Tuan_Jim wrote:It depresses me that British boxing rings are as corrupt now as countries that had horrible reputations in the 90s, Germany, Italy etc.
It stinks a bit.
Of course it was almost certainly irrelevant to the result, but it had the smell of "AJ keeps his perfect record, we all avoid the (tiny) chance of Takam humdinger in R12..
Covfefe wrote:Ten years from now this fight will be a robbery and Takam will have been coming on strong since the sixth and was on his way to stopping Joshua.
i had actually given takam two rounds after the sixth. im pretty sure aj wouldve won but imo takam was gonna go the distance if treated fairly. the ref was eager to stop him. maybe not bought like suggested, but i do agree with those who say he was looking for it.
Last edited by jamamb on 28 Oct 2017, 18:23, edited 1 time in total.
Covfefe wrote:
No, you said the ref was trying to stop him on the cut because he was bought.
Nonsense.
The referee was trying to get him stopped on the cut. 3 times in all.
He had his eye looked at, but prove he was bought and wasn’t genuinely concerned about a serious cut.
You’re talking shite, love.
Obviously I can't prove he was bought but I have my suspicions and you're bleating isn't going to stop me. I've seen plenty of referees in the last 40 years desperate to protect and favour the house fighter and I know what I'm looking at.
Covfefe wrote:Ten years from now this fight will be a robbery and Takam will have been coming on strong since the sixth and was on his way to stopping Joshua.
i had actually given takam two rounds after the sixth. im pretty sure aj wouldve won but imo takam was gonna go the distance if treated fairly.
Yeah but the conspiracies are already starting. He arguably won two, won at least one, but Joshua never looked out of control.
ewenhay wrote:
The referee was trying to get him stopped on the cut. 3 times in all.
He had his eye looked at, but prove he was bought and wasn’t genuinely concerned about a serious cut.
You’re talking shite, love.
Obviously I can't prove he was bought but I have my suspicions and you're bleating isn't going to stop me. I've seen plenty of referees in the last 40 years desperate to protect and favour the house fighter and I know what I'm looking at.
Covfefe wrote:
He had his eye looked at, but prove he was bought and wasn’t genuinely concerned about a serious cut.
You’re talking shite, love.
Obviously I can't prove he was bought but I have my suspicions and you're bleating isn't going to stop me. I've seen plenty of referees in the last 40 years desperate to protect and favour the house fighter and I know what I'm looking at.
ewenhay wrote:
Obviously I can't prove he was bought but I have my suspicions and you're bleating isn't going to stop me. I've seen plenty of referees in the last 40 years desperate to protect and favour the house fighter and I know what I'm looking at.
