BoxRec

stevek3lly wrote:

hitman_hatton1 wrote:

Tykemania wrote: I don't have too much of a problem with the decision; if we accept that the judges can only score what the referee hands to them then all three scores were within acceptable range - myself, I had it 7-5 to Khan in rounds, so with the deductions 113-112.

But you're quite right, the main issue was the refereeing. The missed knockdown in the first round was a poor call, and I thought that the second point deducted was spiteful; there was nothing to the incident whatsoever. What was most worrying though was the way Khan was repeatedly ticked off for "pushing", but Peterson was allowed free reign to burrow in with his head, dipping so low that Khan had little possibility of getting his shots off or even to defend himself at times. I would have thought that warnings and deductions were at least as valid there...

yeah i disagreed with that 2nd deduction.

it was a nothing incident.

the first deduction was understandable.

What about the punch after the break. Khan even looked at the ref before throwing the punch.

The ref didnt say break and the majority of the time shouted fight on so it caused confusion. At one point Peterson thought the ref was shouting break so stopped but he was shouting box on and he caught a few punches because of it.

The ref wasnt bias imo he was just very poor his decisions cost khan the fight. He was warning khan for holding and pushing and at the same time warning peterson to keep his head up but then only deducted points from khan, he ignored a low blow (but i havent seen the replay) and instead of breaking the fighters he just kept telling khan to step back which gave peterson an opportunity to jump on him.

Bottom line is khan was hard done by but peterson deserved the win, anywhere else in the world khan would have got the decision for being the champion or would have had the ref make more orthodox decisions in the ring. However i cant personally see a problem with the two score cards that had the fight by one point to peterson once you take the deductions into consideration.

kingfinn wrote:Bottom line is khan was hard done by but peterson deserved the win, anywhere else in the world khan would have got the decision for being the champion or would have had the ref make more orthodox decisions in the ring. However i cant personally see a problem with the two score cards that had the fight by one point to peterson once you take the deductions into consideration.

greenyox3 wrote:Khan's done himself no favours in the interview with Merchant. Aggrieved or not, it shows a lack of class.

I have no problem with the decision, and I'm surprised so many people are up in arms about it. Khan showed that he only knows how to fight one way, and Peterson's style gave him nightmares. That and Khan's lack of discipline have cost him the fight.

I wanted Khan to win, but it's hard not to be happy for Peterson.

I agree but you could see everytime the ref warned khan, khan was actually saying to him that there was nothing he could do if peterson kept putting his head down, and it was true. He was shouting at the ref at one point but the ref kept warning peterson but didnt deduct points.

Khan was clearly frustrated by that and felt cheated and in fairness im not sure many people on here believe he would have lost that fight if he had fought outside DC. I think he has a valid gripe. A frustrated, young fighter, that has just lost his belts is going to run his mouth in an interview if he has passion.

In a way im pleased for peterson but lets face it khan will beat him in the rematch.

Khan showed alot of flaws thought.

hitman_hatton1 wrote:

kingfinn wrote:Bottom line is khan was hard done by but peterson deserved the win, anywhere else in the world khan would have got the decision for being the champion or would have had the ref make more orthodox decisions in the ring. However i cant personally see a problem with the two score cards that had the fight by one point to peterson once you take the deductions into consideration.

It is true, when do you ever see the champion loose his title in fights that close? the cards always manage to be in their favour. Im not saying its right but as they say "you have to rip the title from the holder". In vegas khan would have won that.

I had it 113-112 Peterson, he dictated the pace and controlled the distance. When Khan kept it at range and fired in combinations he dominated but he just isn't a hood ring general at all! I thought the referee was superb he let them fight out all the time instead of shouting break when they got inside, he warned khan repeatedly so the points of were fine

Regardless of the scorecards. The point deductions (especially the last) cost Khan points.

Deduction without warning is pretty stupid

alexpaterson wrote:I had it 113-112 Peterson, he dictated the pace and controlled the distance. When Khan kept it at range and fired in combinations he dominated but he just isn't a hood ring general at all! I thought the referee was superb he let them fight out all the time instead of shouting break when they got inside, he warned khan repeatedly so the points of were fine

Exactly what I was saying.

kingfinn wrote:It is true, when do you ever see the champion loose his title in fights that close? the cards always manage to be in their favour. Im not saying its right but as they say "you have to rip the title from the holder". In vegas khan would have won that.

Valid point - I mean, look at Felix Sturm's last two performances, Manny Pacquiao against JMM and countless others. As I said before, I don't particularly have a problem with the scoring, but I think in such a close fight to have all four key decisions (the knockdown, the two deductions and the failure to penalise Peterson for ducking in) go against you and then to lose by one point on one card must pretty much suck!

I've just watched it with the HBO commentary and they seemed to be very keen to give it to Khan. In my view, Peterson deserves his victory. Close fight and good action but Khan was repeatedly told to stop pushing (no official warning though) and derserved his deductions plus he was extremely lucky fella to get a knockdown.

Credit goes to Peterson, Khan seemed to think he was above it and that it was a gimme. The referee is nowhere near as bad as people are making out, i thought he was fairly competent. He let Khan get away with quite a few fouls.

The Knockdown in Rnd 1 was legit though not a bad one

Final round wrote:The Knockdown in Rnd 1 was legit though not a bad one

Looked to me like Peterson landed a good shot, went to move, tripped over Khan's leg while Khan was throwing a punch. Questionable but no malice intended

stevek3lly wrote:

alexpaterson wrote:I had it 113-112 Peterson, he dictated the pace and controlled the distance. When Khan kept it at range and fired in combinations he dominated but he just isn't a hood ring general at all! I thought the referee was superb he let them fight out all the time instead of shouting break when they got inside, he warned khan repeatedly so the points of were fine

Exactly what I was saying.

Congratulations now you can both get married I liked the fact a ref was willing to let them fight their way out of the clinches. My problem was that instead of breaking them cleanly when he was supposed to he would say "khan step back" which obviously was handicapping khan, he also warned peterson for going forward with his head low all the time but never penalised him.

The fact is, if im confused watching at home with what the ref is doing then what the hell are the fighters thinking in the ring.

If this many people are questioning the refs actions then there is clearly something wrong.

Lets face it the only contraversy a ref like richie davies has had was over telling bellew off and most agreed it setup a great fight and either way had no ill affects on the fight.

Name me a contraversial decision kenny bayless has made?

If the ref is doing his job properly people dont debate their actions after.

freddydoesdallas wrote:

Final round wrote:The Knockdown in Rnd 1 was legit though not a bad one

Looked to me like Peterson landed a good shot, went to move, tripped over Khan's leg while Khan was throwing a punch. Questionable but no malice intended

Dont remember Petersons shot, I saw Khan land a couple of glancing shots and Petersen lost footing receiving them as I say soft but the punches made him touch down.

freddydoesdallas wrote:He let Khan get away with quite a few fouls.

That completely misses the point - most of Khan's fouls, arguably all, were pushing Peterson off after he had burrowed in with his head, ergo Peterson is the guilty party because his foul came first and caused Khan's.

He was coming in very low with his head. The referee should have had a word with the pair of them and maybe that would have worked. I think Peterson would have given any fighter trouble last night, be a good rematch.

Tykemania wrote:

freddydoesdallas wrote:He let Khan get away with quite a few fouls.

That completely misses the point - most of Khan's fouls, arguably all, were pushing Peterson off after he had burrowed in with his head, ergo Peterson is the guilty party because his foul came first and caused Khan's.

Peterson was trying to keep his chin down and stick his head into Khan's chest, a tactic which was used by another British LWW champion not too long ago. If he was being shoved off like that, people over here would be outraged.

Two wrongs don't make a right!!

freddydoesdallas wrote: Peterson was trying to keep his chin down and stick his head into Khan's chest, a tactic which was used by another British LWW champion not too long ago. If he was being shoved off like that, people over here would be outraged.

Two wrongs don't make a right!!

I don't doubt that that was what he was trying to do, but he was doing it beyond the point which was allowed in the rules of the sport and whilst two wrongs etc, the fact is his infringement came first so should have been the one punished!

Does a judge have to obey the refs decision on a no knockdown ?

jessi wrote:Does a judge have to obey the refs decision on a no knockdown ?

That's an interesting one mate. As usual, I can only talk about Britain. I had the 'other way round' confirmed to me by the Board and a star class ref recently, meaning that if a ref calls a knockdown, the judge has to give it, even if they think it was a slip or whatever.

As for your scenario, the judge could always give it a 10-8 round anyway, couldn't s/he, if they felt like it?

Had it by one point to Khan after the deductions.
Don't have a problem with the points deductions - he was warned enough.
However, the referee was no way consistent, lacked authority, defo out of his depth.
Peterson was coming in with his head down, hitting low, using elbows etc.
The referee's main weapon to tidy up a fight is "break" - this ref was happy to let it be a brawl and that didn't suit Khan.
Both knockdowns in the first round were ligit, but more down to Peterson's balance than anything else.
Khan was very frustrating - macho nonsense was all about the fact he cannot fight inside. Doesn't know where to put his head, cover up, reply to punches and more than anything I think he needs to learn how to use his body to lean on a fighter - stop him from getting any leverage. His only tactic was to lean back which just allowed Peterson to get more leverage into his hooks.
Khan looked stupid running backwards but it showed his mentality - he feels he needs to punch at arms length all the time.
Flloyd Mayweather would take him to school. Defo not ready.
Khan has electric hand speed and movement. He is an exciting boxer and sells tickets. But, if he wants to be a superstar, he needs to learn all aspects of the trade.
As for Peterson, immense credit. Lovely guy and without doubt deserves his glory. Fantastic spirit, will to win.

I thought it was a great fight - love to see them go at it again.

Rematch Vegas in March - Khan in 4.

Wow, a lot of whining about this fight. I had 112 - 113 to Peterson (exactly the same as Watt's card which was quite a shock!) and I think the points deductions were fair enough. Haven't got my scorecard at work but there were a few very tight rounds that I gave to Khan and vice versa.

Of the two, Khan was the dirtier. Constant holding, pushing away, pushing the head down and headlocks combined with liberal usage of the elbow means that he doesn't have much to complain about IMO.

Khan's inside game is still severely lacking, he couldn't handle the pressure and he most certainly didn't like it to the body. I'm quite shocked that Khan didn't use the uppercut until about the ninth round either, did Freddie not tell him earlier?

Part of me hopes that Peterson tells Team Khan and GBP to whistle for a rematch, we all know if the shoe was on the other foot one wouldn't be forthcoming.

King Geedorah wrote:I

Khan lost because it was a close fight in which he ran for long periods at crucial times. The same thing almost cost him the Maidana fight and until he learns the difference between defence and running he’ll drop major decisions Stateside.
.

you sell his defensive acuity short, tel. you neglect to mention his near-mastery of the 'la-la-la-la i can't hear you' earmuffs defensive posture, beloved of defensive masters like John Murray throughout the ages....

anyways, in terms of him defending without running, i doubt anyone's holding their breath.....

Counter-puncher wrote:

King Geedorah wrote:I

Khan lost because it was a close fight in which he ran for long periods at crucial times. The same thing almost cost him the Maidana fight and until he learns the difference between defence and running he’ll drop major decisions Stateside.
.

you sell his defensive acuity short, tel. you neglect to mention his near-mastery of the 'la-la-la-la i can't hear you' earmuffs defensive posture, beloved of defensive masters like John Murray throughout the ages....

anyways, in terms of him defending without running, i doubt anyone's holding their breath.....

Yes, yes & thrice yes. I was sitting there screaming me nuts off: "Fooking LOOK where the punches are coming from, you cahnt!"

It's like Freddie Roach tells all his boys this deliberately, in the hopes that no-one's gonna look to see where to hit them. I suspect Freddie has a bit of a sadistic streak...

King Geedorah wrote:. Time for Roach’s ‘tactical genius’ tag to be re-examined?

Yah. I've never bought that Freddie is a tactical genius; an offensive genius (training wise), maybe. But tactics? Naw. Beristain's twenty times as good at taking what a fighter has & thinking up a way for him to beat someone who on paper he shouldn't be able to compete with.

belt 'n' braces, not ninja-jedi master

(have you made that reservation for Dorsio tonight?)

also, people are saying Khan CHOOSES to slug it out/take punches on the ropes, many using the words 'trying to prove his toughness' / macho streak

i think it is very different and much simpler.

he does so much hyperactive bouncing around, that he gets tired, and has to rest

= he starts taking punches, some of which he responds to, some of which he lolls around like a ragdoll on.