Re: Say what you like - Khan should never have won
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
You seem intent on making this such an extreme example. On the one hadn your trying to suggest it was the most horrific cut to ever happen to a fighter, now your suggesting that the doctor and ref were so incompetent that they would have forced Barrera to fight on with this appalling injury and that if he said he couldn't see they would have disqualified him or ruled it a loss.
Neither point is realistic. It was a bad cut for sure but probably not the worst injury to happen so far this year let alone of all times, and the doctor would have been duty bound to stop the fight if Barrera insisted he could not see.
We saw in the case of Hasim Rahman where he had just a tiny little cut that everyone whined what a pussy he was for quitting against Toney that the commision overruled the loss and ruled it a No Contest.
The idea that Barrera's cut would have not been deemed serious enough to stop the fight if he had insisted he couldn't see is just ludicrous.
What I find ironic is that Barrera needed 33 stitches (which I agree is a very bad cut) and people say the fight should have been stopped immediately whereas Vitali Klitschko needed 60 against Lennox Lewis and for years people have been arguing that that stoppage was premature.
I seriously think you are once again spoiling for a fight. No dinosaurs to discuss this month?
Have I ever said it's the worst cut? No. I know other people have said but once again you try and single me out.
Cuts over bone and over fleshy areas react differently to trauma. I don't need a doctor to tell me this. I've got enough scars to know this as fact. If he'd taken a clean shot to that wound I have no doubt it would have torn far worse than it was.
Stop exaggerating. I am not saying it is the worst cut of all time but it was serious a cut to hamper the fighter. I've seen much less serious cuts stop a fight. And I do think the ref/doc were at fault..as do many others so don't make out it's just me.
Which part of the ref/doc operating to protect a fighter do you not understand? You'd said with your own words that fighters get called pussies for quitting & you're suggesting MAB should have done this:rolleyes:
If MAB quits or his corner retire him it's a TKO loss - again which part of this is not getting through to you?
Have I ever called those fights in to question? VT cuts were bad. In that case it wasn't so much of how they were bleeding or were hampering his vision it was that it looked like someone had sliced him with a razor blade and it could have caused permanent damage.
You really do talk bollocks at time, only the others are too polite to mention it.
Re: Say what you like - Khan should never have won
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Howlin Mad Missy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
You seem intent on making this such an extreme example. On the one hadn your trying to suggest it was the most horrific cut to ever happen to a fighter, now your suggesting that the doctor and ref were so incompetent that they would have forced Barrera to fight on with this appalling injury and that if he said he couldn't see they would have disqualified him or ruled it a loss.
Neither point is realistic. It was a bad cut for sure but probably not the worst injury to happen so far this year let alone of all times, and the doctor would have been duty bound to stop the fight if Barrera insisted he could not see.
We saw in the case of Hasim Rahman where he had just a tiny little cut that everyone whined what a pussy he was for quitting against Toney that the commision overruled the loss and ruled it a No Contest.
The idea that Barrera's cut would have not been deemed serious enough to stop the fight if he had insisted he couldn't see is just ludicrous.
What I find ironic is that Barrera needed 33 stitches (which I agree is a very bad cut) and people say the fight should have been stopped immediately whereas Vitali Klitschko needed 60 against Lennox Lewis and for years people have been arguing that that stoppage was premature.
I seriously think you are once again spoiling for a fight. No dinosaurs to discuss this month?
Have I ever said it's the worst cut? No. I know other people have said but once again you try and single me out.
Cuts over bone and over fleshy areas react differently to trauma. I don't need a doctor to tell me this. I've got enough scars to know this as fact. If he'd taken a clean shot to that wound I have no doubt it would have torn far worse than it was.
Stop exaggerating. I am not saying it is the worst cut of all time but it was serious a cut to hamper the fighter. I've seen much less serious cuts stop a fight. And I do think the ref/doc were at fault..as do many others so don't make out it's just me.
Which part of the ref/doc operating to protect a fighter do you not understand? You'd said with your own words that fighters get called pussies for quitting & you're suggesting MAB should have done this:rolleyes:
If MAB quits or his corner retire him it's a TKO loss - again which part of this is not getting through to you?
Have I ever called those fights in to question? VT cuts were bad. In that case it wasn't so much of how they were bleeding or were hampering his vision it was that it looked like someone had sliced him with a razor blade and it could have caused permanent damage.
You really do talk bollocks at time, only the others are too polite to mention it.
I don't think that is needed.
You've started the thread which roughly translates to you over-ruling everyone elses opinion on the fight...like you're allowing everyone to debate it providing they all share the same opinion as you.
People are going to oppose your opinion of the fight, as a mod i would have thought it would have been obvious to you that on a boxing forum, opinions are going to be different so personally attacking somebody for having the opposite opinion as you is not really called for.
Re: Say what you like - Khan should never have won
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ono
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Howlin Mad Missy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
You seem intent on making this such an extreme example. On the one hadn your trying to suggest it was the most horrific cut to ever happen to a fighter, now your suggesting that the doctor and ref were so incompetent that they would have forced Barrera to fight on with this appalling injury and that if he said he couldn't see they would have disqualified him or ruled it a loss.
Neither point is realistic. It was a bad cut for sure but probably not the worst injury to happen so far this year let alone of all times, and the doctor would have been duty bound to stop the fight if Barrera insisted he could not see.
We saw in the case of Hasim Rahman where he had just a tiny little cut that everyone whined what a pussy he was for quitting against Toney that the commision overruled the loss and ruled it a No Contest.
The idea that Barrera's cut would have not been deemed serious enough to stop the fight if he had insisted he couldn't see is just ludicrous.
What I find ironic is that Barrera needed 33 stitches (which I agree is a very bad cut) and people say the fight should have been stopped immediately whereas Vitali Klitschko needed 60 against Lennox Lewis and for years people have been arguing that that stoppage was premature.
I seriously think you are once again spoiling for a fight. No dinosaurs to discuss this month?
Have I ever said it's the worst cut? No. I know other people have said but once again you try and single me out.
Cuts over bone and over fleshy areas react differently to trauma. I don't need a doctor to tell me this. I've got enough scars to know this as fact. If he'd taken a clean shot to that wound I have no doubt it would have torn far worse than it was.
Stop exaggerating. I am not saying it is the worst cut of all time but it was serious a cut to hamper the fighter. I've seen much less serious cuts stop a fight. And I do think the ref/doc were at fault..as do many others so don't make out it's just me.
Which part of the ref/doc operating to protect a fighter do you not understand? You'd said with your own words that fighters get called pussies for quitting & you're suggesting MAB should have done this:rolleyes:
If MAB quits or his corner retire him it's a TKO loss - again which part of this is not getting through to you?
Have I ever called those fights in to question? VT cuts were bad. In that case it wasn't so much of how they were bleeding or were hampering his vision it was that it looked like someone had sliced him with a razor blade and it could have caused permanent damage.
You really do talk bollocks at time, only the others are too polite to mention it.
I don't think that is needed.
You've started the thread which roughly translates to you over-ruling everyone elses opinion on the fight...like you're allowing everyone to debate it providing they all share the same opinion as you.
People are going to oppose your opinion of the fight, as a mod i would have thought it would have been obvious to you that on a boxing forum, opinions are going to be different so personally attacking somebody for having the opposite opinion as you is not really called for.
Ono do you believe Barrera's cut was not bad enough to have been stopped by the end of round 2? Have you not seen lesser cuts get a fight stopped?
I would guess that of all the opinions I have been reading around the forums, and I have been reading a lot, because this a fight that has mobilised my interest. It would seem that most people would argue that the fight should have been a NC. There are a lot of people upset about what happened in this fight.
And it shouldn't go away. Khan should be made to follow up after what happened against Prescott and stop running from that fight. Nobody is impressed by what happened against Barrera either (except the muppet media. :rolleyes:). Khan and Barrera have unfinished work IMO, and hopefully Barrera will at some point have his chance to get it straight too.
Re: Say what you like - Khan should never have won
ono - if I think someone is talking bollocks I'll say so, being a mod has nothing to do with it. Take a look at other threads...I'll say as I please and other people do to, that includes talking bollocks. ;)
The facts remain as miles has stated. It's not just my opinion on this, I read and occasionally post on several boxing forums and the majority are calling this a bullshit decision. Why pretend it's otherwise?
Should the fight have been stopped prior to the end of round 5? Yes or no? That is the only question that matters. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
Re: Say what you like - Khan should never have won
Well tell you the truth it doesnt matter Barrea last chance was this fight and he lost it and say all you want about how it should of gone but it did not. And now he is proably going to retire somthing should of done awhile ago. Hell i am a Evander Holyfeild fan think i like what happen to him in his last fight but it wont change anything facts is he has the lose and is to old to try to come back and do it again that is just what happens just let it go.
Re: Say what you like - Khan should never have won
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ono
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Howlin Mad Missy
I seriously think you are once again spoiling for a fight. No dinosaurs to discuss this month?
Have I ever said it's the worst cut? No. I know other people have said but once again you try and single me out.
Cuts over bone and over fleshy areas react differently to trauma. I don't need a doctor to tell me this. I've got enough scars to know this as fact. If he'd taken a clean shot to that wound I have no doubt it would have torn far worse than it was.
Stop exaggerating. I am not saying it is the worst cut of all time but it was serious a cut to hamper the fighter. I've seen much less serious cuts stop a fight. And I do think the ref/doc were at fault..as do many others so don't make out it's just me.
Which part of the ref/doc operating to protect a fighter do you not understand? You'd said with your own words that fighters get called pussies for quitting & you're suggesting MAB should have done this:rolleyes:
If MAB quits or his corner retire him it's a TKO loss - again which part of this is not getting through to you?
Have I ever called those fights in to question? VT cuts were bad. In that case it wasn't so much of how they were bleeding or were hampering his vision it was that it looked like someone had sliced him with a razor blade and it could have caused permanent damage.
You really do talk bollocks at time, only the others are too polite to mention it.
I don't think that is needed.
You've started the thread which roughly translates to you over-ruling everyone elses opinion on the fight...like you're allowing everyone to debate it providing they all share the same opinion as you.
People are going to oppose your opinion of the fight, as a mod i would have thought it would have been obvious to you that on a boxing forum, opinions are going to be different so personally attacking somebody for having the opposite opinion as you is not really called for.
Ono do you believe Barrera's cut was not bad enough to have been stopped by the end of round 2? Have you not seen lesser cuts get a fight stopped?
I would guess that of all the opinions I have been reading around the forums, and I have been reading a lot, because this a fight that has mobilised my interest. It would seem that most people would argue that the fight should have been a NC. There are a lot of people upset about what happened in this fight.
And it shouldn't go away.
Khan should be made to follow up after what happened against Prescott and stop running from that fight. Nobody is impressed by what happened against Barrera either (except the muppet media. :rolleyes:). Khan and Barrera have unfinished work IMO, and hopefully Barrera will at some point have his chance to get it straight too.
Yeah it should have been stopped but i'm pretty sure if Barrera wanted it stopped earlier, it would have been. There is no way a ringside doctor or a referee would make Barrera continue into the 4th round so Khan gets the victory.
And what the hell is all that about? Should be made? By who? I mean give him chance. After being brutallly ko'd he took on a guy who took Spadafora to SD...and then he took the Barrera fight. Not really the actions of a man running from a challenge....especially when he is considered a prospect and not a contender.
And why would Khan get back in with Prescott until he is sure he has ironed out all the defensive issues that resulted in him getting ko'd. He'll probably fight Prescott again at some point in the future. If not, no big deal. There is no law that says you have to avenge all your losses.
Yours and Missy Khan bashing is getting beyond a joke now mate. It's every single thread. It's worse than Danny G's Cotto lovefest. I appreciate that you are both Barrera fans but dis-crediting Khan at every opportunity is getting boring now.
Re: Say what you like - Khan should never have won
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Howlin Mad Missy
ono - if I think someone is talking bollocks I'll say so, being a mod has nothing to do with it. Take a look at other threads...I'll say as I please and other people do to, that includes talking bollocks. ;)
The facts remain as miles has stated. It's not just my opinion on this, I read and occasionally post on several boxing forums and the majority are calling this a bullshit decision. Why pretend it's otherwise?
Should the fight have been stopped prior to the end of round 5? Yes or no? That is the only question that matters. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
It wasn't a bullshit decision. If Marco wanted the fight stopped earlier, it would have been stopped. He elected to continue on the gamble that he'd get Khan out of there. The gamble didn't pay off.
It was unsatisfactory and imo the cut looked bad enough for the fight to be stopped, but when the person who is suffering from the injury actually wants to continue you, he's either an unbelievable warrior or the cuts not as bad as it appears. I'd suggest what actually happened would be somewhere in the middle fo those two.
I believe that a cut running into the eye of a fighter would handicap him but i also believe that if Barrera was as blinded as some have suggested, Khan would have had him out of there inside 3 rounds.
I just think that you and Miles were riding a lot of blind hope on this fight and i don't understand why. You're both very intelligent posters but you both seemed to put an awful lot of faith into a fighter who had every physical dis-advantage going, coupled with the fact that he had come off the back of 2 fights against complete bums (one looks to be on Kid Thunders level) and now you both seem to have spat your dummy out because the result has gone against him. Maybe i'm just talking bollocks though
Re: Say what you like - Khan should never have won
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ono
It wasn't a bullshit decision. If Marco wanted the fight stopped earlier, it would have been stopped. He elected to continue on the gamble that he'd get Khan out of there. The gamble didn't pay off.
It was a gamble because it wasn't stopped.
Quote:
It was unsatisfactory and imo the cut looked bad enough for the fight to be stopped, but when the person who is suffering from the injury actually wants to continue you, he's either an unbelievable warrior or the cuts not as bad as it appears. I'd suggest what actually happened would be somewhere in the middle fo those two.
Finally - which is the point we have been making.
99% of want to carry on. Cooke & Enzo wanted to carry because they wanted to that means they should have. I beg your pardon.
Quote:
I believe that a cut running into the eye of a fighter would handicap him but i also believe that if Barrera was as blinded as some have suggested, Khan would have had him out of there inside 3 rounds.
now that is just silly. It took 11 rounds for Pac to break him down before the ref stepped in. You HONESTLY believe Khan could ko Barrera in 3 rounds? Now I know this is a wind up.
Quote:
you both seem to have spat your dummy out because the result has gone against him. Maybe i'm just talking bollocks though
did you hear Khan? Did you read the newspapers? I don't like hype and I don't like lies.
Re: Say what you like - Khan should never have won
But Missy none of matters because at the end of the day he got the lose on his record and by the time he gets a rematch he while be older. What he should do is just call it a day he has had his time. I mean like i said before i hated what happen to Evander Holyfeild. felt he should of got that title but he didnt and i really dont think he can do much better then he did that night. Because next time he while be that much older and that much slower and everything while be against him.
Re: Say what you like - Khan should never have won
Mr. I agree up to a point but that just boils down to an attitude of, 'why bother with anything?' & I can't accept that.
Re: Say what you like - Khan should never have won
Maybe i said wrong but do understand what your going through. I mean after the Evander Holyfeild fight i was all mad and posting things like they should reverse the decsion WBA is full of shit which they are. But at the end of the day nothing happen and it was pretty much forgotten. But have some rep because you do stand by your fighter no matter what.
Re: Say what you like - Khan should never have won
shit. Holyfield would still probably clean up in the HW division:cool:;)
Re: Say what you like - Khan should never have won
Well it would make me pretty happy if Evander Holyfeild could Retire as the heavyweight champion and going out on top like he should have.
Re: Say what you like - Khan should never have won
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Howlin Mad Missy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ono
It wasn't a bullshit decision. If Marco wanted the fight stopped earlier, it would have been stopped. He elected to continue on the gamble that he'd get Khan out of there. The gamble didn't pay off.
It was a gamble because it wasn't stopped.
I'm pretty sure if he told the doctor he couldn't see the fight would have been waved off by the doctor - not the fighter quitting
Quote:
It was unsatisfactory and imo the cut looked bad enough for the fight to be stopped, but when the person who is suffering from the injury actually wants to continue you, he's either an unbelievable warrior or the cuts not as bad as it appears. I'd suggest what actually happened would be somewhere in the middle fo those two.
Finally - which is the point we have been making.
99% of want to carry on. Cooke & Enzo wanted to carry because they wanted to that means they should have. I beg your pardon.
Woah slow down there Missy....i never said if a fighter wants to continue he should be allowed. Barrera had a cut. He wasn't on queer street like Enzo and Cooky. I said that imo the cut was a bad one, but at the same time i didn't think Barrera needed to go into 100% warrior mode just to survive the 5 rounds. The cut was bad enough for me not to feel satisfied about the fight, but it wasn't bad enough for me to not give Khan any credit for winning the fight. A few of you were making out that Khan was in there with Stevie Wonder wearing boxing gloves.
Quote:
I believe that a cut running into the eye of a fighter would handicap him but i also believe that if Barrera was as blinded as some have suggested, Khan would have had him out of there inside 3 rounds.
now that is just silly. It took 11 rounds for Pac to break him down before the ref stepped in. You HONESTLY believe Khan could ko Barrera in 3 rounds? Now I know this is a wind up.
Yeah but Pac didn't break down a 'blind' MAB. My point was, Barrera was still savvy enough and could still see enough to block and slip punches. My point was, if he was totally blind in even one eye, Khan would have had a field day.
Quote:
you both seem to have spat your dummy out because the result has gone against him. Maybe i'm just talking bollocks though
did you hear Khan? Did you read the newspapers? I don't like hype and I don't like lies.
I don't read the newspapers nor do i get taken in by the sensationalist headlines. I haven't heard a single Khan interview since the fight...all i heard was after the fight he seemed pleased with his performance....like most fighters are.
It's interesting that you don't like hype and you don't like lies yet you bought into the idea that a washed up Barrera that had been fighting in a gymnasium in China even had a slight chance against a young, hungry, talented fighter holding every physical advantage possible.
Re: Say what you like - Khan should never have won
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Howlin Mad Missy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElTerribleMorales
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Howlin Mad Missy
& I repeat, the doctor did not examine the cut. Check out the interaction in round 4. The doctor & Barrera are talking, blood is dripping off his eyebrow down his face. The doctor never examines the cut.... very poor.
he cleans the cut and examines it, and i doubt that they were talking about the weather or that the Dr was asking for an autograph, so plz stop making more excuses than the most obvious, Barrera lost cause he had too much damn pride and chose to fight on, he had too much pride and tried to take on a younger, bigger, natural lightweight and it didn't pay off, Khan beat a shell of the old Barrera, end of
you must have a different version of the fight:cool:
doc/ref need to call it off before rd5 for it to be a nc.
just the fact that it was ruled a Technical Decision is proof enough that it would have been called a NO CONTEST if Barrera would have said he can't see, it was an accidental headbutt it was ruled an accidental headbutt, no way in hell it was gonna be ruled a TKO unless Khan would have battered Barrera with punches to the point that he couldn't continue, this is already getting to the point of ridiculous Barrera SHOULD NOT be fighting anymore, and that's what Khan proved
