BoxRec

sg1985 wrote:i completely agree, it is what he does with the title. he could drop it and move back down to fight a champion, i'd still respect him for it. amir khan has limited ability because of his whiskers. winning any kind of world title trinket is an achievement for him. time will tell on khan, i wish him well, i like the lad.
i think a lot of people just dislike him and want to see him starched again. earlier in this thread he was being criticised for avoiding ortis, a fighter he hasn't avoided yet.

I disagree with the tone that "cause Khan is chinny winning a world title is an achievement"... its an achievement for anybody - just because Shane Mosley isn't chinny, doesn't mean it is less of an achievement. Its no bigger of an achievement cause of Khan's frailaties - winning a world title should almost be an "objective" thing, not subjective.

Sure if Hatton fought Kotelnik it would be deemed a backward step, but I don't think people should consider it a poor match or be OVERLY critical of it, it would still be among Hatton best wins. It wouldn't enhance his legacy or bargain power at his stage of his career - but Vivien Harries would have when he was WBA champion and Hatton wasn't a world champion (I DO NOT consider WBU as a world champion) - and that match was championed by many on here, myself included, and people would have called Hatton a geniune world champion... even though Tszyu was holding the Super Duper WBA title. Like when Eastman fought Joppy, haven't recalled anyone say "Howard Eastman fought the world class William Joppy in a non world title fight cause Joppy only held the Ordinary title" - it was considered a world title.

So what i am saying is Khan shouldn't deserve "extra" praise cause he is chinny, but he should be given the same praise that others fighting similar opponents for similar titles got/would get. If this was McCloskey or even Witter - the promoters would be applauded for delivering a world title fight, and then people would say its a tough ask (even though Witter is going over old ground).

I can see Chesh's point of view of course, yes I would like to see Khan fight for a 135 title... lets just wait and see, but really also, be honest, if Khan fought some of those you mentioned - he would get criticised... maybe not by you, but by others. Like David Diaz got criticised! Like MAB got criticised... a good many of the fighters you mentioned would get the same treatment - Moses etc especially. As for Khan going for the EASIEST option to win a title, I aint sure... he could have easily fought Gavin Rees and I think that would have been the easiest title fight for him.

I have been critical of Khan's opponents in the past, Gomez I condemmed, the fights between Drizlane and Limond I complained about, Scott Lawton was a backward step from Limond, and Prescott was an unkown quantity and I complained about these fights on here.... Fagan would have been another, but I think he was entitled to a rehabiliation fight. However, I think when credit is due - he deserves it as much as any other fight. As I said, if this was Paul McCloskey, Witter or Thaxton even there wouldn't be any complaints.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Ian stop cyber bullying and asking people out on forums, that sort of behaviour is the epitimemy of being a prick

I can't see how it's cyber bullying. I was saying get out from behind your keyboard if you want to level abuse - which is surely the opposite of cyber bullying?

Anyway, the lad is OK now and posting sensibly (good!) but he was trolling earlier.

I can't believe I got sucked in and lowered myself to that level. It was late though. 8)

Apologies to the Board.

If Khan beats Kotelnik its a bloody good win.

Take your heads out of your arses Khan haters.

Wrists wrote:If Khan beats Kotelnik its a bloody good win.

Take your heads out of your arses Khan haters.

Oh aye, it will be a bloody good win if he pulls it off, Wrists.

Ian - why do so many hate Khan??

Is it because he is a FW fighter??

I really don't understand the grief on here some of our guys get, Calzaghe, Hatton, Khan and now DeGale is getting it :x

Kevin

Wrists wrote:Ian - why do so many hate Khan??

Is it because he is a FW fighter??

I really don't understand the grief on here some of our guys get, Calzaghe, Hatton, Khan and now DeGale is getting it :x

Kevin

I really need to do a proper, thoughtful piece on this for BBN.

I don't think since the early electrifying days of Naz have I ever experienced more joy from boxing fans about a British fighter than when Khan got sparked. My phone went mental, every single one gleefully celebrating a former Olympic silver medallist and only a young kid (and a seemingly nice one at that) being smashed to bits.

The ties with FW are massively important and, for one reason or another (it is these that need picking apart) Khan has become a symbol for what is wrong with the politics of boxing. I mean, there is no way he deserves any kind of world title shot, especially at 140. I know this applies to loads of boxers though.

Personally, the thing that irks me is how on his way up he was being lauded as the next big thing - and his opposition as being tough guys - when true fans knew that he was chinny and was fighting journeymen.

I just don't like it when the general public are fed a load of shit because I feel in the long run it damages the sport.

Not as bad as when Audley was announced on prime time BBC TV as 'heavyweight champion of the world' though.

Its an interesting one Ian.

Take Froch and Haye for example - at the moment they are getting the plaudits for their next fights and from a sporting point of view rightly so.

Lets say though both get beat and get beat badly whether KO'd or in the case of Froch widely outpointed.

Where will they go from there?? - career wise that might be them two cattle trucked??

For me the FW approach while cautious it does mean though that his fighters earn a lot of money and are well set for life, which is what we all want in out jobs isn't it??

But again all that aside why anyone would want Khan to get beat and then laugh about it to me is a sad bastard

This thread is one giant face-palm.

Ian you have hit the nail on the head as usual.

Stu you are missing the point on so many levels,it's painful.

Maybe we can all compromise on calling Khan a 'titlist' if he wins, there's nothing erroneous
about that. Sky will spout their crap to the
contrary, and the worst thing is that they'll
probably go out of their way to stress that
"Oh this time it's the WBA title, a
proper one, the days of WBU are over, now Khan is a genuine, bona fide etc.

The good thing though is that talk of Hatton being in the same division with the same claim can never be far away.

Riddick Blowe wrote:This thread is one giant face-palm.

Ian you have hit the nail on the head as usual.

Stu you are missing the point on so many levels,it's painful.

Maybe we can all compromise on calling Khan a 'titlist' if he wins, there's nothing erroneous
about that. Sky will spout their crap to the
contrary, and the worst thing is that they'll
probably go out of their way to stress that
"Oh this time it's the WBA title, a
proper one, the days of WBU are over, now Khan is a genuine, bona fide etc.

The good thing though is that talk of Hatton being in the same division with the same claim can never be far away.

You've got it Riddick but, dare I say it, I think you're even being optimistic about Sky. It'll be 'world champion' this, 'world champion' that. You're right about Hatton though. Then all of a sudden, confused Joe will ask...'How can they both be world champion at the same weight?'

And we are left trying to explain how shite the politics of the sport is. Joe Public then, rightly, calls it a load of wank.

And a bit of advice - don't argue with Stu. You will NEVER win.

sg1985 wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Ian stop cyber bullying and asking people out on forums, that sort of behaviour is the epitimemy of being a prick

I can't see how it's cyber bullying. I was saying get out from behind your keyboard if you want to level abuse - which is surely the opposite of cyber bullying?

Anyway, the lad is OK now and posting sensibly (good!) but he was trolling earlier.

I can't believe I got sucked in and lowered myself to that level. It was late though. 8)

Apologies to the Board.

"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Thanks for this. That's exactly what you were doing. You maintained a serious stance about the fact that anyone who owns any kind of belt deserves to be called a 'world champion'. I pointed out the anomaly of this and it took me about three posts for you to lose your rag, admit you were doing it as a joke because you found it 'very amusing' and then you called me a prick.

You were trolling. Now you aren't - good stuff.

sg1985 wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

sg1985 wrote:whats hard to understand? if you win a world title owned by any of all the organisations you are their world champion its as simple as that.

that, however, does not make you the best in your weight class, hence unifications. sakio bika hodls the ibo, he is their world champion, but he is by no way anywhere near the best in the division.

Maybe it's me being touchy. I understand your very pedantic, low level, shitty point. I'm trying to get beyond that.

Do YOU realise that throwing tags like 'world champion' around left, right and centre damages the integrity of the sport?

Do you realise that because of your stance some silly, deluded c*nts in Aberdeen think Lee McAllister is a two-weight world champion?

do you know something, yes its pedantic and silly. it started out as a bit of fun, i was joking around winding hitman up. i know the other belts dont make you the world champion. but you have come on and managed to turn something i was finding very amusing to something nasty. you are a prick.

See?

Actually jus thought in answer to the Q, won't Khan become a super champ and Ortiz regular champ? WBA seems to be not too hard to tie the belt up for a while

At least he's stepping up and taking on someone bigger than he is, and a hard nut at that. Plus he's not going to be heavily favoured here either.

So what if he said the guy sucked a few weeks back ( which he doesn't ) he's hardly going to be spouting that line now is he, after FW has paid a shed load of money to bring him over here. He'd get a slap round the head if he did.

You can call Khan pampered, but getting laid out cold in front of his family, friends and a few million others sort of evens things out a bit.

sg1985 wrote:i was not trolling, i did not post a controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic message. hitman started it by saying amir khan will not be a world champion if he beats kotelnik. which i pointed out was nonsense.
his stance and yours would mean, mayweather, pacquaio, kessler, froch, vitali klitschko and many other fighters were not real champions. which is wrong.

It was inflammatory. A synonymic and more colloquial expression for this is 'trying to wind somebody up'. You've admitted you were deliberately trying to wind him up. You admitted you didn't really believe what you were posting (that EVERYONE who wins a title with the word 'world' in it is a 'world champion') and were being a pedant. You admitted you were taking a stance you didn't really believe in and doing it because you found it very amusing. You don't even understand your own stance, never mind mine.

Mine is that not EVERYONE who wins a title with 'world' in it deserves to be called a world champion. Some do. We don't disagree on this - you've said it yourself.

You were also deliberately trying to provoke an emotional response and, regrettably, got one from one who should know better than feeding a troll - me.

Let's just agree to disagree and move on before we bore every mofo to death.

Good use of the phrase MOFO there Ian

:P

Do you teach the kids at school that one??

:P

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:This thread is one giant face-palm.

Ian you have hit the nail on the head as usual.

Stu you are missing the point on so many levels,it's painful.

Maybe we can all compromise on calling Khan a 'titlist' if he wins, there's nothing erroneous
about that. Sky will spout their crap to the
contrary, and the worst thing is that they'll
probably go out of their way to stress that
"Oh this time it's the WBA title, a
proper one, the days of WBU are over, now Khan is a genuine, bona fide etc.

The good thing though is that talk of Hatton being in the same division with the same claim can never be far away.

You've got it Riddick but, dare I say it, I think you're even being optimistic about Sky. It'll be 'world champion' this, 'world champion' that. You're right about Hatton though. Then all of a sudden, confused Joe will ask...'How can they both be world champion at the same weight?'

And we are left trying to explain how shite the politics of the sport is. Joe Public then, rightly, calls it a load of wank.

And a bit of advice - don't argue with Stu. You will NEVER win.

I actually think Joe Public has a vague knowledge of the slew of titles, semantics and corruption from the last time he was burned (probably via an enthusiast friend like you or I) but this situation puts it into perspective in a clearer way because Hatton is closer to home.

I think SKy will have some explaining to do. Everyone knows Hatton is a light welter and that he's been campaigning rather successfully in the division. But Hatton has also been away from home for a while and also for some reason the Malignaggi win didn't carry the exposure for Joe Public that the Mayweather loss did. If Sky have to mention Hatton, which seems unavoidable, they'll probably just brand him as an 'other world champion' and obviously play down any apparent collision course with Khan. The boxing press will play it up though, leading to the inevitable SN "We couldn't agree terms/ Khan is washing his hair/ the dog ate the Ring title"... etc.

All this is moot anyway because Khan is getting knocked out by Kotelnik.

Riddick Blowe wrote:This thread is one giant face-palm.

Ian you have hit the nail on the head as usual.

Stu you are missing the point on so many levels,it's painful.

Maybe we can all compromise on calling Khan a 'titlist' if he wins, there's nothing erroneous
about that. Sky will spout their crap to the
contrary, and the worst thing is that they'll
probably go out of their way to stress that
"Oh this time it's the WBA title, a
proper one, the days of WBU are over, now Khan is a genuine, bona fide etc.

The good thing though is that talk of Hatton being in the same division with the same claim can never be far away.

I agree with the main points - although isn't it amazing that Khan's harshest critics are saying this. What I said is WHY is it "fine" to call Woods, Froch, and Witter world champions and call Khan and Dunne simply titlists - on the Dunne scenario I agree he is a "titlist" cause there is a WBA super Champion.

Woods and Witter successfully defended there title - so for me they became champions, bona fide world champions.... but no one had a dig at Sky/BBC for labelling them world champions the night they won it... so why the inconsistency when it comes to Khan?

Kotelnik is every bit as much, if not more, of a champion than Hoye, Corley and Pascal were.... actually won a title and is ranked higher independently in the weight devision.

I think whether Khan DESERVES the shot or not is an entirely different debate.... all I am saying is I cannot understand why Witter, Froch, Woods got credited as "world champions" and Khan not. Some fighters do not deserve title fights, but if they pull up the upset do they still not classed champions? e.g. Hasim Rahman... I just think there is alot of inconsistent.

sg1985 wrote:i was not trolling, i did not post a controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic message. hitman started it by saying amir khan will not be a world champion if he beats kotelnik. which i pointed out was nonsense.
his stance and yours would mean, mayweather, pacquaio, kessler, froch, vitali klitschko and many other fighters were not real champions. which is wrong.

Mayweather and Pacquaio have been proper world champions, just not in every division they claim to have been. Froch has never been in a real world title fight, he's a good fighter but beating Pascal doesn't make you a world champion. Vitaly Klitschko has never been a real world champion either, he lost his only shot against Lennox Lewis. Kessler did the same against Calzaghe, for the vacant title.

stujones wrote: I agree with the main points - although isn't it amazing that Khan's harshest critics are saying this. What I said is WHY is it "fine" to call Woods, Froch, and Witter world champions and call Khan and Dunne simply titlists - on the Dunne scenario I agree he is a "titlist" cause there is a WBA super Champion.

Woods and Witter successfully defended there title - so for me they became champions, bona fide world champions.... but no one had a dig at Sky/BBC for labelling them world champions the night they won it... so why the inconsistency when it comes to Khan?

Kotelnik is every bit as much, if not more, of a champion than Hoye, Corley and Pascal were.... actually won a title and is ranked higher independently in the weight devision.

I think whether Khan DESERVES the shot or not is an entirely different debate.... all I am saying is I cannot understand why Witter, Froch, Woods got credited as "world champions" and Khan not. Some fighters do not deserve title fights, but if they pull up the upset do they still not classed champions? e.g. Hasim Rahman... I just think there is alot of inconsistent.

Froch, Woods and Witter were never world champions IMO. Hasim Rahman was.

hitman09 wrote: Froch, Woods and Witter were never world champions IMO. Hasim Rahman was.

Well thats fair, at least there is a consistency in YOUR argument. I do not have a problem with that.

Just a question - what does Froch need to do to become a champion... given that "THE" champion retired? Do you class Kessler as THE champion - if yes, why?

Also what about the heavyweight mess, you say Vitali is not THE champion, it is vacant- well Lewis has retired, does it mean no more heavyweight champions ever again? Did Lewis acquire the title by beating Briggs?

stujones wrote:

hitman09 wrote: Froch, Woods and Witter were never world champions IMO. Hasim Rahman was.

Well thats fair, at least there is a consistency in YOUR argument. I do not have a problem with that.

Just a question - what does Froch need to do to become a champion... given that "THE" champion retired? Do you class Kessler as THE champion - if yes, why?

Kessler is not the champion, he is #1, with Bute #2, and the Froch/Taylor winner #3. If Kessler fights either Bute or the Froch/Taylor winner, I would consider the winner of that the world champion. The title was vacated when Calzaghe moved up to LHW.

If there is no recognised champion(like super middleweight) then I don't class anyone as a champion until they've come out on top over at least two of the top fighters at that class, I won't class the winner of Froch/Taylor as world super middleweight champion unless they beat two of Kessler/Bute/Balzsay(or whoever holds the belts at the time).

stujones wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:This thread is one giant face-palm.

Ian you have hit the nail on the head as usual.

Stu you are missing the point on so many levels,it's painful.

Maybe we can all compromise on calling Khan a 'titlist' if he wins, there's nothing erroneous
about that. Sky will spout their crap to the
contrary, and the worst thing is that they'll
probably go out of their way to stress that
"Oh this time it's the WBA title, a
proper one, the days of WBU are over, now Khan is a genuine, bona fide etc.

The good thing though is that talk of Hatton being in the same division with the same claim can never be far away.

I agree with the main points - although isn't it amazing that Khan's harshest critics are saying this. What I said is WHY is it "fine" to call Woods, Froch, and Witter world champions and call Khan and Dunne simply titlists - on the Dunne scenario I agree he is a "titlist" cause there is a WBA super Champion.

Woods and Witter successfully defended there title - so for me they became champions, bona fide world champions.... but no one had a dig at Sky/BBC for labelling them world champions the night they won it... so why the inconsistency when it comes to Khan?

Kotelnik is every bit as much, if not more, of a champion than Hoye, Corley and Pascal were.... actually won a title and is ranked higher independently in the weight devision.

I think whether Khan DESERVES the shot or not is an entirely different debate.... all I am saying is I cannot understand why Witter, Froch, Woods got credited as "world champions" and Khan not. Some fighters do not deserve title fights, but if they pull up the upset do they still not classed champions? e.g. Hasim Rahman... I just think there is alot of inconsistent.

I never credited them as 'world champions'. Everyone is a title holder until either beating the current widely recognised division's #1, or where there isn't a clear one, beating a rival who is claiming the same distinction (As Calzaghe finally did with Kessler). In these cases, you can call yourself the world champion of the division, and you will get recognition for it from Ring.

hitman09 wrote:

stujones wrote:

hitman09 wrote: Froch, Woods and Witter were never world champions IMO. Hasim Rahman was.

Well thats fair, at least there is a consistency in YOUR argument. I do not have a problem with that.

Just a question - what does Froch need to do to become a champion... given that "THE" champion retired? Do you class Kessler as THE champion - if yes, why?

Kessler is not the champion, he is #1, with Bute #2, and the Froch/Taylor winner #3. If Kessler fights either Bute or the Froch/Taylor winner, I would consider the winner of that the world champion. The title was vacated when Calzaghe moved up to LHW.

and would it only be #1, #2 or #3 - if there is a WBO champion also ranked #4, if Kessler beat him would he be champion?

Also is it only a defeat that can make a fighter lose the "championship" - did you class Hopkins as "the champion" the night he fought Joe, even though it was a comeback? What about Hatton who did move out of the 140 devision, doesn't he get stripped? Or what happens in a scenerio where the "champion" continues to win fighting substandard opponents and someone else unifies all four titles (as the champion is just the IBO champion or something).

I'm not saying your wrong or criticising, just questions really. As I said, your showing consistency which is all what I was looking for in this thread.

I can't see Khan winning, why not fight Jon Murray or Jon Thaxton or Euro champ at lightweight.