maidana and prescott
ring a bell amir
i agree peterson should fight bradley nextboxerbob wrote:personally i dont like khan and would love to see peterson take the fight to the highest bidder , khan screaming for a rematch lol
maidana and prescott
ring a bell amir![]()
![]()
or presscottiamasadlittleboy wrote:I want Bradley v Peterson II as well, lets get the #1 place sorted before anything else. Heck if Khan wants a belt face Maidana for the paper WBA title and give the fans a rematch they were calling for 12 months ago.
boxerbob wrote:personally i dont like khan and would love to see peterson take the fight to the highest bidder , khan screaming for a rematch lol
maidana and prescott
ring a bell amir![]()
![]()
jaywillo1983 wrote:boxerbob wrote:personally i dont like khan and would love to see peterson take the fight to the highest bidder , khan screaming for a rematch lol
maidana and prescott
ring a bell amir![]()
![]()
Tottally agree with you there. Khan automatically thinks he deserves a rematch through sheer arrogance. Completely pot calling the kettle. An im losing respect for GBP now in all, because they were almost as bad in defeat as khan was. Our last two great champs were Hatton and Calzaghe, both humble and down to earth.....everything that khan isnt.
i agree cant understand why all three judges did not go for petersonKhaosai-Galaxy wrote:jaywillo1983 wrote:boxerbob wrote:personally i dont like khan and would love to see peterson take the fight to the highest bidder , khan screaming for a rematch lol
maidana and prescott
ring a bell amir![]()
![]()
Tottally agree with you there. Khan automatically thinks he deserves a rematch through sheer arrogance. Completely pot calling the kettle. An im losing respect for GBP now in all, because they were almost as bad in defeat as khan was. Our last two great champs were Hatton and Calzaghe, both humble and down to earth.....everything that khan isnt.
Yes its utter, bare faced arrogance to believe you are entitled to a rematch following a disputed split decision......
Is that a bit of sarcasm in your quote khasoi-galaxy. Maidana deserved a rematch, khan didnt want it, prescott said he would fight khan again, khan didnt want it, so why should peterson bow down to khans commands. Khan is very arrogant if he dont give opponents a deserved rematch yet expects one himself.clintonmcphilbin wrote:i agree cant understand why all three judges did not go for petersonKhaosai-Galaxy wrote:jaywillo1983 wrote:
Tottally agree with you there. Khan automatically thinks he deserves a rematch through sheer arrogance. Completely pot calling the kettle. An im losing respect for GBP now in all, because they were almost as bad in defeat as khan was. Our last two great champs were Hatton and Calzaghe, both humble and down to earth.....everything that khan isnt.
Yes its utter, bare faced arrogance to believe you are entitled to a rematch following a disputed split decision......
This. i agree a rematch is something he deserves but you can't deny he has denied it to others who equally derserved it.Is that a bit of sarcasm in your quote khasoi-galaxy. Maidana deserved a rematch, khan didnt want it, prescott said he would fight khan again, khan didnt want it, so why should peterson bow down to khans commands. Khan is very arrogant if he dont give opponents a deserved rematch yet expects one himself.
But under wholly different circumstances. Remember he LOST to Prescott, so a rematch would be about redemption for Khan, while Prescott would only want it for the money/exposure that Khan brings. As for Maidana, that fight was effectively a semi-final with the winner due to fight the Bradley-Alexander winner until Bradley pussied out. So Khan sought out a unification fight with Judah. The Maidana fight was close, but it was not a controversial decision with the stench of a home town robbery polluting the atmosphere around the result. Judah claimed he was cheated in their fight and demanded a rematch - should he be granted one too? Maybe Willie Limond should get one for the supposed long count? Or Mario Kindelan in a rubber match?Crazyboy wrote:This. i agree a rematch is something he deserves but you can't deny he has denied it to others who equally derserved it.Is that a bit of sarcasm in your quote khasoi-galaxy. Maidana deserved a rematch, khan didnt want it, prescott said he would fight khan again, khan didnt want it, so why should peterson bow down to khans commands. Khan is very arrogant if he dont give opponents a deserved rematch yet expects one himself.
I deny that i have ever denied that he has denied, that ...um....m deniedCrazyboy wrote:This. i agree a rematch is something he deserves but you can't deny he has denied it to others who equally derserved it.Is that a bit of sarcasm in your quote khasoi-galaxy. Maidana deserved a rematch, khan didnt want it, prescott said he would fight khan again, khan didnt want it, so why should peterson bow down to khans commands. Khan is very arrogant if he dont give opponents a deserved rematch yet expects one himself.
I don't think it's him as much as his team. Asif Vali always comes across as a prize clown, while I don't think any good comes from having your dad so visible and vocal.LeedsLad wrote:Peterson will fancy his chances of taking him again.
It'll happen, either immediately or after a quick defence for Lamont. Khan really does need to stfu though, some of his pr leaves a lot to be desired.
lol well worded post from me eh, i even confused meself when i read it back......Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:I deny that i have ever denied that he has denied, that ...um....m deniedCrazyboy wrote:This. i agree a rematch is something he deserves but you can't deny he has denied it to others who equally derserved it.Is that a bit of sarcasm in your quote khasoi-galaxy. Maidana deserved a rematch, khan didnt want it, prescott said he would fight khan again, khan didnt want it, so why should peterson bow down to khans commands. Khan is very arrogant if he dont give opponents a deserved rematch yet expects one himself.
Sorry, hang on a minute, i need to sit down.
I do see what you mean, but where was this controversial decision you are talking about?? Please don't tell me you thought Khans latest loss was in anyway controversial...it was close but he lost fair and square in my eyes....just.earsjohn wrote:But under wholly different circumstances. Remember he LOST to Prescott, so a rematch would be about redemption for Khan, while Prescott would only want it for the money/exposure that Khan brings. As for Maidana, that fight was effectively a semi-final with the winner due to fight the Bradley-Alexander winner until Bradley pussied out. So Khan sought out a unification fight with Judah. The Maidana fight was close, but it was not a controversial decision with the stench of a home town robbery polluting the atmosphere around the result. Judah claimed he was cheated in their fight and demanded a rematch - should he be granted one too? Maybe Willie Limond should get one for the supposed long count? Or Mario Kindelan in a rubber match?Crazyboy wrote:This. i agree a rematch is something he deserves but you can't deny he has denied it to others who equally derserved it.Is that a bit of sarcasm in your quote khasoi-galaxy. Maidana deserved a rematch, khan didnt want it, prescott said he would fight khan again, khan didnt want it, so why should peterson bow down to khans commands. Khan is very arrogant if he dont give opponents a deserved rematch yet expects one himself.
Yeah, i remember his dad giving an interview after the Olympics where he described UK Sports offer to continue to fund Amir as an amateur as a "total joke"earsjohn wrote:I don't think it's him as much as his team. Asif Vali always comes across as a prize clown, while I don't think any good comes from having your dad so visible and vocal.LeedsLad wrote:Peterson will fancy his chances of taking him again.
It'll happen, either immediately or after a quick defence for Lamont. Khan really does need to stfu though, some of his pr leaves a lot to be desired.
A fight where one guy is deducted two points for questionable fouls that would not be punished in most other fights (I can't recall a single point being taken for pushing in another contest); where the official scorecard shows the scores being changed, a delay of 20 minutes in adding up 6 sets of ten numbers and the most experienced announcer mis-announcing the result. That could be classed as controversial. Doesn't mean to say the decision is right or wrong, just controversial.Crazyboy wrote:I do see what you mean, but where was this controversial decision you are talking about?? Please don't tell me you thought Khans latest loss was in anyway controversial...it was close but he lost fair and square in my eyes....just.earsjohn wrote:But under wholly different circumstances. Remember he LOST to Prescott, so a rematch would be about redemption for Khan, while Prescott would only want it for the money/exposure that Khan brings. As for Maidana, that fight was effectively a semi-final with the winner due to fight the Bradley-Alexander winner until Bradley pussied out. So Khan sought out a unification fight with Judah. The Maidana fight was close, but it was not a controversial decision with the stench of a home town robbery polluting the atmosphere around the result. Judah claimed he was cheated in their fight and demanded a rematch - should he be granted one too? Maybe Willie Limond should get one for the supposed long count? Or Mario Kindelan in a rubber match?Crazyboy wrote: This. i agree a rematch is something he deserves but you can't deny he has denied it to others who equally derserved it.
Is that not a copying error by someone who was copying down the 3 score cards onto 1 piece of paper? All the numbers look the same on that can and they are all visibly on the same piece of paper...earsjohn wrote:A fight where one guy is deducted two points for questionable fouls that would not be punished in most other fights (I can't recall a single point being taken for pushing in another contest); where the official scorecard shows the scores being changed, a delay of 20 minutes in adding up 6 sets of ten numbers and the most experienced announcer mis-announcing the result. That could be classed as controversial. Doesn't mean to say the decision is right or wrong, just controversial.Crazyboy wrote:I do see what you mean, but where was this controversial decision you are talking about?? Please don't tell me you thought Khans latest loss was in anyway controversial...it was close but he lost fair and square in my eyes....just.earsjohn wrote: But under wholly different circumstances. Remember he LOST to Prescott, so a rematch would be about redemption for Khan, while Prescott would only want it for the money/exposure that Khan brings. As for Maidana, that fight was effectively a semi-final with the winner due to fight the Bradley-Alexander winner until Bradley pussied out. So Khan sought out a unification fight with Judah. The Maidana fight was close, but it was not a controversial decision with the stench of a home town robbery polluting the atmosphere around the result. Judah claimed he was cheated in their fight and demanded a rematch - should he be granted one too? Maybe Willie Limond should get one for the supposed long count? Or Mario Kindelan in a rubber match?
con-tro-ver-sy - a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.
It may be a copying error, it may be a manual change to deliver the right result, it may be fat fingers from the commission rep who filled in the card. The fact that it is there, combined with the other issues mentioned, has resulted in a controversy.iamasadlittleboy wrote:Is that not a copying error by someone who was copying down the 3 score cards onto 1 piece of paper? All the numbers look the same on that can and they are all visibly on the same piece of paper...earsjohn wrote:A fight where one guy is deducted two points for questionable fouls that would not be punished in most other fights (I can't recall a single point being taken for pushing in another contest); where the official scorecard shows the scores being changed, a delay of 20 minutes in adding up 6 sets of ten numbers and the most experienced announcer mis-announcing the result. That could be classed as controversial. Doesn't mean to say the decision is right or wrong, just controversial.Crazyboy wrote: I do see what you mean, but where was this controversial decision you are talking about?? Please don't tell me you thought Khans latest loss was in anyway controversial...it was close but he lost fair and square in my eyes....just.
con-tro-ver-sy - a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.
earsjohn wrote:It may be a copying error, it may be a manual change to deliver the right result, it may be fat fingers from the commission rep who filled in the card. The fact that it is there, combined with the other issues mentioned, has resulted in a controversy.iamasadlittleboy wrote:Is that not a copying error by someone who was copying down the 3 score cards onto 1 piece of paper? All the numbers look the same on that can and they are all visibly on the same piece of paper...earsjohn wrote: A fight where one guy is deducted two points for questionable fouls that would not be punished in most other fights (I can't recall a single point being taken for pushing in another contest); where the official scorecard shows the scores being changed, a delay of 20 minutes in adding up 6 sets of ten numbers and the most experienced announcer mis-announcing the result. That could be classed as controversial. Doesn't mean to say the decision is right or wrong, just controversial.
con-tro-ver-sy - a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.