Page 1 of 1

Ten Reasons where there NEEDS to be a rematch

Posted: 17 Apr 2011, 13:26
by whicker
1. Mcloskey was clearly going to win. Thats obvious. Statistics show that when a fighter loses all of the first 6 rounds, he will easily win the second half witha KO.

2. Formlines. Mcloskey has already beaten world greats as Giuseppe Lauri, Barry Morrison and Daniel Rasilla.

3. He's white.*

4. You can enver ever trust a referee, or a Doctor. Always argue with their decisions (when they don't suit you)

5. Team Mcloskey has a world beating promotional team behind them. With such power that they wield, can anyone imagine the consequences if they pulled out of boxing in protest.

6. Generally, it's all Khans fault and he is nasty.

7. Because Mcloskey gave such an awesome performance over those 6 rounds, it would be criminal not to offer the FANS a rematch.

8. Khan threw twice as many punches and landed about the same ratio more- which MUST mean Khan was due a collapse.

9. Mcloskey doesn't need this- really, he is just doing the WBC a favour by offering a rematch. He can pick and choose whom he fights, and for what.

10. The Americas will demand it. As a household name in the states, Mcloskey simply won't be denied. His forward, attacking style won him many fans that night.

11. And finally, a special at 11. We all know that had Mcloskey won all the first 6 rounds, and it had been stopped on the same cut, and he won, then the first thing he would have done was offer Khan a rematch. Indeed, in his own fight with Lauri, a controversial one in which Paul actually lost a point for head butting, Mcloskey offered a rematch. (didn't he)



* OK, even allowing for the fact that this is tounge in cheeky, this one I'm still a bit uncomfortable with. But there does seem (from some) an view not directly stated that would endorse this parody.

Re: Ten Reasons where there NEEDS to be a rematch

Posted: 17 Apr 2011, 13:28
by DIRT SUGAR
Khan means 'Satan' in arabic you know?

Re: Ten Reasons where there NEEDS to be a rematch

Posted: 17 Apr 2011, 13:56
by whicker
DIRT SUGAR wrote:Khan means 'Satan' in arabic you know?

And the head of the WBC is a covert Muslim too- it's a conspiracy.

Re: Ten Reasons where there NEEDS to be a rematch

Posted: 17 Apr 2011, 16:40
by Cas
1. McCloskey was getting into his groove :lol:

I doubt the rematch happens.

Re: Ten Reasons where there NEEDS to be a rematch

Posted: 18 Apr 2011, 03:02
by Old bones Ian
The fight was awful, McCloskey hadn't done anything, why should there be a rematch?

Re: Ten Reasons where there NEEDS to be a rematch

Posted: 18 Apr 2011, 03:32
by Newport Daz
whicker wrote:1. Mcloskey was clearly going to win. Thats obvious. Statistics show that when a fighter loses all of the first 6 rounds, he will easily win the second half witha KO.

2. Formlines. Mcloskey has already beaten world greats as Giuseppe Lauri, Barry Morrison and Daniel Rasilla.

3. He's white.*

4. You can enver ever trust a referee, or a Doctor. Always argue with their decisions (when they don't suit you)

5. Team Mcloskey has a world beating promotional team behind them. With such power that they wield, can anyone imagine the consequences if they pulled out of boxing in protest.

6. Generally, it's all Khans fault and he is nasty.

7. Because Mcloskey gave such an awesome performance over those 6 rounds, it would be criminal not to offer the FANS a rematch.

8. Khan threw twice as many punches and landed about the same ratio more- which MUST mean Khan was due a collapse.

9. Mcloskey doesn't need this- really, he is just doing the WBC a favour by offering a rematch. He can pick and choose whom he fights, and for what.

10. The Americas will demand it. As a household name in the states, Mcloskey simply won't be denied. His forward, attacking style won him many fans that night.

11. And finally, a special at 11. We all know that had Mcloskey won all the first 6 rounds, and it had been stopped on the same cut, and he won, then the first thing he would have done was offer Khan a rematch. Indeed, in his own fight with Lauri, a controversial one in which Paul actually lost a point for head butting, Mcloskey offered a rematch. (didn't he)



* OK, even allowing for the fact that this is tounge in cheeky, this one I'm still a bit uncomfortable with. But there does seem (from some) an view not directly stated that would endorse this parody.
:bow: Brilliant.

But you forgot -

Mccloskey was the "moral" victor. Not being Ko'd in the 1st rounds and Khan missing a lot also makes a rematch a "must" (according to Irishman Steve Collins anyway)

Re: Ten Reasons where there NEEDS to be a rematch

Posted: 18 Apr 2011, 05:04
by boxingchat
I am a Dolphin!

Re: Ten Reasons where there NEEDS to be a rematch

Posted: 18 Apr 2011, 05:44
by Coco
You forgot too say that the rematch would generate so much money, financially can couldn't afford not to give McCloskey another chance

Re: Ten Reasons where there NEEDS to be a rematch

Posted: 18 Apr 2011, 05:45
by Datsue
I insist this thread is taken down immediately, because I didn't think of it first.

Oh, & you forgot to add :

12) Richard "The Secret" Williams

Re: Ten Reasons where there NEEDS to be a rematch

Posted: 18 Apr 2011, 09:04
by whicker
Newport Daz wrote:
Khan missing a lot also makes a rematch a "must" (according to Irishman Steve Collins anyway)
Exactly. Khan MISSED a lot more punches than McCloskey- which surely means McCloskey should be the winner?

(OK, Khan threw a lot more and landed a lot more... but thats not the point.. he still missed with some- unforgivable. :KO: )

Re: Ten Reasons where there NEEDS to be a rematch

Posted: 18 Apr 2011, 09:05
by whicker
Old bones Ian wrote:The fight was awful, McCloskey hadn't done anything, why should there be a rematch?
Because Khan can be a bit arrogant and brash when people provoke him. Surely that guarantees a rematch?

Re: Ten Reasons where there NEEDS to be a rematch

Posted: 18 Apr 2011, 10:43
by McCannW14
There should never have been a first fight let alone a rematch.

mediocre fight and anyone on here who bought the PPV should have known better.

Strictly a fight for the mug punter general public.

Khan lost a Fan

Posted: 19 Apr 2011, 09:28
by devo1
Travelled to the MEN (Manchester) as a Khan fan and a McCloskey fan AND friend.
Told Paul before the fight no matter what way it went, it was win/win for me because if he lost to Khan there was no shame in it as he loses to the World Champion at the moment and if he won then I'd be elated for him.
When he said to me he didn't need to change his style as he knew his reflexes where quicker than Khans hands I was worried.
His game plan was simple. Risk making Khan empty some of his tank hitting air and get him frustrated first half while conserving his own till the second half of the fight.
He trusted his own chin and was then going to reveal the straight left down the pipe and go for broke down the straight and final rounds.
He done exactly what he said.
When the cut happened the wheels came off temporarily mentaly on him. He said today when the Doctor climbed into the ring while the referee was gesturing to him that his brains where gonna fall out he just got caught in the headlights for a bit and couldn't take in what was going on hence the lack of protest. Personally I think John and Eammon in his corner should have spotted the unfolding controversy quicker and got in there to t least regain some protocol.
Its a shame and slightly concerning the way it was stopped for both Paul and Boxing. The arena was electric and if it didn't come across on the TV trust me the fight was going to plan. He had weathered Khans early storm and made him miss 80% of what he threw and you could see Khans frustration clearly.
Does Paul deserve a rematch? I think so because of the circumstances and that arena would fill to capacity again easily and if Khan would let Sky show it without PPV even better!
My problem now is with Khan's attitude after the fight. Listen to him on these interviews

http://www.u.tv/Sport/Khan-takes-on1ine ... 123388aeba

This is where he lost me as a fan. No respect at all.
I now have to admit to myself that maybe they are fast tracking him to make as much money as they Khan :-) before he is exposed as just a good, not great fighter.
His 'Manny' mannerisms hitting his gloves together and the way he says "gonna knocked out..blah,blah.." from the side of his mouth is pure 'Naz' in his day and to me this shows lack of character and immaturity. What a shame.
Paul, I don't kid myself into thinking is going to be a PforP great but I now don't think Khan is either.
I do know Paul would have given Khan hell in the second half of that fight and so does Khan. Thats why he won't risk a rematch incase he gets derailed early.
Team Khan have forgotten about boxing and are busy counting the money.
Amir, you have lost quite a few fans no doubt and I am one of them. The thing about climbing anything is, on the way up all you see are arseholes and then when you reach the top and look down all you see is teeth smiling at you. Your Da's Billy Bob smile will disappear soon along with your belts.
Paul, good luck to you mate. You never got the chance to prove your game.
Amir didn't beat you, a controversial decision did.
P.S Over 7,000 got off their asses and travelled from Ireland to support Paul (and boxing) and probably another 3,000 mainland (Irish support) in the arena as well. We all know Pauls style. Thats why we support him and will continue to as he now gets closer to the world recognition he deserves. Like Hatton, he's no PfP but he is world level. Watch his space...

Re: Ten Reasons where there NEEDS to be a rematch

Posted: 19 Apr 2011, 09:42
by Captain Hook
Nice of you to post Devo, but how can you say things were going to plan when he lost the first six rounds?

He was expecting to come on in the later rounds? When has Khan's stamina been in question? McCloskey would have had to win every round from the halfway point to get a draw. He was never going to do that.