allegedly - disgrace on sat night

boxerbob · Post by **boxerbob** » 04 Feb 2008, 11:15

so st clair was a legit world class fighter???.....no..a fringe fighter outside the top 10 in the super-featherweight division.

he is 5,4 vs a 5,10...5,11 fighter in khan

basically it was a very safe fight for warren as st clair was smaller and had no chance of reaching khan

frank why cant you get a genuine lightweight to fight khan???...oh there thaxton but you want nothing to do with him as he has a punch and khan aint got a chin.

saturdays nights fight was a sparring session..rawling and mckenzie are so on the payroll as they described khans performance as amazing ffs.

khan is a decent fighter who will lose to the 1st decent world class fighter he faces...why???....he is being matched against guys who are much smaller than him , have no punch and men who are way past thier prime.

limond nearly ended khan.....dias or katsidas will ko khan in less than 5 rounds.......thaxton would do the same.

ps: amir , please go and get a real corner team who will improve your ability , and please get yourself a new manager / promoter who will get you the fights that test you.

ask hamed and hatton about warrens bum of the month contenders...thats why they left him

oliverfennell · Post by **oliverfennell** » 04 Feb 2008, 11:22

St Clair was more than acceptable for a 16th pro contest. Your post smacks of being wise after the event. Nobody was complaining beforehand, but now that Khan has won easily, suddenly St Clair was no good?

boxerbob · Post by **boxerbob** » 04 Feb 2008, 11:25

was he a genuine lightweight?????.....no

he is a decent fighter and would be a test for khan if he was a lightweight....he was supposed to fight harrison 2 years ago at feather weight ffs

he is 5,4....featherweight to bantamweight height...khan is 5 ,11.

khan got the rounds he needs but we still dont know if khan can handle a full blown lightweight in a 12 round war

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 04 Feb 2008, 11:30

get over it BoxerBob, Khan is just being built up, people with boxing knowledge like yourself might have a different opinion to Frank, but he's talking to the general public on saturday night, so of course he's not going to say St Clair was a superfeather.

whicker · Post by **whicker** » 04 Feb 2008, 11:31

oliverfennell wrote:St Clair was more than acceptable for a 16th pro contest...... Nobody was complaining beforehand

People certainly WERE questioning the choise of St Clair beforehand.

Key issues raised were- he isn't a lightweight, he is physically small, he is apparantly coming to the end of hs career, he isn't a notable puncher. Some bookies had Khan to win at 1/33 .

Many people beforehand made the point that this looked like a "workout" rather than a competative fight- which is exactly what t turned out to be.

Lenny · Post by **Lenny** » 04 Feb 2008, 11:32

I'm amazed how badly people want to see Khan lose. St Clair might not be the fighter he was then but has been in with a bigger world class fighter in Harris.
He's experienced, very tough, always going to take Khan the distance, pretty perfect fight for Khan at this stage. If anyone is fooling the public it's Khan and ITV for coming out with this youngest world champ crap all the time when in reality he is still a novice pro learning his trade. If he fights Romanov next it's a dangerous fight and a big step up. Although i'm sure people will still slate it and i'm sure some muppet will say "he lost to Earl, why is he fighting him?"

I agree the commentary was pretty terrible but we've come to expect that from Duke and Rawlings (when he is on ITV that is, think he is ok on Setanta).

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 04 Feb 2008, 11:32

in fact, I think St Clair was naturally a featherweight. Sure he fought at 126-lbs. However, Khan beat a tough guy who took the best shots of Harris and Corrales.

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 04 Feb 2008, 11:32

I agree with Oliver, St Clair was acceptable, remember it was a replacement with only 2 weeks to go.

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 04 Feb 2008, 11:34

'Lenny' its the typical british thing, not wanting sport stars to win, or it could be jealousy.

I'm a fan of Khans. the lad is a good role model for young kids

jomothepure · Post by **jomothepure** » 04 Feb 2008, 11:35

What would have happened if we had got the Kristjansen fight? Bona fide lightweight, 3 1/2 inches taller than St Clair, yet I doubt he would not have put up a better fight than St Clair.

whicker · Post by **whicker** » 04 Feb 2008, 11:39

Lenny wrote:I'm amazed how badly people want to see Khan lose.

I can only speak for myslef, but I don't want to see Khan lose- I want to see competative, well matched boxing.

Poncey · Post by **Poncey** » 04 Feb 2008, 11:44

Juan Diaz was fighting Michael Davis, who had a 21-10 record in his 16th fight. Michael's best result was for the IBC Continental Lightweight Title.

St Clair had a record of 39-5, fought Corrales (IBF s/f title), Harris, and a was former IBF and IBO s/f champion.

Enough said.

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 04 Feb 2008, 11:45

whicker wrote:
Lenny wrote:I'm amazed how badly people want to see Khan lose.
I can only speak for myslef, but I don't want to see Khan lose- I want to see competative, well matched boxing.

So would you say that the match making in the Jennings v Minter fight was bad? Minter being KO'd in his fight before , and Jenning being a world rated boxer.

whicker · Post by **whicker** » 04 Feb 2008, 11:48

Old bones Ian wrote:
whicker wrote:
Lenny wrote:I'm amazed how badly people want to see Khan lose.
I can only speak for myslef, but I don't want to see Khan lose- I want to see competative, well matched boxing.
So would you say that the match making in the Jennings v Minter fight was bad? Minter being KO'd in his fight before , and Jenning being a world rated boxer.

I would say that was good matchmaking. OK, Minter was KOed in his last fight, but that was an 8th round KO in a fight he was winning, against a very good opponent- and his only loss , other than a cut in a fight with Howard Clarke.

Minter is a good fighter- Jennings is slightly better- but a good match up none the less- the only competative fight on that whole show.

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 04 Feb 2008, 11:50

whicker wrote:
Old bones Ian wrote:
whicker wrote: I can only speak for myslef, but I don't want to see Khan lose- I want to see competative, well matched boxing.
So would you say that the match making in the Jennings v Minter fight was bad? Minter being KO'd in his fight before , and Jenning being a world rated boxer.
I would say that was good matchmaking. OK, Minter was KOed in his last fight, but that was an 8th round KO in a fight he was winning, against a very good opponent- and his only loss , other than a cut in a fight with Howard Clarke.

Minter is a good fighter- Jennings is slightly better- but a good match up none the less.

mmmmmm could be a bit of double standards there , i can't see the problem with St Clair for Khan on Saturday.
But its all opinion

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 04 Feb 2008, 11:52

Old bones Ian wrote:I agree with Oliver, St Clair was acceptable, remember it was a replacement with only 2 weeks to go.

also, with St Clair being from Oz, he was eligible as a Commonwealth title defense. So it was a smart fight to make, especially as last minute jobs go.

whicker · Post by **whicker** » 04 Feb 2008, 12:02

Old bones Ian wrote:mmmmmm could be a bit of double standards there , i can't see the problem with St Clair for Khan on Saturday.
But its all opinion

I wouldn't say double standards-

In my opinion, St Clair was brought in because he was a fighter Khan could beat quite comfotably, for reasons already given.

Minter, on the other hand, was pitted against Jennings in a genuinly competative fight. There was nothing about Minter that suggested he was booked just to give Jennings a "workout." On a paper, Jennings had the edge but the fight could have gone either way- exactly what proved to be the case.

beagleboy · Post by **beagleboy** » 04 Feb 2008, 12:02

Old bones Ian wrote:'Lenny' its the typical british thing, not wanting sport stars to win, or it could be jealousy.

I'm a fan of Khans. the lad is a good role model for young kids

For overtaking cars stopped at a red light, then ploughing into pedestrians?

fist · Post by **fist** » 04 Feb 2008, 12:29

Some valid points made. St Clair was ultimately too small and reluctant to really press Khan (other than walking forward and throwing the odd haymaker), in order to cause Khan any problems or extend the learning curve significantly. Likewise, despite some fine skill and speed from Khan it was a shame he did not really get stuck in and keep the pressure on St Claire. Seemed simply a low risk excercise in going 12 rounds against a durable opponent, but not a dangerous one.

That said, people are perhaps being over critical of Khan and his management; he did afterall win every round unaminously. Its was St Clare's most resounding loss in terms of losing every single round. Khan did what he had to do. Personally, I did not enjoy the match for the reasons stated. It proved Khan has some stamina and once again that he has accuracy, speed and skill. If anything though, it left more questions...how will Khan handle a dangerous foe? How will he cope with people who can bang and whom are on a par in terms of size?

Matt W · Post by **Matt W** » 04 Feb 2008, 12:31

I think that this was a good learning fight for Khan and just about right for the stage of his career that he's at. You can make legitimate points about St. Clair's size, power etc. but he was world class and therefore an appropriate progression for Khan at this point.

Khan has obvious skill and is a great talent although I would have much more confidence in him if he wasn't so open to the right hand (same could be said of David Haye...).

I too have to shake my head at those who want to see him beaten. Can't condone his driving behaviour but he seems like a good bloke I think.

As for the commentary - why did they keep banging on about an early stoppage? It was never likely and to the armchair fan it could well have seemed disappointing as a result.

whicker · Post by **whicker** » 04 Feb 2008, 12:38

Matt W wrote: As for the commentary - why did they keep banging on about an early stoppage? It was never likely and to the armchair fan it could well have seemed disappointing as a result.

A lot of the pre-fight hype was about Khan being the first person to stop, or floor, St Clair. As such, I think thats why they were pressing that angle.

I have no objection to Khan's tactics during the fight- he obviously was clearly winning on points, and just kept it that way.

Matt W · Post by **Matt W** » 04 Feb 2008, 12:47

It wouldn't have been so bad if they kept it to 'first man to stop' him but they were talking about him walking through him like he did Earl.

Lenny · Post by **Lenny** » 04 Feb 2008, 13:01

Yeah they shouldn't really have warned us not to blink

Rawlings whole "don't make a cuppa tea...don't blink...unadulterated excitement" introduction was very cringeworthy

DG. · Post by **DG.** » 04 Feb 2008, 13:21

Old bones Ian wrote:'Lenny' its the typical british thing, not wanting sport stars to win, or it could be jealousy.

I'm a fan of Khans. the lad is a good role model for young kids

He is in many ways a role moel for kids.

But he is also a boy bloody racer who needs to slow down.

I want him to do well, but his chin will let him down.

Mario · Post by **Mario** » 04 Feb 2008, 13:34

St Clair was a very good for only Khan's 16th pro fight, and definitely a better standard last minute replacement than were used to from SN. It was also a great learning fight and im sure doing the full 12 rounds will be a huge benefit for Amir.

The thing which annoys me though is when Warren comes out with absolute shite to like this one from his column in the sun, "it is rare to get two guys fighting in their primes" refering to Khan and St Clair. I know thats largely aimed at the general public and not necessarily knowledgable boxing fans, but he's treating people like idiots.