Khan-Maidana & Ortiz-Peterson: Final Predictions

Credit to Maidana for getting up. When a fighter goes down from a body blow in the kind of pain Maidana was in, it's rare they get up.

I, too, was hoping that Maidana would KO Khan. But he didn't. And even though there were times during the fight I was almost sure Khan was going out, he sucked it up and proved me wrong. Khan won clearly. Respect to him.

 

Irish, you are one paranoid bigot.

 

Yes, but, and not wanting to drag this out...should Maidana have been that badly hurt, and if so, upon being hurt, should Khan not have finished it there and then, or very shortly thereafter? Was it an Ottke vs Mundine thing, the sort of shot you throw once in a career?

I give Khan respect for toughing it out. What annoys me is the love-fest he enjoys for basically performing one fraction as well as other, shall we say, less-popular fighters have been doing, both in the recent and near-recent past.

I can't get out of my mind the image of a blood-spattered disheveled fighter furiously back pedaling, running, for all intents and purposes, whilst maintaining pfp credentials, or a claim to same, at least.

 

How so?

Please.......and, let's suppose I am, just for arguments sake, what does that make them??

:dunno:

 

OK, I see what you mean. i was about to add that Wlad's heart was much more comparable to what Amit showed (though quite a bit lesser since Amir took far more punishment under far more pressure). So it's a reasonable comparison.

So that's my take on the events, but again, I don't really give a shit what the media coverage of these things are it's not an angle that interests me.

 

Guys who like seeing good fights, perhaps? Wlad-Peter sucked, it was just Wlad dominating from range and flopping to the canvas about 25 times, 3 times from legit punches, the other X times just to get away from the fight. Interspersed with near-constant clinching. Amir-Maidana was high action throughout.

 

Fair play to Maidana for protecting his body and taking the head shots well after the KD.

I'm not interested in drawing comparisons between Khan/Maidana and Klitschko/Peter, thanks.

 

No no no....it's nothing that specific even, though getting up from brain stem shots and body shots both require a certain verve, that's not what I was referring to at all.

What I was alluding to was the fact that all of 5 years ago Klitschko had a similar experience to Khan, in fact it was harder, given that Klitschko was a "dead man walking" {Boxing Monthly}

Klitschko took a fight he didn't have to against an undefeated fighter with a reputation for being just the guy to finish Wlad off. Klitschko finished far stronger, took his lumps, and generally extinguished the stench of 2004's fight with Brewster.

The Guardian have offered, via Rawling, Mitchell, etc, very little in the line of acceptance, yet crow manfully over how Khan "made a million fans" with his ultimately victorious but disheveled and messy win over Maidana, a fight which, for me, raised as many new questions as it answered old.

 

Nobody is asking you to.

In fact, I am not asking anyone to.

The pitch pertains to the reporting of those fights, at a certain newspaper, and is made at British fight fans familiar with the publication{s} in particular, rather than the forum in general.

 

Boxing writers I've never heard of? I don't care.

 

Yup it's a fair comparison. In my last post I give the reasons for I think there's probably more behind the ostensible bias than.....well whatever you suspect it to be. We'll leave that aside.:scared2:

 

Because you're paranoid.

 

That's fine.


For me, what happens in the ring is only one aspect of the fight business, given that the fights are made in the newspapers and outside of the ring, and are then dissected afterwards, with spin etc.

The newspapers have always played a crucial role in making fights and making money for fighters- justifying fights to the public, getting them revenue, and this is as true today as it has ever been, with certain fighters, a la David Haye and now Khon, surrounding themselves with compurgators like Steve Bunce {BBC, Setanta} Kevin Mitchell {Guardian Service} etc.

The fight itself is probably 30% of the affair, after all, anyone who can get iced in 60 seconds and get a title fight 2 fights later has some very fucking good people around them, and proves the point that the fight itself is not the crucial factor.

You can't separate the dancer from the dance, baby.

 

and can read.

Yes.

 

I rest my case.

 

One day us white folk will be freed from the prejudice that holds us back.

 

That's great. Then you can get lessons in reading, and develop a more cosmopolitan stripe, and graduate from whatever Beaver Pelt monthly it is you work for up in Alberta.

 

One day.

 

So at what junction were the careers of Khan or Haye resurrected by the UK media? Before Freddie Roach took khan in and before Haye took a very high risk world title shot in France and dominated the champion before unifying in 2 rounds, presumably?

Where did the biased agenda of the media interpose in the sporting causality here? Not getting it..... they're big stars because they're the best two boxers in britain. Hatton & Calzaghe were bigger stars btw.

 

MTF :laughing::scared2::laughing:

 

::

 

That's why I always loved you kid.....:bears:

 

You rest your case that the bias of UK sports writers is highly significant on the fact that nobody here gives a fuck who they are or what they say?

 

I already David Blained that bit to you....

Consider it thus: Khan get's a fight with Barrera, a travesty of an affair, where Khan does little outside of opening Barrera with a headbutt {unintentional} and then his people let it go just long enough to stop the fight, and bring it to the cards. You saw it, I saw it....it was a joke.

Then, having been ICED by Prescott, he somehow gets a title shot, after moving up in weight, with only the Fagan and Barrera fights in between. Fucking Fagan from Oliver Twist would have put up more resistance.

Now..once this farce of a title shot came to pass....crucially the press leapt in and justified it all to a somewhat bemused public, and then praised the kid to all get out, with this King Khan bollox, after he won a fairly insipid decision.

This is what I am talking about. The resurrection of the chap via the printed word. He's back. He's done it. He earned this. Took the hard route.

No.hno:


Now...consider what Wladimir did, and how THAT has been received. He's boring. Never fights anyone. Never takes no risks. Just jabs. Has it easy. Only fights in Germany. Not wanted in America.

Look at what Khan said in his post fight interview...."I hope HBO liked it. I hope Sky liked it".

 

Irish is a peculiar breed of paranoid chap. He seems to spend his days poring over media articles from outlets he hates so that he can find something allowing him to build up his traditional head of steam. It is what gets him through the day

Unlike you and I, who simply don't visit, buy or read stuff we don't like...

MTF ::

 

I think we should give a fuck what they say, especially when they are accusing people of being ignorant, of being envious, and of being racist,whilst, pretty much engaging in that very behaviour themselves and acting as mouthpieces for certain fighters and badmouthing others.

I mean, if you can live with the game, amidst all of this feudalism and parochialism, then fine.

 

Pretty astute description yeah ::

Irish - did you do media studies at uni or something?

 

It's not as simple as that, I can tolerate a certain amount of baiting up to a point, but consider what Boxing Monthly had to say in the aftermath of the first Lewis-Holyfield fight, where their editor bemoaned the easy access to print facilities of people who knew nothing about boxing and who were thus able to facilely pump out copy of the lowest order about matters they were not qualified to speak about, thus feeding the ever-gullible public one stream of shite after another.

The context here was the gutter-press reaction to the draw in MSG, with people who knew nothing about boxing running off article after article about fixes, bribery, corruption, etc, generating cheap voluminous copy, damaging the sport, and then fucking off after a while to cover some other story, with the damage now done to boxing.

Now take it to the next level: it's not a Red-Top tabloid newspaper, but the Guardian, which is acting in a most provincial, feudal, little-Englander fashion.

Personally, I am not at all comfortable with that.

 

I would strongly suggest that his getting together with the best trainer in the world had more impact on his public credibility after Prescott than anything John Rawls ever wrote. Also, the guy had major existing star appeal because he was a 17 year old olympic finalist remember? People are interested in that kind of thing and it gave him a bank of public credit.....just like Audley's gold medal did. He made HIMSELF a marketable name at the olympics, not the Guardian newspaper.

 

I have a masters degree in Law which is about as useful in the current economic climate as tits on a prize bull.

However, a chap need not have much outside the usual literacy levels to be able to make the same points I am.

Who in their right mind would find the time and space to deride a Klitschko having watched Khan Rocka and A Rolla Like a Persian Ayatollah around the ring for the large parts of the fight last night?

It's not the Khan Hype- its the Khan Hype + Bashing of others that does it for me.