Khan vs Peterson: Round by Round

Fuck that! It doesn't sound impressive unless it's over 100. Nobody's going to panic if the heat index hits 40. :nono:

 

I'm not doin' the math.

 

Lots of different reasons. Lots of them. You know with people starving I got tired of taking a shit that probably still had 2000 calories left in it, you get tired of a trip to the john being an event requiring the paper reserves of Lower Siberia, you get tired of the time taken to prepare it, the costs, the calories I need to knock off. I do a lot of walking and I pass these beasts in the field all the time, dumb animals but still. They are sat there chewing the cud, harmless dumb bastards. Health reasons too, Pork causes colon issues, that's guaranteed, its full of chemicals, nitrates. Boil some bacon and smell it. I just basically cut it back. I still like it, and will always eat it, but not like I did as a kid or in my 20's.

 

Peterson turned the heat up on Khan. Peterson said he felt it was an 80 and Khan said he felt it was more like a 25. Controversy reigns.

 

He "pushed him over", during the 2nd knockdown. He threw an "uppercut" during the break before the 2nd point deduction.

Call it what you will. No sympathy for Khan here.

 

Do you think Khan will boycott Lowe's?

 

I get the feeling Khan doesn't do much in the way of manual labor.

 

I figured so as well, i was thinking more as a symbolic gesture.

If i was Khan's next opponent i'd wear the Lowe's logo on my trunks whether they sponsored me or not. :laughing:

 

::

 

Hmm. I'd love to have the money to eat only properly raised meats, fed right, no 'supplements'. Since I don't I honestly just try not to think about it, since I think the effects of cutting out the protein would probably be worse. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

Buy a big organic chicken {"Khan" is a good brand} and some organic tomatoes {not the Khanned stuff} - you should be able to get a few meals and lunches out of the flesh and the soup alone.

 

against a faded guy

even if you give him the dge in that one category, he is miles behind in all the others... Starling was flat out a better fighter

 

story of your fucking life, pendejo

 

let's hope boxrec isn't the story of any of our lives. if it were, that'd be fucking sad.

 

It's the story of his

 

I prefer Farenheit... Like noble says, 212 degrees sounds fucking HOT

Besides, a German invented it and I trust the methodical, almost cruel precision of the Germans when it comes to such things

 

you are an annoying little prick, aren't you?

 

but, but, daddy, BOXREC says!!!!
:limp:

6'2, 245... you?

 

so you are an annoying fat prick, thanks for the clarification.

 

Got it:Thumbs:

 

If anything, the ref would've been less consistent and more arbitrary had he not taken a second point.

 

Do you think the supposed infractions warranted point deductions?

Can you name any other fights where a fighter has had point deductions for what Khan did?

Do you think that from this point forward, all fighters should be treated as Khan was and have points deducted when they push off their opponents as Khan did?

Do you think refs should act consistently once they've deducted points for an infraction and continue to take points for the infraction? Regardless of other circumstances?

 

Yes

Doesn't matter.

Yes

If the infraction continues, the point deductions should continue

And this is coming from someone who wanted Khan to win more than anyone else on this board aside from Jimmy & Slice

 

I think it does matter, but if the sport followed your line of thinking, we would have a huge increase in dq's, we'd have a huger increase in point deductions, and boxing a year from now would look nothing like it does now. Nothing.

 

Why does it matter? If the rules aren't enforced in every other fight, that doesn't mean that the ref was wrong to enforce them in this fight.

We should have an increase in point deductions and DQs for that kind of fighting, and IMO boxing would look a lot better without the clinching/headlock/wrestling shit.

 

That seems an optimistic time scale, but you've hit on the general idea

 

blasphemy!

I don't generally like to eat stuff where all you can taste is the heat, but I have a hard time eating bland food. I gotta have a good amount of spice in my food, makes it interesting to eat.

 

Khan wasn't guilty of 'that kind of fighting'. That's one of the problems with all of this. This isn't Bernard Hopkins stuff, this is a guy who threw way more punches than Peterson and boxed and protected his face from getting butted. Khan wasn't wrestling, he wasn't doing much clinching, he was holding Peterson's head down but I didn't think it was excessive, and it's hard to even remember how much he was 'pushing' because it's such an integral part of the sport that it's not even noticeable unless you are trying to screw a british pak in the usa.

Khan said he was the 'cleaner' fighter, for whatever that is worth, and he is correct. Pushing a guy back to gets some space is what boxers do, especially when they aren't clinching which does warrant point deductions at times.

Khan got fucked, Americans don't like acknowledging that they fuck foreigners, it was a good fight anyway, Khan isn't particularly well-liked, Peterson isn't particularly disliked, and everyone expects that Khan will get his rematch to make this right if he can.

However, if Khan had won this way in England it would be the story of the year/decade, or if Floyd lost this way to Pacquiao the ref would have been murdered in the ring.

 

Pretty much yeah.

 

this site is for discussing fighting, pro and amateur boxing and mixed martial arts. it is not called proboxingbeat.com.

ultimately i would say the guy who had the better career would be he who has a greater chance of getting into the IBHOF, and that is tarver. not only did he have a greater amateur career which should be factored into induction, his pro career was better as well. you want to focus on losses instead of wins here.

tarver had the better victories. he avenged the loss to harding, brutally. and had a decent run with victories over light heavyweight contenders. if you want to gloss over the victory over jones jr., which was a truly awesome victory then there is really no point in arguing.

i dont even like tarver, at all. but he was a skilled guy. and to say he had "slightly better" power is not true. he had legitimate one punch knock out power. with that, he ended a few guys careers.

"moochie" starling accomplished less so he should relinquish the other nickname to tarver. :crafty:

as for the nickname thing, i imagine the magic man meant tarver made guys disappear by knocking them out.

breland and qawi is a bad example considering qawi had a much better pro career.