Khan vs. Barrera - Official Protest is Filed By Don King

[$partacus]

No doubt in my mind that the fight should have been stopped, but they let it carry on so Khan could get win.

[SHB]

Khan was simply better than Barrera, cut or no cut. Too big, too quick (nowadays). Technically it probably should have been stopped, but the right man won ... despite how difficult it is to accept such a disturbing result.

[FeFist]

If the fighter is severely cut, why should it be his decision whether the match should go to the score cards? That **** is for the doctors to decide, pride and adrenaline gets in the way.

[mathed]

Since when do fighters have more authority to stop a match than the ref/doctor?

Since when do fighters have more authority to stop a match than the ref/doctor when the fighter has one of the worse cuts many people have ever seen in their life?

It's not Barerras job to stop the fight. What Barerra thought about the matter is 100% IRRELEVANT.

The ref and doc have a JOB to do. They're there to protect the boxer from further damage. They're paid to do this job. They're trained to do this job, but they didn't do it until after the fourth for some reason.

They FAILED to stop a boxer who had a cut that went down to the BONE from the FIRST round from getting injured unneccesarily

Tell me how you, as a doctor/ref, are going to look at a cut like that and let it go on till the fifth round? I can just imagine it now:

"Oh **** that cut is ****ed up!
Hrmm it's not closing either.
Maybe it will heal up better after specifically five rounds of being punched and rubbed and bumped with leather gloves?
Hrmmm it's the fifth round now and it hasn't healed up for some reason? Maybe I should stop it now?"

You tell me what you think the doc/ref were thinking?

I can understand MAYBE allowing it to go into the third, giving the boxer a few more rounds to see if it's closing, but the cut wasn't closing AT ALL. The corner man said he could see BONE as he was trying to close it up.....

They should have checked that cut WELL before the END of the fourth round, because it's not like it suddenly got bad in the fourth that they had to check it.

It was JUST as bad in the first.

It was JUST as bad in the second. Why didn't they check it again?

It was JUST as bad in the third. Why didn't they check again in the third?

It was JUST as bad in the fourth round as it was in the fifth round. If that was the case, why didn't they take it upon themselves to end it in the fourth (dont give me any rubbish about "Barerra said he wants to go on" it's up to the ref to protect him)?

What was so special about the fifth round that they finally decided to stop it? The cut was no different in the fifth than it was in the first, second, third or fourth round, yet he was still fit to box right up until the fifth?

but no..........it's Barerras fault for not stopping the fight earlier.......

Well that was insightful! Now put yourself in the boxer's shoes and you now have that big a55 cut on your head. The ref asks you, "Can you continue?" and you say, "yeah, I'm a warrior and I want to fight on!" or whatever you chose to say to him. That rd ends as does the second and now the third, and you start to think to yourself, "Man, I can't even see anything out of this eye b/c of blood. When are they going to stop this thing?" Then you start wondering, "What if they don't want to stop the fight because they are trying to rob me? What am I gonna do- do I think I can win this anyway?"

Then the fourth rd starts, the last rd that you could possibly saved by a ND. In the middle of the rd the ref halts the action and takes you over to the doctor and he asks you, "Grizzleboy, can you continue?" Now this is where if it were me, I would have been like, "Man, if I say yes they might stop it anyway in the next couple of rds because I'm fighting in Khan's backyard and they might try to f-me" I would be like, "I can't see out of the left eye because of the cut, it is hard to see the punches at all"

Now, as you alluded to, only the ref can stop the fight at this juncture (or his corner or the doctor) but if you keep giving them the impression that you want to continue and pretend that the cut is not bothering you, then....

Anyways, Barrera is a legend and what if the ref was like, "man, that cut is terrible but this is Barrera should I let him fight on he is a warrior?"

I agree that the fight should have been stopped as a ND and am not debating that fact. I also think that there was some home cooking in the mix to give Khan the win, not debating that either.

Just saying that had he been more vocal about the hinderence caused by the cut.....scratch that- vocal at all period, maybe the ref would have stopped the fight. Just imagine how bad it would look then when people tune in watching replays of a severely cut and bloodied legend like Barrera telling the ref that the cut is too bad and that he couldn't see and they still let it go on. I think given the ramifications of such public humiliation, the ref/doctor would have no choice but to stop the fight as a ND even if they wanted to spoon-feed Khan as everyone is suggesting.

Just my opinion too; however in the Guerrero fight he clearly indicated to the ref that the eye bothered him and consequently a ND was called. He did not stop the fight himself but his indication that the eye was a problem surely played a large part. Guerrero caught grief for being a coward but he will get to fight again with out another loss on his record right?

Empathy goes a long way in analyzing situations.

[ACHlLLES]

take that for getting a *****-win against a barrera that had a one-eye and concussion for almost the entire short fight.

If the fighter is severely cut, why should it be his decision whether the match should go to the score cards? That **** is for the doctors to decide, pride and adrenaline gets in the way.

because in the uk, they like to screw fighters over. Especially ones with alot of pride like barrera who would never quit on his stool.

[venomk1]

Khan was simply better than Barrera, cut or no cut. Too big, too quick (nowadays). Technically it probably should have been stopped, but the right man won ... despite how difficult it is to accept such a disturbing result.

well said.. people dont actually realise somtimes the consequences of stopping BIG fights in the uk..in the 90's riots would break out in the arena if fans went and paid big bucks and got shafted, i can once remember watching a eubank fight and seeing chairs being pulled from the floor and thrown around at the back of the arena (major kick off).. the british fans are good when its good but when they wanna kick off they will. (hence why we are banned/capped from attenting most international football events) i certainly wouldnt like to be the guy to have called that fight off after 1 round in front of 20,000 manchester crowd..the man would have got hanged!!! they do the good thing in the usa and usually have police at the events which is better.

[mrlopez]

Had Khan been cut like that in the first, it would have been stopped....nuff said

[mathed]

Had Khan been cut like that in the first, it would have been stopped....nuff said

I agree 100%

It is so obvious that there was bias there...further proves my point!

[Dave Rado]

Khan was simply better than Barrera, cut or no cut. Too big, too quick (nowadays). Technically it probably should have been stopped, but the right man won ... despite how difficult it is to accept such a disturbing result.

You don't know that - no one does. It's easy for a fast, athletic fighter to look good for less than a round against a slower pressure fighter; and once Barrera was cut, he could no longer judge distance, so you can't conclude anything from what happened after the cut. Frazier barely landed a punch for the first four rounds of his first fight with Ali. Then Frazier started to catch up with Ali in round 5, and from then on it became a war of attrition.

Khan's stamina over 12 rounds has never been tested under pressure. It would be a good test for Khan to rematch Barrera, and it would be justice for Barrera, as it should definitely have been a NC.

[Zocalo]

The irony is that this is the first time in years that he is actually right and have a case for being wrong.