Has anyone noticed how biased the scoring is towards Kazakhs???
In Amir Khan's bout for example, every vaguely glancing shot from the Kazakh scored, yet some clean shots from Khan didn't.
Then Amir made it impossible to be robbed by bashing his opponent silly in the last round, but Khan was 2 points down after round 2, when I thought fairly he should have been 3 up...
I thought the stitch up was in....
Also I saw a bout involving a Ukrainian vs a Kazakh and I the same thing happened.
The Aussie Heavyweight fighter was robbed blind by the judges in his fight against the Egyptian fighter. It was some of the worst judging i had ever seen.
They are showing khans semifinal match on danish tv at the moment, here the expert commentator actually says that Khan gets his points more easy than the kazakh. As a small site note, the other commentator, normaly covers cycling and badminton, said Khan won the best boxer award at the euros in Pula, Bulgaria. That is so wrong on so many levels
Jim Neily is so full of shit. I thought the Thai won his fight against the Cuban yet according to Jim their has to be some corruption involved because the crowd are booing and a few of the Cuban punches in his opinion weren't scored.
Jim Neilly is usually a poor judge of various situations, if he hears booing then nine times of ten he calls the reasons wrong. He just generally does not know what he is on about most of the time.
I have to say that while watching it, I noticed Khan didn't score a couple he should have, and the Cuban only had to sneeze to get points. I think u might be on to something. Not saying that I think Khan won, but I think it was closer then the score suggests.
