Comments Thread For: Khan's McCloskey Win is Marred By Phoney Controversy

[Buffalo]

Best article I ever read today at 10 o'clock

Khan won all 6 rounds, great. He should have and he should have done it in an even more dominating fashion. He's talking about fighting bradley, who's in a whole other stratosphere. Better be sharper than that.

Always said khan is hype. Great offensive talent but lacks pop and toughness. McCloskey did nothing yet still made khan run when he landed one stinking punch. Khan turned his back and ran towards the corner........classy khan.

Bradley beats his backside in an ugly fight. Khan will run and scream more than a little girl who spots justin bieber in a mall. Or in other words khan will run shrieking hysterically just like WAZAA WHEN HE SEE'S..........KHAN.

So who has the headbutt advantage now?..................

"King khan"......******ed. That would be like "Vernon group of trees Forest"....rip

[Neckodeemus]

The authour thinks that not every fighter should be treated the same way.

Barrerras should ALWAYS get the benefit of the doubt.
McCloskeys should NEVER get the benefit of the doubt.

This is plain BS.

And how can he safely gauge what would happen in the last 6 rounds? Is the autthour some kind of voodoo magician see'er? In that case I wished I had listened to him before Douglas fought Tyson.

Stranger things than a complete turnaround by McCloskey has happened many times before. How about when a beaten, battered, blinded and bloodied Barkley KO's Tommy Hearns?

It was nothing like Tyson-Douglas. That one was competitive going into the sixth. There was a controversial knock down but Buster listened to the count and beat it fairly before stopping his man. It wasn't a fight in which one guy went 0-6 and then picked up a cut.

As for Iran, he had shown plenty of devilment prior to the cuts, albeit it wayward, and had shown some high level form against Sumbu and Olajide.

If you want to lazily pluck out a fight from history and compare it to that one then why not go for Ricky Hatton's win over Jon Thaxton.

[BattlingNelson]

It was nothing like Tyson-Douglas. That one was competitive going into the sixth. There was a controversial knock down but Buster listened to the count and beat it fairly before stopping his man. It wasn't a fight in which one guy went 0-6 and then picked up a cut.

As for Iran, he had shown plenty of devilment prior to the cuts, albeit it wayward, and had shown some high level form against Sumbu and Olajide.

If you want to lazily pluck out a fight from history and compare it to that one then why not go for Ricky Hatton's win over Jon Thaxton.

The point was that if the authour could see into the future (ie the next 6 rounds of Khan-McCloskey) there's a good chance he could tell that Tyson was about to be upset.

As for Barkley well not many would have complained if he fight had been stopped at any point in the third round and the legendary hitman would have a loss less on his record.

You are implying that the fact that Barkley was a qualified challenger should allow him to be given the benefit of the doubt is a notion that I disagree with. I think that should a distinction be made in how to handle fights, then a case in different treatment could be made if you consider world championship fights and regular fights ie. based on the premisses of the contest and not the contestants.

The facts are that Khan, not by fault of his own, recieved home-town treatment on saturday. Just like he did against MAB and Kristjansen.

[slick23]

Thanks for the reads, guys. Those who think I went too far in claiming that McCloskey would not have produced beyond the sixth need to look at what I'm saying. If he did not do anything going into the midway point then how can you justify saying he'd have found his range, punches and power to turn things aroud in the second half, there was zero indication of this in the completed rounds.

WBA rules state that the ref has the discretion to stop a fight on an injury if the wound is bad and/or if the fighter is in a losing position. Paul was 0-6, cut and had barely landed a shot, people can claim he was playing possum and may have come on strong but you can only go on what you see, and what I and the ref saw was a guy who could not force his way into the fight.

Sure, Paul could have defended himself through a few more rounds but this was no Jake LaMotta, Mike Weaver of JCC type of performance.



Could be, or it could be that I'm not your average wild eyed loony looking for the slightest whiff of controversy.

There's not much more to say. Khan beat a solid enough European level boxer en route to the fight against Bradley.

I hear what your saying, but to me it was less what Khan did that upset me than the politics of the whole situation. Your right Khan did win every round as McCloskey seemingly had trouble getting off his punches, and Khan really has nothing to apologize for. He showed up competed and the fight eneded the way it did, so be it.

However, how anybody can justify the stoppage is beyond me. Let's be honest, anyone that says MCcloskey was hurt or in danger of being hurt is not really an unbiased observer. The cut didn't seem to be threatening to Mccloskey in terms of being able to go on. My initial response after the stoppage was " man they really what to get to that Bradley fight as soon as possible huh." All the crap with Sky sports and revenue along with the early stoppage really just left plenty of casual observers perplexed and rightfully so. Khan gets out with a win that will be forgotten in a couple of weeks in front of his fans and McCloskey has to go back working at the family supermarket hoping for another big opportunity that is unlikely to ever come. He should have been given the chance to finish period.

[Pullcounter]

Best article I ever read today at 10 o'clock

Khan won all 6 rounds, great. He should have and he should have done it in an even more dominating fashion. He's talking about fighting bradley, who's in a whole other stratosphere. Better be sharper than that.

Always said khan is hype. Great offensive talent but lacks pop and toughness. McCloskey did nothing yet still made khan run when he landed one stinking punch. Khan turned his back and ran towards the corner........classy khan.

Bradley beats his backside in an ugly fight. Khan will run and scream more than a little girl who spots justin bieber in a mall. Or in other words khan will run shrieking hysterically just like WAZAA WHEN HE SEE'S..........KHAN.

So who has the headbutt advantage now?..................

"King khan"......******ed. That would be like "Vernon group of trees Forest"....rip

khan should've done better, but mccloskey has a tricky style

[Neckodeemus]

The point was that if the authour could see into the future (ie the next 6 rounds of Khan-McCloskey) there's a good chance he could tell that Tyson was about to be upset.

As for Barkley well not many would have complained if he fight had been stopped at any point in the third round and the legendary hitman would have a loss less on his record.

You are implying that the fact that Barkley was a qualified challenger should allow him to be given the benefit of the doubt is a notion that I disagree with. I think that should a distinction be made in how to handle fights, then a case in different treatment could be made if you consider world championship fights and regular fights ie. based on the premisses of the contest and not the contestants.

The facts are that Khan, not by fault of his own, recieved home-town treatment on saturday. Just like he did against MAB and Kristjansen.

You didn't need a crystal ball to see that Tyson was in danger of losing after six rounds, it was there for all to see. This wasn't the case in Khan-McCloskey. As for Iran, he had form at a high level and the fight took place at a time when, in general, refs allowed a bit more blood.

It varies from ref to ref, fight to fight, in this particular case you had a guy who was 6-0 down and cut, the WBA rules clearly state that in the case of an injury the ref consults with the doc but the final decision lies with the ref and they underline this fact. WBA rules also state that the ref has to factor in the severity of the injury and whether, in his opinion, the injured fighter can still win the fight or carry on without risking further damage, McCloskey failed on both these counts as he was passive and had shown no indication that he could flip the fight or prevent Khan from landing the odd shot.

Paul should be thankful as the whiff of controversy has glossed over a poor performance from both men, a pedestrian fight and a potential snoozer.

You can argue that this was LaMotta-Dauthuille in the making but, for me, that fight itself does not support this argument. All things considered, it was stopped at the right time.

[Neckodeemus]

I hear what your saying, but to me it was less what Khan did that upset me than the politics of the whole situation. Your right Khan did win every round as McCloskey seemingly had trouble getting off his punches, and Khan really has nothing to apologize for. He showed up competed and the fight eneded the way it did, so be it.

However, how anybody can justify the stoppage is beyond me. Let's be honest, anyone that says MCcloskey was hurt or in danger of being hurt is not really an unbiased observer. The cut didn't seem to be threatening to Mccloskey in terms of being able to go on. My initial response after the stoppage was " man they really what to get to that Bradley fight as soon as possible huh." All the crap with Sky sports and revenue along with the early stoppage really just left plenty of casual observers perplexed and rightfully so. Khan gets out with a win that will be forgotten in a couple of weeks in front of his fans and McCloskey has to go back working at the family supermarket hoping for another big opportunity that is unlikely to ever come. He should have been given the chance to finish period.

Yeah, I see what you're saying but I felt on reflection that the stoppage was not the crime people portrayed it as. As I mention in the last post, the WBA rules were implemented and it seems to me a case of a ref using a bit of lateral thinking rather than a robbery. As I said in the article itself, Paul had nothing worth nicking as he hadn't racked up a single point, he should drop back down to Euro level and defend the EBU a few more times.

[Neckodeemus]

PS Deffo the best article I had read today prior to having a shufty at the side of my Cocoa Pops cereal box.

[slick23]

Yeah, I see what you're saying but I felt on reflection that the stoppage was not the crime people portrayed it as. As I mention in the last post, the WBA rules were implemented and it seems to me a case of a ref using a bit of lateral thinking rather than a robbery. As I said in the article itself, Paul had nothing worth nicking as he hadn't racked up a single point, he should drop back down to Euro level and defend the EBU a few more times.

Your probably right with what route McCloskey should take career wise. Just off the top of my head I would guess more than half of my posts on this site have to deal with boxers getting the short of the stick due to politics of the game or someone ****ting on a fighter for a reason that the fighter himself has very little control of. I don't know too many specifics about McCloskey's career but I do know that he has worked hard to get to the point he's at and to see that fight get cut short, was a little dissapointing.

All in all good job man, keep up the good work. Solid stuff!

[LoveForBoxing]

Not a nice article and not an unbias one either. The author fails to realise the old adage of boxing, that anything can happen; its the punch that you don't see that knocks you out. How can you say for a fact that McC could've, or could not have won that fight should the fight have gone on. If the corner of McC, had the chance to stop the trickle of blood - the cut was not a dangerous one. Even Morales, fighting Maidana was allowed to fight with only one functioning eye (the right one being totally shut). The ref and the ringside doctor never gave the chance for McC's corer that chance. And during the first 6rds. McC never touched the canvas did he? Well I think that is a big controversy and it should be looked at with more scrutiny by the sanctioning body. Also, Khan not giving McC a second chance, unlike Maidana manning up and on camera giving Morales a second fight whenever he wants, only speaks volumes about Khan's character. I don't care if Khan is ******, Pakastani, Black, White, Asian, Catholic or Protestant...he should've recognized that it was a F.UCKED CALL by the physician and the ref and gave McC a second chance. For F.UCK sake!!!

hindsights a great thing khan won 1-5 easily didnt need to get out of first gear to win rounds mcloskey is to blame for the ending for this fight if anyone is because he did nothing failed to push the fight and establish himself in the fight when the head butt happand khan moved in with a punch and mcloskey went in to clinch his own fualt however khan is to blame for making the fight and not fighting a proven fighter that will push him for 12 rounds mcloskey posed no threat thats why he was the oppenent if you wannt to stay at a world level youv got to fight world class oppenents not european champs he should of fought lamont peterson instead of being stingy on the pennies hes starting to lose me as a fan not because anything hes done its his setup around him and the bad advisers