Is Khan a cheat?

Lets be honest, last nights decision was a disgrace. Khan was gifted the victory from a cut that should have never stopped the fight. He also looked awful in the process and I actaully fancied PM to give him some troubles in the later rounds.

Compare this cut to the one Barrera suffered and it really does leave a bitter taste. Barrera suffered a bad cut and the fight was disgracefully allowed to carry on until the 5 so Khan could get the vicotry. The BBBC should hang their heads in shame.

This type of corrupt officiating only turns people against Khan.

It wasn't Khans fault. Accidental head clash the cut wasn't to bad but the position of it was, the bood was just running into his eyes. Their are more relevant and reasonable things you could use to beat Khan over the head with.

How does the cut compare to the Barrera cut. Didnt see the officials in a hurry to stop that fight when it was within the first 4 rounds.

Good point in comparing to the Barrera cut, but as for Mccloskey maybe troubling Khan in the later rounds...coulda woulda shoulda...

I agree that you can argue part of that, but what I disagree with is the fact that it's not his fault that the ref stops it, how can he be a cheat? Also come on look at Tim Bradley's record with head clashes... far worse than two with /khan that he was winning by a wide points margin...

How is Khan a cheat? Was it his decision to stop the fight?

Khan would of ko'd Mccloskey in the next round or so he was landing much more in the 6th and cheat? its southpaw vs orthodox cuts happen all the time in them fights you can't really blame Khan.

azania wrote:How is Khan a cheat? Was it his decision to stop the fight?

Couldn't of put it better myself.

AlexHuckerby wrote:I agree that you can argue part of that, but what I disagree with is the fact that it's not his fault that the ref stops it, how can he be a cheat? Also come on look at Tim Bradley's record with head clashes... far worse than two with /khan that he was winning by a wide points margin...

I'm sure it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the BBBC will have been spoken to by the rich bous from Team Khan. Seriously, this is a highly corrupt piece of officiating when you consider the Barrera fight.

Fight looked to me like it would have gone the distance and seen Khan take a handy points win.

Poor stoppage but nothing to do with Khan.

liam_main4 wrote:

azania wrote:How is Khan a cheat? Was it his decision to stop the fight?

Couldn't of put it better myself.

Yeah, boxing is a very clean sport. Sven Ottke never had favourable decisions.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

liam_main4 wrote:

azania wrote:How is Khan a cheat? Was it his decision to stop the fight?

Couldn't of put it better myself.

Yeah, boxing is a very clean sport. Sven Ottke never had favourable decisions.

Ottke was not cheating either. Unless you believe he paid the judges to give those questionable decisions.

This anti Khan stuff is getting seriously silly. Khan walks on water and some will say he cant swim.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

liam_main4 wrote:

azania wrote:How is Khan a cheat? Was it his decision to stop the fight?

Couldn't of put it better myself.

Yeah, boxing is a very clean sport. Sven Ottke never had favourable decisions.

So what are you saying?

Khan personally paid off the ref and ring doctor beforehand, decided to build up a comfortable points lead by winning every round, then decided to deliberately headbutt McCloskey safe in the knowledge the ref would call over the docor and the doctore would call off the fight?

Don't be silly Manos....

I am simply saying something doesn't quite sit right. I am not debating Khan winning the fight, he would have won every round IMO, however the stoppage was premature.

Compare this to the Barrera fight which was disgustingly allowed to carry on to the 5th so he could get the win.

I agree that the Barrera stoppage (waiting for the 5th to stop it) was a bit of a disgrace, but its nothing to do with Khan. Like this wasnt.

Whoever's decision it was to let Barrera keep fighting half blind until it could go to the scorecards should hang their head in shame.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Don't be silly Manos....

I am simply saying something doesn't quite sit right. I am not debating Khan winning the fight, he would have won every round IMO, however the stoppage was premature.

Compare this to the Barrera fight which was disgustingly allowed to carry on to the 5th so he could get the win.

Was it Khan's decision to stop the fight?

I agree that Khan was the befeficiary of dodgy reffing against MAB. But blame the ref and not Khan. Calling him a cheat is taking is taking the anti Khan stuff a bit too far.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Don't be silly Manos....

I am simply saying something doesn't quite sit right. I am not debating Khan winning the fight, he would have won every round IMO, however the stoppage was premature.

Compare this to the Barrera fight which was disgustingly allowed to carry on to the 5th so he could get the win.

I think Britain has a habit of giving the champions/big prospects an easy ride. This is evident on many of Warrens cards also.

But its hardly the same as Khan being a cheat. The clash of heads was accidental and the doctor called off the fight prematurely.

You could argue that the BBBC are biased/incompetent but I dont see how Khan can be personally accused of cheating. There was nothing premeditated.

The MAB case was a joke and again evidence of the BBBC favouring the prospect but again I dont think Khan could be personally accused of being a cheat.

Was it Khan's decision to stop the fight?
========
Of course it wasn't, just like it was not Sven Ottke's decision to dock Robin Reid points for punching him in the face.

My point is that I think the officiating is corrupt, not that Khan told the ref to stop the fight. All the dealings would have been handled well in advance.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Was it Khan's decision to stop the fight?
========
Of course it wasn't, just like it was not Sven Ottke's decision to dock Robin Reid points for punching him in the face.

My point is that I think the officiating is corrupt, not that Khan told the ref to stop the fight. All the dealings would have been handled well in advance.

Then the article should be titled is the BBBC corrupt?, not is a Khan a cheat?.

manos de piedra wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Was it Khan's decision to stop the fight?
========
Of course it wasn't, just like it was not Sven Ottke's decision to dock Robin Reid points for punching him in the face.

My point is that I think the officiating is corrupt, not that Khan told the ref to stop the fight. All the dealings would have been handled well in advance.

Then the article should be titled is the BBBC corrupt?, not is a Khan a cheat?.

Both of them go hand in hand. Khan is a cheat because the BBBC tell corrupt officials to behave the way they do.

I don't believe for one moment that Khan is a cheat, but I do think he's likely to enjoy the rub of the green. I'm not much interested in football these days, but I know enough to be aware that referees seldom give penalties against Manchester United at Old Trafford.

Last night's fiasco was academic, since Khan had everything pretty much under control, but had he been in there with a fighter capable of putting him in serious danger I believe there would be reason for concern.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Was it Khan's decision to stop the fight?
========
Of course it wasn't, just like it was not Sven Ottke's decision to dock Robin Reid points for punching him in the face.

My point is that I think the officiating is corrupt, not that Khan told the ref to stop the fight. All the dealings would have been handled well in advance.

Then the article should be titled is the BBBC corrupt?, not is a Khan a cheat?.

Both of them go hand in hand. Khan is a cheat because the BBBC tell corrupt officials to behave the way they do.

He isnt. He has no control over of it.

Khan has nothing to do with the BBBCs decisions unless you are suggesting he personally bribes them.

The BBBC will be told by Team Khan to officiate the way they do. So in answer to your question, YES.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:The BBBC will be told by Team Khan to officiate the way they do. So in answer to your question, YES.

Ok well in that case I disagree completely.

Its nothing to do with Khan or his team. There has always been a history in every country of the refs/judges giving benefit to the champ/prospect. Khan is by no means alone.

The Anderson/Groves fight was like this, Bellew v McKenzie, Smith De Gale and so on.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Was it Khan's decision to stop the fight?
========
Of course it wasn't, just like it was not Sven Ottke's decision to dock Robin Reid points for punching him in the face.

My point is that I think the officiating is corrupt, not that Khan told the ref to stop the fight. All the dealings would have been handled well in advance.

Then the article should be titled is the BBBC corrupt?, not is a Khan a cheat?.

Both of them go hand in hand. Khan is a cheat because the BBBC tell corrupt officials to behave the way they do.

Unless Khan personally controls the bbbc, then calling him a cheat is you being silly.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:The BBBC will be told by Team Khan to officiate the way they do. So in answer to your question, YES.

Now you are guessing and squirming. I know as I've been there in many threads

Lumbering_Jack wrote:My point is that I think the officiating is corrupt, not that Khan told the ref to stop the fight. All the dealings would have been handled well in advance.

Their is no evidence to suggest that. McCloskey was getting hit when he could see out of both eyes it would just have got worse because their was always going to be blood in his eye. It was the correct decision imo.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:The BBBC will be told by Team Khan to officiate the way they do. So in answer to your question, YES.

This is getting silly. The accusations are somewhat misplaced.

A fight shouldnt stopped because some blood might trickle into the eye. The cut needs to be serious, not just inconvenient.

At the very least you give the corner a round or two to go to work on it.

manos de piedra wrote:A fight shouldnt stopped because some blood might trickle into the eye. The cut needs to be serious, not just inconvenient.
At the very least you give the corner a round or two to go to work on it.

Do you always twist peoples words to suit your arguement?
Maybe they could have gave the corner time to work on it but it was in a bad place. I've had a cut like that before and the blood runs into your eyes and you can't see. McCloskey was getting caught to often when he could see out of both eyes I don't want to see anyone getting seriously hurt so imo it was the right decision.

I thik it was a very good stoppage. Perhaps the ref was as bored as the rest of us who watched the fight.

I didnt think McCloskey was in any real trouble at any point myself. He got caught a couple times but was never really hurt.

They didnt let the corner at the cut or even see what impact it had in the fight so I think it was premature. It was a world title fight after all.

Hatton probably would have lost to Thaxton with that ring doctor.

manos de piedra wrote:I didnt think McCloskey was in any real trouble at any point myself. He got caught a couple times but was never really hurt.

They didnt let the corner at the cut or even see what impact it had in the fight so I think it was premature. It was a world title fight after all.

Hatton probably would have lost to Thaxton with that ring doctor.

They probably could have let the corner have a go at it but the positioning of a cut can be more imporant than how deep it is.

Khan won fair and square..........

Lumbering Jack , I'm not sure your rather liberal use circumstantial evidence as the cornerstone of your argument really gets us anywhere. If your words were in the upper echelons of boxing circles - they could be libellous!

I echo the opinions of most on this thread, in that I believe Khan is no way directly responsible for the decision last night.

Oh, and please, don't compare him to Sven Ottke.

maybe be was premature but if mccloskey was ahead on points at the time i think the ref would have allowed it to go on a bit longer. but choose to save mccloskey any damage. ive heard he asked mccloskey if he wanted to go on and he said no, not sure how true that is though. im sure when barrera was asked he said no.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I didnt think McCloskey was in any real trouble at any point myself. He got caught a couple times but was never really hurt.

They didnt let the corner at the cut or even see what impact it had in the fight so I think it was premature. It was a world title fight after all.

Hatton probably would have lost to Thaxton with that ring doctor.

They probably could have let the corner have a go at it but the positioning of a cut can be more imporant than how deep it is.

A cut which isnt serious - i.e threatens the long term health or career of a boxer, I generally view as just an inconvenience. As long as its capable of healing properly after then just because its causing blood to trickle into the eye isnt good enough reason to stop the fight, especially at world title level. Cuts are part of the game as is dealing with them. There are numerous cases of boxers dealing with cuts that causes blood to get into their eyes. You wipe it away at the end of the round and go to work on it in my view. Its only if the cut is in a threatning area or particularly deep and serious that the fight should be stopped.

Ive very rarely seen a cut that hasnt been horrendous stopped immediately on the grounds that its just causing blood to get in the way. Even Klitschko with cuts both deep and in dangerous areas was allowed the chance to continue for a round or two.

Any cut over the eye will generally cause blood to get in the way but its not good enough grounds for stopping a fight in my view. If McCLoskey began getting battered or complaining to the ref he couldnt see then theres grounds to stop up, but at least give it a chance.

I know where you're coming from but if you can't see out of one of your eyes and someone is trying to punch you it's dangerous.

prettyboy1304 wrote:I know where you're coming from but if you can't see out of one of your eyes and someone is trying to punch you it's dangerous.

Thats boxing though.

manos de piedra wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:I know where you're coming from but if you can't see out of one of your eyes and someone is trying to punch you it's dangerous.

Thats boxing though.

It is they could have let it go but McCloskey was just going to get hurt and imo it's alaways better to stop the fight.

The stoppage was a disgrace.

If we are going to stop fights for that then boxing may as well roll over and die.

And this nonsensical argument that is it dangerous if blood gets in the eye, well that is boxing. Morales couldnt see last week and he was fine to carry on. Its not as if it was a one sided beating.

khan didnt drop a point, thats a beating

No, why would it turn people against Khan?

Khan was not the referee

Lumbering_Jack wrote:The stoppage was a disgrace.

If we are going to stop fights for that then boxing may as well roll over and die.

And this nonsensical argument that is it dangerous if blood gets in the eye, well that is boxing. Morales couldnt see last week and he was fine to carry on. Its not as if it was a one sided beating.

Every doctor is different he was a professional doctor so you sort of need to take his word for it. Unless you are a doctor who inspected it you are hard pushed to call it a disgrace.

It was a disgrace, I fail to see how people can argue otherwise. As Manos pointed out, with officiating like that Hatton would of lost to Thaxton.

Lets not forget that boxing is a fight, a little blood in the eye and we are pulling fighters out. Would the same thing have happened if Khan was cut? The answer is no.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:It was a disgrace, I fail to see how people can argue otherwise. As Manos pointed out, with officiating like that Hatton would of lost to Thaxton.

Lets not forget that boxing is a fight, a little blood in the eye and we are pulling fighters out. Would the same thing have happened if Khan was cut? The answer is no.

Yes. A blooming disgrace, An effing disgrace in fact. But how does that equate to Khan cheating or influencing that decision in any way? Are you privvy to the internal workings of Team Khan and any talks with the BBBC and ref?

Lumbering_Jack wrote:It was a disgrace, I fail to see how people can argue otherwise. As Manos pointed out, with officiating like that Hatton would of lost to Thaxton.

Lets not forget that boxing is a fight, a little blood in the eye and we are pulling fighters out. Would the same thing have happened if Khan was cut? The answer is no.

Khan is not the referee. Can you see where you are going wrong.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:It was a disgrace, I fail to see how people can argue otherwise. As Manos pointed out, with officiating like that Hatton would of lost to Thaxton.

Lets not forget that boxing is a fight, a little blood in the eye and we are pulling fighters out. Would the same thing have happened if Khan was cut? The answer is no.

You don't know if Khan would have been pulled out. The same way you don't know if the BBBC are corrupt or were bribed by team Khan.

I wonder if Paul McCloskey had been winning the fight and the same accidental clash happened would the ref and doctor have stopped the fight and risked Khan losing?

Mort wrote:I wonder if Paul McCloskey had been winning the fight and the same accidental clash happened would the ref and doctor have stopped the fight and risked Khan losing?

That's what I was driving at when I mentioned the ' rub of the green, ' Mort.

Welcome aboard, by the way.