Breaking news: Golden Boy cancel Khan IBF appeal

First topic message reminder :

No info. as yet as to why.

azania wrote:I understand what you are saying, but my point remains. Boxers never get points deducted for pushing. It is that simple. That the ref decided to apply the letter of the law in this case is very harsh and in most cases unwarranted. It wasn't as though it was excessive either.

Also realise that I am not some Khan nuthugger. Totally objective here. But watch any Floyd fight, any ali fight and in particular any Foreman fight, you will see the amount of pushing that goes on. It makes Khan look amateurish in comparison.

pretty sure mayweather was deducted a point for pushing castillo.

When others so readily get away with something you have every reason to find it dubious when you yourself get points deducted, the major issue many have with Cortez' handling of Hatton in the Mayweather fight is how he officiated the subsequent fight between Hopkins and Calzaghe.

Khan has just tweeted that Peterson is now going to appeal the decision by the WBA.

hampo171 wrote:Khan has just tweeted that Peterson is now going to appeal the decision by the WBA.

It was on the BBC news and described as a farce.

Just have a rematch in a neutral venue (Switzerland) and settle it there.

azania wrote:

hampo171 wrote:Khan has just tweeted that Peterson is now going to appeal the decision by the WBA.

It was on the BBC news and described as a farce.

Just have a rematch in a neutral venue (Switzerland) and settle it there.

I would rather there was no rematch. I don't see anything wrong with the decision to dock points as it has happened to mayweather in the past so it is an offence which has been used to dock points before.

Of course you wouldn't see anything wrong. You're hardly impartial when it comes to Khan.

You'll find Az some find it hard to understand the word inconsistency.

All refereeing has occasional inconsistency, never heard of any other sports garnering rematches off the back of it.

A rematch seems logical based on the closeness of the fight but can understand Khans frustration at the refereeing in the same way Calzaghe and Hatton were.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:A rematch seems logical based on the closeness of the fight but can understand Khans frustration at the refereeing in the same way Calzaghe and Hatton were.

where was the rematch for maidana? that was a close fight.

It wasn't a fight that could have gone either way, the winner was clear for all to see.

I think people understand the inconsistency. I just dont think many people agree it warrants the ordering of a rematch.

I think rematches should only be ordered if something is interpreted incorrectly or inherently wrong. In this case I dont think it is. It was merely a referees interpretation of the rules, which by the letter of the law was actually justified. To order a rematch undermines this and directly or indirectly suggests the referee was incorrect for implementing the rules. If so, then it is the rules that need to be changed or more appropriate guidelines givens.

The sport, as with many sports where interpretation comes into play, is plagued with inconsistencies. Ordering rematches for it is a dangerous precedent to set and not one which I think was made with the good of the sport in mind.

A rematch would be great if both parties could agree to it. But I dont think the grounds are there to justify expressly ordering one.

The bottom line is that were it not for the points deductions, Khan would still be champion and we would be criticising him for not knocking out Peterson. Were the points deductions within the rules. Yes. Were they harshly administered and justifiable? In the eyes of most neutral observers with an ounce of objectivity, they were not. The WBA probably recognises that and also recognises that Khan is a bigger cash cow that Peterson.

azania wrote:The bottom line is that were it not for the points deductions, Khan would still be champion and we would be criticising him for not knocking out Peterson. Were the points deductions within the rules. Yes. Were they harshly administered and justifiable? In the eyes of most neutral observers with an ounce of objectivity, they were not. The WBA probably recognises that and also recognises that Khan is a bigger cash cow that Peterson.

And therein lies the problem.

Do you believe that the WBA would have ordered a rematch had Khan been the beneficiary of a victory due to Peterson's being docked points for pushing?

I don't.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:The bottom line is that were it not for the points deductions, Khan would still be champion and we would be criticising him for not knocking out Peterson. Were the points deductions within the rules. Yes. Were they harshly administered and justifiable? In the eyes of most neutral observers with an ounce of objectivity, they were not. The WBA probably recognises that and also recognises that Khan is a bigger cash cow that Peterson.

And therein lies the problem.

Do you believe that the WBA would have ordered a rematch had Khan been the beneficiary of a victory due to Peterson's being docked points for pushing?

I don't.

Of course I dont. But there would be public pressure on Khan for a rematch and I think he would have granted him one.

I have a general rule of thumb when it comes to boxing. If they (organisations) tell me in the middle of a thunderstorm that its wet outside, I will go out and check for myself.

Twaddle Az and as always, you know it.

The result of the affair - Arum makes it clear whose been picked as "next one up for Pac and Bradley". If it isn't Peterson - Peterson fights Khan for both belts. If it is Peterson and he's making more money from Arum - Peterson ditches the WBA and Khan is left with a title shot - albeit one unworthily obtained.

The WBA have ordered a rematch for nothing more than Khan's monetary value - you yourself admit this. The fact that you can defend the decision is astonishing beyond belief (almost). It is morally repugnant - even by boxing's standards.

Saw some comments from Khan today he posted on Twitter and then quickly deleted about why he withdrew from the IBF appeal where he basically said they are all in it together. Am no expert on legal matters but without one shred of evidence to prove foul play he does seem like he getting very close to libel with comments such as that.

oxring wrote:Twaddle Az and as always, you know it.

The result of the affair - Arum makes it clear whose been picked as "next one up for Pac and Bradley". If it isn't Peterson - Peterson fights Khan for both belts. If it is Peterson and he's making more money from Arum - Peterson ditches the WBA and Khan is left with a title shot - albeit one unworthily obtained.

The WBA have ordered a rematch for nothing more than Khan's monetary value - you yourself admit this. The fact that you can defend the decision is astonishing beyond belief (almost). It is morally repugnant - even by boxing's standards.

You lost me there Oxy. I agree that the over-riding factor for ordering the rematch is Khan's value. But there is also enough controversy for ordering a rematch (more publicity and more money). There is also the factor that the controversy is surrounding a rival organisation (IBF) and the WBA want to be seen to be taking the moral high road.

I dont for one minute believe that the WBA are boing this for the good of boxing. They are doing it for the good of the WBA.

rowley wrote:Saw some comments from Khan today he posted on Twitter and then quickly deleted about why he withdrew from the IBF appeal where he basically said they are all in it together. Am no expert on legal matters but without one shred of evidence to prove foul play he does seem like he getting very close to libel with comments such as that.

Lets hope they sue him...vengeance cut from his own cloth and all that

They can't - because theyve lost the scorecards Walsh didn't want to turn up for the hearing and Ameen has just given a daft excuse that doesn't tally with the facts. Any lawyer worth his salt could rip them a new bumhole. Funny times.

I think saying "if the ref hadnt deducted points Khan would still be champion" is a very narow way of looking at it. And like Khan, it looks or blame, injustice and causation everywhere but the primary place he should be looking which is at himself - for lacking ability to fight on the inside or keep Peterson off him propely and ultimately not eing good enough. And his promoters for not having a rematch clause in place.

My sympathy for Khan is limited because firstly he did infract on the rules multiple times despite warnings. It was his own lack of basic abilty to hold, make space or fight effectively on the inside that cost him here. His own failings. Secondly, the pushes were often huge and exaggerated giving the ref little option but to warn or penalise. Case in point, look at the final round. Despite being warned already in the round, he proceeds to shove Peterson and then draw attention to it by looking at the ref. This wasnt an innoccuos little push to give himself a yard of room to slip away. It was literally a massive shove that sent Peterson half way across the ring and gave the ref little alternative but to penalise. What an incredibly stupid thing to do having been warned already in the round. The ref couldnt possibly ignore it.

So in my view, the blame lies with Khan firstly for technical failigs and secondly for stupidity. He got away with quite a bit of shoving as it happens and the times when he was penalised were because he went about it in an incredibly exaggerated manner with no subtlety.

There is now grounds to warrant ordering a rematch for me. Khan might gripe and say he was unlucky or that he idnt get the rub of the green with the ref or judges or whatever which is fine and may even be true but it doesnt translate into valid grounds for ordering a rematch.

From r3 onwards I scored the fight even. 10-8 and 10-9 Khan in the first 2 rounds meant I scored is to Khan by a round.

I have said a zillion times that Khan needs to learn to jab and keep guys at bay. In that case I agree with you.

Khan's pushing in my opinion did not warrant points deduction, let alone 2. Of course it infracts the rules. So does holding and you suggested that he does that.

I've been wathing many Ali fights of late. Look at his pushing. It made Khan's efforts seem child's play in comparison.

azania wrote:From r3 onwards I scored the fight even. 10-8 and 10-9 Khan in the first 2 rounds meant I scored is to Khan by a round.

I have said a zillion times that Khan needs to learn to jab and keep guys at bay. In that case I agree with you.

Khan's pushing in my opinion did not warrant points deduction, let alone 2. Of course it infracts the rules. So does holding and you suggested that he does that.

I've been wathing many Ali fights of late. Look at his pushing. It made Khan's efforts seem child's play in comparison.

You have to play the ref. The ref was warning him. The ref was right. Khan was pushing from as early as round 3. The ref didnt deduct a point until round 7. The point that Khan gets deducted in the final round for a ridiculous shove followed by a long look at the ref was almost giving the ref no option but to dduct a point.

It doesnt matter to me that other fighters got away with pushing. I think Foreman was very lucky to get away with it against Frazier for example. But this ref didnt and Khan continued to infract. Its not rocket science for Khan to stop doing it, or if he is doing it to stop making it so bloody obvious.

Nothing untoward happened. The ref applied the rules which Khan continued to break. There is a grey area regards pushing, holding, infighting and most refs will tolerate it to a degree. This ref was no different. He allowed Khan ample warnings and Khans continued obvious infraction meant he was forced to act on his warnings. A more subtle streetwise aproach from Khan, especially in the last round would have seen him get away with it but Im afraid it was sheer stupidity and technical ineptitude that cost him.

Its being portrayed like Khan gave two small pushes in th whole fight and was immediately deducted two points without warning. Thats nt the case at all. He was doing alot of pushing, often very obvious and exagerated shoves born out of frustration at being unable to keep Peterson away. He was warned numerous times before points were deducted. Personally I dont see the big deal about it.

The last round push was obvious. But the others were no different from other boxers in the past. As you say, Foreman was excessive in his pushing. So was Ali who leaned on opponents also.

azania wrote:The last round push was obvious. But the others were no different from other boxers in the past. As you say, Foreman was excessive in his pushing. So was Ali who leaned on opponents also.

he did over 50 pushes in the fight. There is even a youtube video of all the 50 pushes. It is clear and obvious that points should be deducted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAJvk4WAO_Q

15 pushes.

AZ following your line of reasoning in the second Dempsey Tunney fight when Dempsey put Tunney down the count was not started at the appropriate time because the ref was trying to get Dempsey to a neutral corner, this was in the rules at the time but was rarely enforced or the enforcement of it was haphazard. Does this mean the ref was wrong to make him retreat to a corner?

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:The bottom line is that were it not for the points deductions, Khan would still be champion and we would be criticising him for not knocking out Peterson. Were the points deductions within the rules. Yes. Were they harshly administered and justifiable? In the eyes of most neutral observers with an ounce of objectivity, they were not. The WBA probably recognises that and also recognises that Khan is a bigger cash cow that Peterson.

And therein lies the problem.

Do you believe that the WBA would have ordered a rematch had Khan been the beneficiary of a victory due to Peterson's being docked points for pushing?

I don't.

Of course I dont. But there would be public pressure on Khan for a rematch and I think he would have granted him one.

Of course like he would, like when he granted Maidana an immediate rema.....oh wait....!

ShahenshahG wrote:15 pushes.

15 pushes in the final round.

50 in the total fight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEpQpOU5i8w

another video

Then why does it say round 3 - round 4 - round 7 round 10 round 11 round 12?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:The bottom line is that were it not for the points deductions, Khan would still be champion and we would be criticising him for not knocking out Peterson. Were the points deductions within the rules. Yes. Were they harshly administered and justifiable? In the eyes of most neutral observers with an ounce of objectivity, they were not. The WBA probably recognises that and also recognises that Khan is a bigger cash cow that Peterson.

And therein lies the problem.

Do you believe that the WBA would have ordered a rematch had Khan been the beneficiary of a victory due to Peterson's being docked points for pushing?

I don't.

Of course I dont. But there would be public pressure on Khan for a rematch and I think he would have granted him one.

Of course like he would, like when he granted Maidana an immediate rema.....oh wait....!

Why would he grant Maidana a rematch? There was nothing contentious about that fight. Khan was a clear and decisive winner in a close and exciting fight.

lovely_london wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEpQpOU5i8w

another video

This is the one with the 50 pushes. Although not al of them were...there was a lot of pushing.

rowley wrote:AZ following your line of reasoning in the second Dempsey Tunney fight when Dempsey put Tunney down the count was not started at the appropriate time because the ref was trying to get Dempsey to a neutral corner, this was in the rules at the time but was rarely enforced or the enforcement of it was haphazard. Does this mean the ref was wrong to make him retreat to a corner?

The ref was correct. He was trying to enforce a new rule in the biggest stage of them all. I'm certain he explained it to both parties prior to the fight. Cant be held responsible for Dempsey being a little thick bless him.

This rule is not new and has been ignored for over 100 years.

lovely_london wrote:

azania wrote:

hampo171 wrote:Khan has just tweeted that Peterson is now going to appeal the decision by the WBA.

It was on the BBC news and described as a farce.

Just have a rematch in a neutral venue (Switzerland) and settle it there.

I would rather there was no rematch. I don't see anything wrong with the decision to dock points as it has happened to mayweather in the past so it is an offence which has been used to dock points before.

So you see no need for a rematch yet see the need for Khan to rematch Maidana who lost in a clear and uncontroversial decision.

A tad hypocritical dont you think?

I personally would like to see a rematch as it was a close fight and pretty entertaining so why not, however do not care for Petersen being bullied or forced into it because it is not warranted. GBP are not skint and have HBO in their pocket, they have the clout to get a rematch without all this nonsense all they have to do is pay Lamont a decent amount and he will sign.

rowley wrote:I personally would like to see a rematch as it was a close fight and pretty entertaining so why not, however do not care for Petersen being bullied or forced into it because it is not warranted. GBP are not skint and have HBO in their pocket, they have the clout to get a rematch without all this nonsense all they have to do is pay Lamont a decent amount and he will sign.

Apparently he's been offered a 7 figure sum to fight Khan again. Considering he got $650k to Khan's $1.1m, I'd take it and run (well walk forward throwing punches).

I may be in a minority but I actually think what Khan is doing is good for boxing. Somebody needs to stand up after all these dodgy decisions we've seen lately and I hope the bitterness rolls on in this case and hope that Petersen somehow gets left out in the cold when it comes to securing big money fights.

The whole irony of this case is that Khan was not anything like as badly robbed as Chisora or Lara or Marquez but if fighters and their handlers can keep making stinks after all these dodgy decisions then the sport could be held in disrepute pretty much continuously. This may finally force the sanctioning bodies to act and put a stop to all these wretched, corrupt goings on that ruin boxing.

That clown in a hat Ameen had no business being where he was and his explanation for his presence in helping the judge was pathetic. Man, the guy even looks like a gangter ffs!

Super D Boon wrote:I may be in a minority but I actually think what Khan is doing is good for boxing. Somebody needs to stand up after all these dodgy decisions we've seen lately and I hope the bitterness rolls on in this case and hope that Petersen somehow gets left out in the cold when it comes to securing big money fights.

The whole irony of this case is that Khan was not anything like as badly robbed as Chisora or Lara or Marquez but if fighters and their handlers can keep making stinks after all these dodgy decisions then the sport could be held in disrepute pretty much continuously. This may finally force the sanctioning bodies to act and put a stop to all these wretched, corrupt goings on that ruin boxing.

That clown in a hat Ameen had no business being where he was and his explanation for his presence in helping the judge was pathetic. Man, the guy even looks like a gangter ffs!

Boon - Amir wasn't robbed.

Were this being done by Chisora, I'd laud it and agree. It isn't. This wasn't a robbery - and this tarnishes, rather than enhances the image of boxing.

Super D Boon wrote:I may be in a minority but I actually think what Khan is doing is good for boxing. Somebody needs to stand up after all these dodgy decisions we've seen lately and I hope the bitterness rolls on in this case and hope that Petersen somehow gets left out in the cold when it comes to securing big money fights.

The whole irony of this case is that Khan was not anything like as badly robbed as Chisora or Lara or Marquez but if fighters and their handlers can keep making stinks after all these dodgy decisions then the sport could be held in disrepute pretty much continuously. This may finally force the sanctioning bodies to act and put a stop to all these wretched, corrupt goings on that ruin boxing.

That clown in a hat Ameen had no business being where he was and his explanation for his presence in helping the judge was pathetic. Man, the guy even looks like a gangter ffs!

Really? What did Peterson do wrong? He fought a great fight, trained hard after a hard upbringing and gave 100% in the ring. Now he deserves to be left out in the cold because two judges scored a close fight in favour of him and the ref penalised his opponent for breaking the rules?

Back to the same old issue now where a close fight is declared as a robbery or a dodgy decision.

I think it highlights whats wrong with boxing that a powerful promoter can just force a rematch when it suits them, because they were too inept and overconfident to insert a rematch clause.

The idea that Khan/GBP are making some kind of stand for the good of boxing here is laughable to me. Its purely self interest to compensate for their own shortcomings.

manos de piedra wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:I may be in a minority but I actually think what Khan is doing is good for boxing. Somebody needs to stand up after all these dodgy decisions we've seen lately and I hope the bitterness rolls on in this case and hope that Petersen somehow gets left out in the cold when it comes to securing big money fights.

The whole irony of this case is that Khan was not anything like as badly robbed as Chisora or Lara or Marquez but if fighters and their handlers can keep making stinks after all these dodgy decisions then the sport could be held in disrepute pretty much continuously. This may finally force the sanctioning bodies to act and put a stop to all these wretched, corrupt goings on that ruin boxing.

That clown in a hat Ameen had no business being where he was and his explanation for his presence in helping the judge was pathetic. Man, the guy even looks like a gangter ffs!

Really? What did Peterson do wrong? He fought a great fight, trained hard after a hard upbringing and gave 100% in the ring. Now he deserves to be left out in the cold because two judges scored a close fight in favour of him and the ref penalised his opponent for breaking the rules?

Back to the same old issue now where a close fight is declared as a robbery or a dodgy decision.

I think it highlights whats wrong with boxing that a powerful promoter can just force a rematch when it suits them, because they were too inept and overconfident to insert a rematch clause.

The idea that Khan/GBP are making some kind of stand for the good of boxing here is laughable to me. Its purely self interest to compensate for their own shortcomings.

The referee was not necessarily wrong in docking the two points, but how he administered the points deductions were wrong. Also why did he not apply consistency and dock points from Peteresen for continuously using the head? The issue is not necessarily whether Khan should have won or not or whether the fight was a "robbery" or not. The issue is all these dodgy goings on. Why a hometown judge in a fight with a hometown fighter? Why is a clown in a hat allowed to "help" the judges? I'm fed up with all the dodgy goings on and this case highlights some of the rotten goings on in boxing.

1. How he administered the points deductions was wrong? What more did you want? He gave Khan his final warning for pushing in round 4/5!

2. Peterson was not continuously using the head. In fact, his head position was very good and in some respects too generous to Khan.

oxring wrote:

2. Peterson was not continuously using the head. In fact, his head position was very good and in some respects too generous to Khan.

Well said there seems to be a belief now that having your chin tucked in your chest and your head down is leading with your head, it isn't it's what you're supposed to do.

Well say what you want but I felt Peteresen went in with his head too low. Also even though Khan was warned to stop pushing he wasn't warned that he would lose a point if he did it the next time, the ref just took the points away, the ref should have instructed him on that.

What about this div in a hat then?
Why was he allowed near the judges?
He wasn't an IBF "official" so why was he there in the first place?
The fact the judge wasn't "feeling well" what the hell is all that about, surely the judges need to be selected on the basis they can perform simple arithmetic and/or are physically capable of performing the task?

It all stinks to high heaven and stupid stuff like this is always allowed to happen in boxing and like I said, if this case highlights the rotten shenanigans behind the scenes then hopefully it can do some good.

Super D Boon wrote:Well say what you want but I felt Peteresen went in with his head too low. Also even though Khan was warned to stop pushing he wasn't warned that he would lose a point if he did it the next time, the ref just took the points away, the ref should have instructed him on that

Watch the video. Round 4/5 the ref says "Stop pushing Khan, last warning".

That, to me, is clear enough and the fact that he let him get away with it until round 7 was needlessly generous.

As for the man in the hat - things have been blown out of proportion here. It is the judge in question we need to hear from to determine what assistance Ameen performed.

To say he's the reason Khan lost is frankly ridiculous. Khan lost because he hasn't a clue how to fight on the inside. Simples.

Off topic - do you have to wear hand wraps or is it just a matter of prudence?

It wasnt a judge that the Hatman was talking to. It was a supervisor. The judges were left alone.

manos de piedra wrote:It wasnt a judge that the Hatman was talking to. It was a supervisor. The judges were left alone.

Cheers manos - hadn't noticed that - further detracting from the "conspiracy" idea.

Typical GBP really. They've preserved their precious asset's value in the minds of those who don't follow the sport closely - which is all important here because they're the casual fan who buy the fights. The average sun/dailymail/mirror reader now believes Khan to have been scandalously robbed, when in reality the truth is very different.

A few things to highlight

1. Khan and GBP should not be appealing the decision in any shape of form, there was no robbery.

2. I think there should be a rematch for two reasons, the closeness of the fight and the deductions being such a significant factor.

3. The deductions despite being to the letter of the rulebook were harsh and personally don't think they should have happened.

4. It is about time we had some consistency in refereeing, all well and good saying 'play the referee' but there can be such a difference in the way fights are officiated it's a tad silly.

5. Khan wins a rematch fairly comfortably.