Khan vs Peterson- I'm fed up!

First topic message reminder :

I am totally fed up of people discussing the Khan vs. Peterson fight like he lost convincingly or got KO'd.

Drugs or no drugs, Khan went to Peterson's backyard and lost a close split decision. Despite the fact Khan had Peterson on the floor and should of scored another knock down but wasnt given it.

Khan also was given a point deduction for pushing, rightly of wrongly is debatable however, if he wasn't given this he would of won the fight!!

End of story and good grief- people need to watch the fight before claiming he was schooled by Peterson.

no-mas wrote:I'm bored of debating this with you now. Bottom line it was investigated, it was deemed that he had no advantage in training or the fight itself but if it makes you feel better he was juiced up, he had the lights in his eyes against Prescott and that was a lucky punch by Garcia, now he is moving up to welterweight NOT because more than likely Mattysee will pick up all the belts in this tournament and then have to face Khan, no not because of that, yes Khan did say he is staying at LWW to clear up despite never actually being number 1 in the division but since this mini tournament has been announced all of sudden he has changed his mind and wants to move up and fight for the IBF belt, wait the IBF? The company Khan called a joke and a disgrace for not giving him the belt back? Surely not!

No worries. So the investigation found that being 4 times over the limit doesn't enhance performance. Good to know.

Who was the doctor?

You should agree with Khan as you claimed earlier that the sanctioning bodies are a joke. Or do you now say they are not a joke when flipping Khan the bird?

All Time Great wrote:

End of story and good grief- people need to watch the fight before claiming he was schooled by Peterson.

I don't think I've heard anyone say that he was schooled by Peterson, I think the fight is used mainly to highlight Khan's technical flaws.
I think Khan is the type of boxer who will never be able to hold down a long winning run or be able to clearly establish himself as the main man in any division. He's good enough to beat most of his ranked opponents, and is good enough to win world titles....however, his flaws mean that he's never far away from another potential loss.

J.Benson II wrote:

All Time Great wrote:

End of story and good grief- people need to watch the fight before claiming he was schooled by Peterson.

I don't think I've heard anyone say that he was schooled by Peterson, I think the fight is used mainly to highlight Khan's technical flaws.
I think Khan is the type of boxer who will never be able to hold down a long winning run or be able to clearly establish himself as the main man in any division. He's good enough to beat most of his ranked opponents, and is good enough to win world titles....however, his flaws mean that he's never far away from another potential loss.

That's why he is one of the most exciting fighters around. Never a dull moment. Win or bust. Bust is usually a highlight reel ko.

Problem is most fighters would rather be succesful than exciting.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Problem is most fighters would rather be succesful than exciting.

Lets be frank, he is not an elite fighter with the skills to keep aggressive fighters at bay regardless of what he thinks of his ability and what we think of his talents. Saying that he didn't keep LP off him is neither here nor there. He wasn't good enough. But LP was helped by PEDs and that had an effect on LPs performance. It wouldn't be called PEDs if it didn't.

But he is exciting and successful. You cannot call a headliner in Vegas and a 2 time champion not successful. He is good. Damn good, just not as good as he wants to be.

You say that but the first loss apart when he was caught cold by a big puncher....

He's been dominating fights he lost....

He's got the tools.......

The tools include concentrating enough and intelligence. Many boxers seem to have all the tools but only a few utilise them all to the best of their ability.

To me he has lost twice. Once he got caught cold and Garcia. Not bad but could be better.

No-mas let me get this clear. You want us to believe the following: A professional athlete, a boxer no less, upon being found to have testosterone levels at four times the normal limit, claims that he has a natural testosterone deficiency for which he was receiving treatment, which he conveniently forgot to mention to the sanctioning bodies, despite that treatment being invasive (I wonder why he didn't choose a less invasive method...hmm). The said boxer and his team had months to notify the relevant authorities but of course 'forgot' to do so. When interviewed and asked about the positive test result the boxer still does not remember the invasive treatments that he had but instead states that he rummaged around in his bathroom cupboard looking for the potentially offending agent.

An investigation is then launched by one of the most corrupt organisations in world sport, citing an unknown doctor as their expert (believe me medical opinions on such issues can vary wildly - nary will two experts agree) who conveniently declares that said boxer's performance was not enhanced by the invasive therapeutic treatment (which said boxer now conveniently remembers).

Mmm.. If that sounds like a convincing narrative to you then you are either extremely naieve or just plain dishonest. I'm not surprised you don't want to discuss it anymore.

Yes I didn't want to discuss it anymore as it got boring but what the hell I'm not one to walk away, answer me this - do you know how long Peterson was having the treatment for? If he has been having it for years where it has never shown up before other fights and like he said its been routine why would that be the first thing he thinks of? He was told he failed a drugs test, if he has been having this treatment for years would you think a normal standard procedure would be the first thing that comes to mind if it was never picked up before? When someone says you have failed a drugs test you would think drugs immediately not neccesserly a standard procedure that hasn't been picked up before. Also what evidence do you have to suggest that the independent review wasn't anything than 100% ? Absolutely non. Also why would the IBF be reluctant to give te belt back to Khan who in his own words is a superstar? Surely you would want to be associated with a superstar than an unknown boxer whose name has been dragged through the mud by a bitter boxer looking for an excuse.

Not picking either side of this argument, however just to answer no-mas question re why wasn't it picked up before, it was the first time he'd been VADA tested which tests more stringently and picked other things up.

I think, for example, one of the key differences was the WADA or USADA that tested for the first fight only tested for elevated testosterone levels and LP's were within their acceptable boundary. They only would do more detailed testing if initial results were outside this boundary.

However VADA does the more detailed testing as a matter of course, which found traces of synthetic testosterone.