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

[BattlingNelson]

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.

The point was the authours ability to predict the future. It's by no means certain that McCloskey would have lost. It was likely yes, but not a foregone conclusion.

McCloskey was not at the end of his powers so he should have been allowed to 'risk getting further damaged' (it is boxing and the object of the game is to damage your counterpart).

I don't know about referees allowing less blood in general but that could be. Take a look at the pictures below which shows dane Patrick Nielsen being severely cut from headbutts yet he still was allowed to continue looking like that for several rounds before geting the decision. The pic is from his 5th pro fight last year. Him not being stopped could also be argued as homecooking.







You think McCloskey's stoppage was 'at the right time'. I disagree.

[Clegg]

I think that this was a poor article, though I usually enjoy the author's work.

My understanding of things is that the fight was sent to the cards because of a cut. The problem people like myself have with this is that the cut was not bad enough to warrant such a stoppage.

I don't think you've addressed this. At all. The article seems seems to spend a lot of time talking about everything other than this.

I would've liked it if the author would've at least acknowledged that the cut was not bad enough to stop the fight. Or say that he thinks it was bad enough.

The closest you come to actually addressing the entire thing that your article is about is here

WBA rule 6.1 states that the ‘physician shall give his advise to the referee but the referee is the only authorized person to stop the fight’ as well as stressing that it is down to the ref to decide if the injured fighter is in danger of further injury and is clearly losing the fight.

Which I see as a cop-out. The article is full of opinions, so don't fall back on 'it's the ref's decision' when it comes to the central issue. In your opinion, was the cut bad enough to warrant a stoppage?

I think McCloskey was over-matched and had little chance of winning. But the whole 'well it doesn't matter about how the fight ended because he would've lost anyway' argument is crazy in my eyes.

But it's possible that McCloskey would've turned things around. Stranger things have happened and weaker punchers have badly hurt Khan. This is boxing. The fight was stopped prematurely on a cut that was not bad enough to warrant it. All the fantasy fight arguments you want doesn't make it a good decision.

[mananimal]

well done, good good article, well thought out, and the end comment: "In order to cry robbery, you have to have something worth stealing", lol, lol i applaud this journalism, bravo my man! lol classic rack em!!

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

I see the logic of the author but he couldn't be more wrong. In sports, anything can happen. We don't stop playing basketball, football or baseball games because one team is getting beaten badly, we play on.

If we didn't, we wouldn't have had some of the greatest moments in sports history. Now I'm not saying that McCloskey wasn't losing or that he was the type of fighter known for knocking out an opponent late in fights, especially one of the talent level as Kahn but you HAVE to give him that chance.

If Khan was winning, oh well that doesn't mean you end the fight prematurely and not give the other fighter a punchers chance.

We saw what Ishida did to Kirkland, he only had 6 KO's in over 25 fights, so why even have them fight? Yet it was Ishida that KO'd the favored kirkland. Point is, you have to give a fighter his fighting chance, end of story.

I have had worse cuts in the morning after saving, that was a disgrace to all those people that paid good money to see that fight. If Kahn was going to KO him, then allow him to and let the public get their money's worth.

Terrible stoppage, terrible call but I'm not surprised in Europe (no offense) but after watching that Manfredo stoppage vs Calzaghe, I am not surprised.

[FrankieBruno]

McCloskey was a shat, simple as that, he threw 5 punches in 6 rounds

he should be lucky to walk away with the money he made

[freedom213]

Nice article and well worth a read.

actually i thought the author insinuated it was ok for a Doctor to stop a fight based on the fact that they didnt see a way for an opponent to win. That is rubbish. I watched the fight and thought Kahns performance looked flat but it happens.

[slick23]

I think that this was a poor article, though I usually enjoy the author's work.

My understanding of things is that the fight was sent to the cards because of a cut. The problem people like myself have with this is that the cut was not bad enough to warrant such a stoppage.

I don't think you've addressed this. At all. The article seems seems to spend a lot of time talking about everything other than this.

I would've liked it if the author would've at least acknowledged that the cut was not bad enough to stop the fight. Or say that he thinks it was bad enough.

The closest you come to actually addressing the entire thing that your article is about is here



Which I see as a cop-out. The article is full of opinions, so don't fall back on 'it's the ref's decision' when it comes to the central issue. In your opinion, was the cut bad enough to warrant a stoppage?

I think McCloskey was over-matched and had little chance of winning. But the whole 'well it doesn't matter about how the fight ended because he would've lost anyway' argument is crazy in my eyes.

But it's possible that McCloskey would've turned things around. Stranger things have happened and weaker punchers have badly hurt Khan. This is boxing. The fight was stopped prematurely on a cut that was not bad enough to warrant it. All the fantasy fight arguments you want doesn't make it a good decision.

I have to admit that I actually enjoyed the article even though I think your spot on about the author missing out on the "cut situation". Your response pretty much summed up everything that I believed went wrong with the fight. There was absolutely no justification for stopping the fight. Quality post.

McCloskey deserved to finish, this is America isn't it ?......... oh wait.

[Motofan]

Here are facts.
Khan was winning in a wash.
Khan also tends to gas out.
McCloskey expected his only chance was in the 2nd half.
No chance at a 2nd half due to a horrible stoppage.

Now for opinion.
McCloskey cant punch.
Khan likely would have continued to win in a wash.
The fight should have continued.

[Motofan]

I see the logic of the author but he couldn't be more wrong. In sports, anything can happen. We don't stop playing basketball, football or baseball games because one team is getting beaten badly, we play on.

If we didn't, we wouldn't have had some of the greatest moments in sports history. Now I'm not saying that McCloskey wasn't losing or that he was the type of fighter known for knocking out an opponent late in fights, especially one of the talent level as Kahn but you HAVE to give him that chance.

If Khan was winning, oh well that doesn't mean you end the fight prematurely and not give the other fighter a punchers chance.

We saw what Ishida did to Kirkland, he only had 6 KO's in over 25 fights, so why even have them fight? Yet it was Ishida that KO'd the favored kirkland. Point is, you have to give a fighter his fighting chance, end of story.

I have had worse cuts in the morning after saving, that was a disgrace to all those people that paid good money to see that fight. If Kahn was going to KO him, then allow him to and let the public get their money's worth.

Terrible stoppage, terrible call but I'm not surprised in Europe (no offense) but after watching that Manfredo stoppage vs Calzaghe, I am not surprised.

Well put...