd fight/during his WBU reign.

Its all a bit strange really.

Gypsy isn't a race, it's a lifestyle choice. Unless you mean ethnic Romany Gypsies, which Fury isn't.

And Az, a lot of the vitriol reserved for Khan on here (from me for example) is relatively minor only to be exasperated by your refusal to allow anyone to say a bad word about him or dislike him just for being a bit of a numpty.

It's not racist, I don't care what country he wants to honour on his shorts or about his family's ethnic heritage. I barely even consider him Pakistani, he was born in Britain, raised in Britain, speaks with a British accent (albeit an 'orrible northern one) and represented Britain (excellently) at the Olympics. He's a Brit with Pakistani parents, in the same way I'm a Brit with Irish parents.

I like him as a boxer, I just think he's a bit of a prat.

TopHat

In another thread I have described Khan as being thick (response to rowley). I have said that I back LP to win a rematch. I have stated that Khan is not as good as he thinks he is. Questioned his traiing etc. So where you get this refusal by me to allow criticism if him is ridiculous.

Now granted that he is thick, do you believe he has the intelligence to take this type of case forward or do you think he is being led by people with more brain power ie Schaefer and the lawyers of GBP?

I don't believe he is driving it, but I think he is fully complicit and therefore shares the blame for the debacle.

TopHat24/7 wrote:I don't believe he is driving it, but I think he is fully complicit and therefore shares the blame for the debacle.

Complicit in what way? I believe he's just told what is going on and left at that. He makes his mind up and tells everyone on twitter. I dont believe any other boxer in his position would have acted any differently. Its ok for others to say Khan should distance himself from GBP in this issue. But lets not forget that they are the biggest promotional company out there and have earmarked him for great things. If he does something to rock the boat, his career may head down so fast it will make Jordan look like an amateur.

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:I don't believe he is driving it, but I think he is fully complicit and therefore shares the blame for the debacle.

Complicit in what way? I believe he's just told what is going on and left at that. He makes his mind up and tells everyone on twitter. I dont believe any other boxer in his position would have acted any differently. Its ok for others to say Khan should distance himself from GBP in this issue. But lets not forget that they are the biggest promotional company out there and have earmarked him for great things. If he does something to rock the boat, his career may head down so fast it will make Jordan look like an amateur.

He is not a slave.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:I don't believe he is driving it, but I think he is fully complicit and therefore shares the blame for the debacle.

Complicit in what way? I believe he's just told what is going on and left at that. He makes his mind up and tells everyone on twitter. I dont believe any other boxer in his position would have acted any differently. Its ok for others to say Khan should distance himself from GBP in this issue. But lets not forget that they are the biggest promotional company out there and have earmarked him for great things. If he does something to rock the boat, his career may head down so fast it will make Jordan look like an amateur.

He is not a slave.

Never said he was. But a boxer is hardly going to be calling the shots whwen it comes to matters like this. Especially one who isn't the brightest spark.

They employ advisors and lawyers who are hardly experts in boxing but are experts in other matters. Often they conflict with boxing but always go where the money is.

Look at the no rematch clause in the contract for example. Amateurish mistake.

A fighter appealing rather than just moaning about a close loss is largely unprecedented, similarly a fighter being on PPV before he has won or even fought for a world title is largely unprecedented. Khan does have this unlucky habit of being involved in acts that make him massively unpopular with fans totally against his will doesn't he.

Think you're right, Jeff. And every time you think he may have turned over a new leaf some new issue tends to rear its head...

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:I don't believe he is driving it, but I think he is fully complicit and therefore shares the blame for the debacle.

Complicit in what way? I believe he's just told what is going on and left at that. He makes his mind up and tells everyone on twitter. I dont believe any other boxer in his position would have acted any differently. Its ok for others to say Khan should distance himself from GBP in this issue. But lets not forget that they are the biggest promotional company out there and have earmarked him for great things. If he does something to rock the boat, his career may head down so fast it will make Jordan look like an amateur.

He is not a slave.

Never said he was. But a boxer is hardly going to be calling the shots whwen it comes to matters like this. Especially one who isn't the brightest spark.

They employ advisors and lawyers who are hardly experts in boxing but are experts in other matters. Often they conflict with boxing but always go where the money is.

Look at the no rematch clause in the contract for example. Amateurish mistake.

He either has a choice, or he doesn't. If he doesn't, he is a slave. I think he does.

If my boss asked me to do something unprofessional/unethical I would have a choice to make, keep my job/career and protect my bonus and do it, or chose not to do it and depart from my employers services and go unemployed for a while while I try to find a new job and pay my mortgage. Freedom of choice - a central tenet of modern democratic society.

I would further note that Khan is actually in the more enviable position of being the employer not the employee in his situation.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:I don't believe he is driving it, but I think he is fully complicit and therefore shares the blame for the debacle.

Complicit in what way? I believe he's just told what is going on and left at that. He makes his mind up and tells everyone on twitter. I dont believe any other boxer in his position would have acted any differently. Its ok for others to say Khan should distance himself from GBP in this issue. But lets not forget that they are the biggest promotional company out there and have earmarked him for great things. If he does something to rock the boat, his career may head down so fast it will make Jordan look like an amateur.

He is not a slave.

Never said he was. But a boxer is hardly going to be calling the shots whwen it comes to matters like this. Especially one who isn't the brightest spark.

They employ advisors and lawyers who are hardly experts in boxing but are experts in other matters. Often they conflict with boxing but always go where the money is.

Look at the no rematch clause in the contract for example. Amateurish mistake.

He either has a choice, or he doesn't. If he doesn't, he is a slave. I think he does.

If my boss asked me to do something unprofessional/unethical I would have a choice to make, keep my job/career and protect my bonus and do it, or chose not to do it and depart from my employers services and go unemployed for a while while I try to find a new job and pay my mortgage. Freedom of choice - a central tenet of modern democratic society.

I would further note that Khan is actually in the more enviable position of being the employer not the employee in his situation.

Your assumption is based on boxing being an honourable industry. Far more intelligent boxers than Khan have seen their careers stalled by promoters because they didn't tow the line. GBP being the biggest will ensure that Khan only fight B level guys at best and gets paid a pittance. Its not like he can just walk away from a contract because he doesn't like it. He will be dragged through the courts and his career will stall.

I believe boxing makes the mafia look like saints in comparison and any boxer who gets too big for their boots can easily get frozen out. Its happened before when they get too uppity.

Boxers may employ these guys, but in actuality its the other way around. Why do you think Holmes said boxing is where Lions are scared of Rats. Who do you think the rats are and why do you think he said it?

rowley wrote:A fighter appealing rather than just moaning about a close loss is largely unprecedented, similarly a fighter being on PPV before he has won or even fought for a world title is largely unprecedented. Khan does have this unlucky habit of being involved in acts that make him massively unpopular with fans totally against his will doesn't he.

Has Khan ever said he wanted the decision over-turned or he wanted a NC? Also he is not the first to appeal a decision or an outcome of a fight.

I dont know what acts he has done to make him massively unpopular. I take whatever boxers say with a pinch of salt and try not to analyse what they say. Cut the kid some slack. He's hardly going to start quoting Hamlet.

azania wrote:

Has Khan ever said he wanted the decision over-turned or he wanted a NC?

From the Guardian "We are trying to get the result overturned; if not, then a rematch is going to happen," Khan said in an interview at a gym in his home town of Bolton. "Even if the result does get turned over, I would still give Lamont Peterson a deserved re-match. We'll do it somewhere neutral, not in DC or in the UK. Somewhere like Vegas … where it will be neutral judging and a neutral referee."

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

Has Khan ever said he wanted the decision over-turned or he wanted a NC?

From the Guardian "We are trying to get the result overturned; if not, then a rematch is going to happen," Khan said in an interview at a gym in his home town of Bolton. "Even if the result does get turned over, I would still give Lamont Peterson a deserved re-match. We'll do it somewhere neutral, not in DC or in the UK. Somewhere like Vegas … where it will be neutral judging and a neutral referee."

"We". Regardless, its still a stupid thing to say or to do. Shows the kid isn't the brightest tool. Also proves that this is GBP led.

Pretty classy words towards Lamont though.

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

Has Khan ever said he wanted the decision over-turned or he wanted a NC?

From the Guardian "We are trying to get the result overturned; if not, then a rematch is going to happen," Khan said in an interview at a gym in his home town of Bolton. "Even if the result does get turned over, I would still give Lamont Peterson a deserved re-match. We'll do it somewhere neutral, not in DC or in the UK. Somewhere like Vegas … where it will be neutral judging and a neutral referee."

He didn't say that, he was miming and ODLH's hand was up his arris making his lips move with Schaeffer providing the audio.

It does not in any way prove it is GBP led it proves they are involved, but it also proves Khan is equally as involved which is all anyone has been arguing unless you are now going to tell us he is using we in the sense of not including myself in any way shape or form. All irrelevant anyway because your original comment which prompted me to dig out the quote was has Khan ever said he wanted the decision overturned, this more than suggests he has and does unless you are going to tell me he is trying to do something he doesn't actually want.

Let me see if I understand your view point Az...

Khan never asked for the decision to be overturned, which Rowley has proven to be incorrect.

From that quote you have established that the whole thing is being run by GBP and Khan has nothing to do with it. He doesnt want the fight declared a NC. Khan is an innocent and unfortunate casualty is the politics GBP are involving themselves in?

Do you deliberately make yourself out to be clearly wrong to provoke an argument.

Dear god.

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

Has Khan ever said he wanted the decision over-turned or he wanted a NC?

From the Guardian "We are trying to get the result overturned; if not, then a rematch is going to happen," Khan said in an interview at a gym in his home town of Bolton. "Even if the result does get turned over, I would still give Lamont Peterson a deserved re-match. We'll do it somewhere neutral, not in DC or in the UK. Somewhere like Vegas … where it will be neutral judging and a neutral referee."

"We". Regardless, its still a stupid thing to say or to do. Shows the kid isn't the brightest tool. Also proves that this is GBP led.

Pretty classy words towards Lamont though.

Most heavily caveated 'classy words' I've ever read in that case. What he's actually saying is, "Yeh, fair play, but you only won because it was in DC, not a neutral judge and not a neutral referee". Mmmm, real classy.......

johnson2 wrote:Let me see if I understand your view point Az...

Khan never asked for the decision to be overturned, which Rowley has proven to be incorrect.

From that quote you have established that the whole thing is being run by GBP and Khan has nothing to do with it. He doesnt want the fight declared a NC. Khan is an innocent and unfortunate casualty is the politics GBP are involving themselves in?

Do you deliberately make yourself out to be clearly wrong to provoke an argument.

Dear god.

For one thats the first I've heard or seen Khan asking for that. I'd like to know when he said that. As he did say that I'll agree its pretty stupid but not surprising coming from him.

Secondly do you assume that this whole saga is being led by Khan? Do you think he marched into GBP offices demanding that they appeal the decision? Its more like GBP told he that they F'ed up and didn't insert a rematch clause so we'll appeal. Gave Khan some bs talk and he followed.

If you believe this was instigated by Khan you are giving his intelligence more credit than its proven to deserve.

Give some credit here tophat. He has praised LP on numerous occassions for the way he fought on that night. Sure he believes that LP won due to dodgy reffing. I believe that also and so do most other boxing writwers who mostly say the points deductions were unwarranted.

Would that have happened in Vegas? I doubt that very much. So yes, LP was the beneficiary of a lucky decision.

You do have a penchant for wringing the last drop out of a stone don't you, az?

Let's just, for a moment, look at this stone cold.

1. The referee, presumably possessing the required credentials, was entrusted to interpret the rules according to his experience.

2. So were the judges.

3. Khan's responsibility was to fight, which he did, and the expectation was that he would win comfortably, which he did not.

4. Peterson's responsibility was to fight, which he did.

5. The referee made judgements during the fight, which were clear for all to understand.

6. The fighters made judgements during the fight.

7. The judges made judgements during the fight.

8. At the end, all these judgements were assessed and collated, and the judgement was that Peterson won.

9. Khan and his team judged things differently. NOT THEIR JOB.

10. Khan and his team are the only ones whining like spoiled brats.

Had he been so superior as he and his team think ( another judgement, ) he wouldn't have found himself in a nip and tuck situation. Maybe he and his team need to check THEIR OWN judgement of his abilities in comparison to those of his rivals.

azania wrote:Give some credit here tophat. He has praised LP on numerous occassions for the way he fought on that night. Sure he believes that LP won due to dodgy reffing. I believe that also and so do most other boxing writwers who mostly say the points deductions were unwarranted.

Would that have happened in Vegas? I doubt that very much. So yes, LP was the beneficiary of a lucky decision.

Not really azania, the praise has been pretty hollow if you read betwen the lines which I am sure you can.

Translation: Peterson fought a good fight but I won the fight, Peterson was the dirtier fighter, I was robbed, this was a stitch up job in DC where boxing shouldnt take place.

Its hardly proper praise. Hes maintaining he got robbed and cheated the entire time which and his and GBPs actions have spoken far louder than words.

And before you mention that this is overly unique to Khan, it isnt - look at the abuse DeGale and Haye received for their lack of grace in the defeats to Klitschko and Groves. It was perfectly in line with the criticism Khan is receiving for his own perceived lack of grace in accepting defeat.

Personally I like a tryer, a gutsy performance, win or lose I give them commendations for it.

azania wrote:

johnson2 wrote:Let me see if I understand your view point Az...

Khan never asked for the decision to be overturned, which Rowley has proven to be incorrect.

From that quote you have established that the whole thing is being run by GBP and Khan has nothing to do with it. He doesnt want the fight declared a NC. Khan is an innocent and unfortunate casualty is the politics GBP are involving themselves in?

Do you deliberately make yourself out to be clearly wrong to provoke an argument.

Dear god.

For one thats the first I've heard or seen Khan asking for that. I'd like to know when he said that. As he did say that I'll agree its pretty stupid but not surprising coming from him.

Secondly do you assume that this whole saga is being led by Khan? Do you think he marched into GBP offices demanding that they appeal the decision? Its more like GBP told he that they F'ed up and didn't insert a rematch clause so we'll appeal. Gave Khan some bs talk and he followed.

If you believe this was instigated by Khan you are giving his intelligence more credit than its proven to deserve.

Did Frank Warren also force him to PPV...

Lets face it, Khan is obviously complicit in what is happening and is actively driving for the decision to be changed. He moained immediately after the fight and has continued to do so ever since. Not the work of GBP along, Khan is doing more than his fair share.

Do you believe Khan himself went to Frank demanding PPV fights?

If you believe what you wrote, then fair enough. Personally I dont think Khan has the intellect, clout or ability to do anything other than fight. If you believe Khan is leading this with GBP happily tagging along, then I suggest Khan change profession and become a lawyer or something. Obviously those powers and intellect are being wasted on boxing.

Realise taking Frank's word on an ex fighter as gospel is always risky but he has always maintained that he put Khan on PPV so early because it was the only way he could pay him what he and his team demanded. He has always said he was against it because he knew he was not ready, a view the rumoured figures for his early PPV adventures would seem to support.

azania wrote:Do you believe Khan himself went to Frank demanding PPV fights?

If you believe what you wrote, then fair enough. Personally I dont think Khan has the intellect, clout or ability to do anything other than fight. If you believe Khan is leading this with GBP happily tagging along, then I suggest Khan change profession and become a lawyer or something. Obviously those powers and intellect are being wasted on boxing.

You dont need to be clever to demand something and make stupid comments day in, day out.