View Full Version : khan more talented than naz?


hatcheeks
03-03-2005, 06:16 PM
some people have posted that they feel that amir khan is more talented than when naz was his age. although i think khan is a fantastic prospect and i wont be suprised if he one day becomes a world champion, i dont think he is as good as naz. it will be interesting to see khans pro carear develop, and i dont think it will be long before he is fighting on sky sports under frank warrens guidance

rudy
03-04-2005, 07:57 AM
wish him all the best but I don;t think he is going to sign with Warren but do his own thing like Audley Harrison

elveiel
03-04-2005, 08:48 AM
wish him all the best but I don;t think he is going to sign with Warren but do his own thing like Audley Harrison

It didnt exactly work for Harrison :D

Kahn isnt as talented as Naz, but he is a more stable/level headed fighter so he could achieve what Naz did.

Sinatra.Jr
03-11-2005, 06:37 AM
Kahn isnt as talented as Naz.
I also the same opinion. But he'll much better fighter as he now.
I hope.

tommo
03-12-2005, 12:35 AM
I think he is.Maybe not as entertaining, but maybe mre technicaly and fundamentably sound.

adeelr
03-15-2005, 01:47 PM
Khan might be a more polished boxer than Naz, although he might not posses the same power that the prince did. But Khan definetly looks like a more refined boxer than alot of boxers in the pro divisions.

abdiel2k3
03-15-2005, 01:53 PM
some people have posted that they feel that amir khan is more talented than when naz was his age. although i think khan is a fantastic prospect and i wont be suprised if he one day becomes a world champion, i dont think he is as good as naz. it will be interesting to see khans pro carear develop, and i dont think it will be long before he is fighting on sky sports under frank warrens guidance
i dont see why not
lota of fighters are more talented then naz
nazs defining attribute was his power

dcgun
03-16-2005, 04:51 AM
wish him all the best but I don;t think he is going to sign with Warren but do his own thing like Audley Harrison

that would be a positive. We wouldn't want khan to end up as another hatton or calzaghe. Khan is better of basing himself in the states, and fighting in the UK once a year.

RUDDY
03-16-2005, 06:00 AM
I think Khan is nowhere near as talented as Naz was, and at the moment doesn't seem to carry the same sort of power either. I think the lad will get a shock when he steps up to the pro game.

Sulpiride
03-18-2005, 06:52 AM
Impossible to say, he is a lot less unorthodox...but his reflexes are not as keen as Hamed's...and we don't know about his chin...Whatever about the flash knockdowns, Hamed to me never looked like he was about to get KTFO, had great recuperative powers...

jeffmills
03-23-2005, 07:28 AM
Khna is definitely a more refined and rounded boxer, though I Naz remains the harder puncher and superior counter-puncher.

rudy
03-23-2005, 07:50 AM
This is stupid they guy has yet to turn professional and comparing him to a world champion. No wonder nobody ever becomes a star if people start talking rubbish like this give him a chance to fight over 5 rounds before making suggestions.

It is a bit like saying I wonder if Jack Jackson could have handled ali.

Kimmy
03-23-2005, 09:45 AM
I agree Rudy, Khan is not yet a pro and still has a allot of developing to do. He may even be a great amatuer but a flop in the pros, maybe not. But it is too soon to tell!

sena
03-23-2005, 02:54 PM
Khan hasn't even fully matured yet. He still has the wiery figure of a young man and tho all the fundamental schooling is there coupled w/ raw reflexes and talent, he's nowhere near comparison.

dustymoo
03-24-2005, 11:13 PM
This is stupid they guy has yet to turn professional and comparing him to a world champion. No wonder nobody ever becomes a star if people start talking rubbish like this give him a chance to fight over 5 rounds before making suggestions.

It is a bit like saying I wonder if Jack Jackson could have handled ali.

After thinking of something profound to say? **** it! I agree with ya man! The lad hasnt even fought pro yet! I dont doubt his ability, but time will tell.

Martin (Top Knowledge)
03-25-2005, 08:44 AM
Khan is a talanted fighter... But Naz was far more talanted at this age!

Chups
03-25-2005, 12:11 PM
KHAN hasn't turn professional has he? He is still a TOT right? 17 or 18?

I believe that KHAN TOT will become somebody someday.

:D

PunchDrunk
03-25-2005, 12:18 PM
Khan is a talanted fighter... But Naz was far more talanted at this age!

Oh, so Hamed won an olympic silver medal at age 17? :bs2:

kingmo
03-26-2005, 05:48 PM
Oh, so Hamed won an olympic silver medal at age 17? :bs2:

Hamed was European Bantamweight champ at age 19 and WBO featherweight champ the following year. Although he is yet to box as a pro, i doubt very much Khan will be capable of such achievements so early on in his career. So to the quaestion of who is more talented at the same age, I would say Naz was far more talented at age 18 than Khan is. The kids got a long way to go, theres a world of difference between the amateur an pro game.

Shaolin Bushido
03-26-2005, 06:29 PM
Oh, so Hamed won an olympic silver medal at age 17? :bs2:No but he won a world title! A fighter like Naz comes along once in a lifetime and it's already happened.

Khan is a decent prospect, that's all.

PunchDrunk
03-28-2005, 06:03 AM
No but he won a world title! A fighter like Naz comes along once in a lifetime and it's already happened.

Khan is a decent prospect, that's all.

He didn't win a world title at age 17! He was born in '74 and won the IBF title in '97. It's okay that you're on the Naz band wagon (most got off when he was exposed), but saying that he was a greater talent than Khan at the age of 17, based on what he accomplished as a 23 year old is plain ridiculous! Geez... :bs2:

korea insincere
03-28-2005, 11:22 AM
Khan looks to be a great prospect, he seems to have good technical ability whereas Naz is more of an exciting hard hitter and flamboyant character. It's probably too early to say, we'll find out much more about Khan when he turns pro. I just hope he doesn't start believing the inevitable hype!

barryboy
03-28-2005, 12:03 PM
Latest News:

Khan gets Cuban farewell

John Rawling
Monday March 28, 2005
The Guardian

A rematch of the Olympic lightweight final between Cuba's Mario KindelŠn and Amir Khan is to be staged at the Reebok Stadium in Bolton on April 16 in what is expected to be the British boxer's final amateur contest.

KindelŠn, 34, has been one of the world's outstanding boxers in recent years and has recorded two victories over Khan, most recently in the Olympic final where he outpointed the Briton 30-22 in a contest that attracted almost 8m Sunday lunchtime viewers on BBC1.

Khan, 18, lobbied for the chance to face the Cuban again after announcing he would be starring as the main attraction on a fund-raising night for Bury Amateur Boxing Club, where he learned the sport. A sell-out crowd is guaranteed.

"Khan against KindelŠn is the biggest amateur fight I can make," Warren said. "Amir wanted this badly because he believes he has what it takes to win. You could say that it is a case of unfinished business. Then a big future waits him as a professional."

Warren also revealed that he is close to concluding a deal for the World Boxing Organisation world featherweight champion Scott Harrison to defend his title in Manchester against the popular Mancunian Michael Brodie.

The former World Boxing Council world super-middleweight champion Richie Woodhall, who has forged a successful career as a television and radio commentator since his retirement, has been appointed as the English Amateur Boxing Association's high-performance director, succeeding Ian Irwin.

kingmo
03-28-2005, 01:25 PM
He didn't win a world title at age 17! He was born in '74 and won the IBF title in '97. It's okay that you're on the Naz band wagon (most got off when he was exposed), but saying that he was a greater talent than Khan at the age of 17, based on what he accomplished as a 23 year old is plain ridiculous! Geez... :bs2:

Your right about one thing he was born in '74... however he won the WBO title in '95 .. you can HATE all you want but thats a FACT. He's been there and done it.. Khan has it all to do yet, so before you jump on the Khan band wagon I suggest you wait and see how he performs in the pros.

As for Naz at 17.. he won the National Schoolboy Boxing Championship five times and the junior Amateur Boxing Association title twice.... and then went onto PROVE himself in the pro ranks.. a feat Khan is yet to do.

PunchDrunk
03-28-2005, 04:00 PM
Your right about one thing he was born in '74... however he won the WBO title in '95 .. you can HATE all you want but thats a FACT. He's been there and done it.. Khan has it all to do yet, so before you jump on the Khan band wagon I suggest you wait and see how he performs in the pros.

As for Naz at 17.. he won the National Schoolboy Boxing Championship five times and the junior Amateur Boxing Association title twice.... and then went onto PROVE himself in the pro ranks.. a feat Khan is yet to do.

First of all, if you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd know, we were discussing whether Naz had the same talent at Khan's age as Khan. National Schoolboy and Junior titles are NOT the same as winning The European youth title in '03, the Junior World title in '04 (all fights by outscore) AND Olympic silver in '04, all at the age of 17. When we're discussing their feats up until the age of 17, how do they compare? THAT'S what we were discussing.

Second, i'm not hating on Naz (or on Khan's bandwagon for that matter), I'm just pointing that Naz hadn't accomplished anywhere near what Khan had at age 17. That's a fact.
Whether Khan will prove himself in the pro's or not, nobody knows, and I certainly never claimed otherwise, as that was not the topic of this discussion.

kingmo
03-28-2005, 04:31 PM
First of all, if you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd know, we were discussing whether Naz had the same talent at Khan's age as Khan. National Schoolboy and Junior titles are NOT the same as winning The European youth title in '03, the Junior World title in '04 (all fights by outscore) AND Olympic silver in '04, all at the age of 17. When we're discussing their feats up until the age of 17, how do they compare? THAT'S what we were discussing.

Second, i'm not hating on Naz (or on Khan's bandwagon for that matter), I'm just pointing that Naz hadn't accomplished anywhere near what Khan had at age 17. That's a fact.
Whether Khan will prove himself in the pro's or not, nobody knows, and I certainly never claimed otherwise, as that was not the topic of this discussion.

No, I think you should read the topic of the thread.. who is more TALENTED.. not who achieved more at that stage, that doesn't really count for much, as amateur titles dont count for much with regards to success in the paid ranks... the amateur and pro ranks are totally DIFFERENT. Britain has had 43, thats right 43 Olympic boxing medallists to date.. how many went on to win world titles or even got close?? Answer that. Like I said the amateur and pro ranks are WORLDS APART.

And anyway the thread does not say "when Khan was 17".. Khan is now 18 and turning over to the pro ranks. At 18 Naseem Hamed also turned pro he won 6 pro fights before his 19th birthday - 5 by ko.. Khan has not yet done so, WHEN he has than you can talk about it.

From the age of 18 to 21 Naz won the European bantamweight crown, WBC international super bantamweight crown and a version of the World featherweight title - WBO (aged 21, NOT at age 23 as you claim)... so if you wanna go by accomplishments Khan has got a lot to do in the next 3 years!! Naz has already done it.

PunchDrunk
03-28-2005, 05:43 PM
(I claimed he won the IBF title at 23, never mentioned WBO, guess why?)
The topic is as follows: "Khan more talented than Naz?"
The only things you CAN compare is what they'd both achieved at the stage Khan is now at in his career, since he is the youngest of the two. Khan has yet to turn pro, so the only things you can compare are their amateur accomplishments. Comparing what Naz has already done, to what Khan has yet to do, is pure speculation, and can therefore only be based on personal likings, which is what you seem to base everything on (and therefore you seem to think everybody else has to be a big fan of Khan to lean his way in this, as evidenced by previous statements made by you.). I have know idea what Khan's future will bring and neither do you, but you are right, he has a lot to do in the next 3 years, if he is to follow in Naz's footsteps. Personally, I'd rather see him take his sweet time to develop, and therefore hopefully last a little longer in the game than Naz did... Oh, and you're right pro and amateur are WORLDS apart. In the pro game you can go 6-0 with 5 KO's within a year, if your promoter lines up enough tomato cans, and pulls enough strings for you, in the amateurs, you really have to be a good boxer to get silver at the olympics. No shortcuts. Maybe that's why Naz never accomplished anything as an amateur? :P

kingmo
03-29-2005, 12:05 AM
(I claimed he won the IBF title at 23, never mentioned WBO, guess why?)
The topic is as follows: "Khan more talented than Naz?"
The only things you CAN compare is what they'd both achieved at the stage Khan is now at in his career, since he is the youngest of the two. Khan has yet to turn pro, so the only things you can compare are their amateur accomplishments. Comparing what Naz has already done, to what Khan has yet to do, is pure speculation, and can therefore only be based on personal likings, which is what you seem to base everything on (and therefore you seem to think everybody else has to be a big fan of Khan to lean his way in this, as evidenced by previous statements made by you.). I have know idea what Khan's future will bring and neither do you, but you are right, he has a lot to do in the next 3 years, if he is to follow in Naz's footsteps. Personally, I'd rather see him take his sweet time to develop, and therefore hopefully last a little longer in the game than Naz did... Oh, and you're right pro and amateur are WORLDS apart. , and pulls enough strings for you, in the amateurs, you really have to be a good boxer to get silver at the olympics. No shortcuts. Maybe that's why Naz never accomplished anything as an amateur? :P


"Khan more talented than Naz?" - So which part of that dont you understand? more TALENTED doesn't mean who won more amateur titles.. Audley Harrison won gold, I could name several fighters (and so could you) who didn't have half the success as him in the amateurs and are way more talented than him. Wayne McCullough won an olympic silver at the '92 games.. Naz didn't even go.. was McCullough more talented than Naz?? Going by your reasoning he must have been, after all he achieved more as an amateur..lol. want me to go on??

"The only things you CAN compare is what they'd both achieved at the stage Khan is now at in his career" - Thats just plain daft.. so you CANT compare there abilities in the ring?? Khan is turning pro.. so therefore it is OBVIOUS that this thread is with regards to the PROFESSIONAL game and who is/was more talented at this stage in their careers in terms of PROFESSIONAL BOXING... as people are interested as to how far he can go. Not what he has already achieved in the amateurs.. as that is not up for debate.. it's in the history books plain and simple, we dont need you to point it out to everyone!

Everyone knows Khan has achieved more as an amateur.. he won an Olympic medal, Naz didn't even go to the Olympics. if that means he's more talented.. than there would be no point of this thread.. and everyone that has posted a reply with regards to power, speed, skill, reflexes, etc.. (other than you, and your unique reasoning) must not have a clue what they are talking about. Heres an interesting article for you, read what Robert Guerrero has to say about his achievements as an amateur.. most pro fighters and trainers will agree:

http://www.boxing-central.com/modules.php?name=AvantGo&file=print&sid=5950

"you really have to be a good boxer to get silver at the olympics. No shortcuts. Maybe that's why Naz never accomplished anything as an amateur?" - 67 WINS to only 5 losses = NOTHING!!! And the reason Naz turned pro and didn't go to the olympics or even stay on for the senior ABA's is because his style was not suited to the amateur game.. anyone who knows anything about the sport understands that. And as for the Olympics, as I said before Wayne McCullough won the silver medal in '92.. you think Naz couldn't have got as far as Wayne??

"you really have to be a good boxer to get silver at the olympics" - By that I take it you dont "have to be a really good boxer" to win European and World titles as a professional than???

"In the pro game you can go 6-0 with 5 KO's within a year, if your promoter lines up enough tomato cans"... very true but they cant GIVE the European title to a "tomato can" and than match you up with him in only your TWELTH pro fight can they????

"When we're discussing their feats up until the age of 17, how do they compare?" - this is from your previous post.. NO were NOT, no one other than you is comparing their feats up to the age of 17.. as it is POINTLESS in every sense of the word. If you wanna discuss that, start a new thread and discuss it.

Diricul
03-29-2005, 11:13 AM
No, Naz is more talented but he is a sluggard thatís why Khan can get more in boxing.

PunchDrunk
03-29-2005, 12:21 PM
Speculate all you want, and include the things Naz achieved at an older age than Khan's. By your line of reasoning Thomas Damgaard is more talented than Naz, since HE won the european title in his 9th fight!! So, there's your answer, yes they CAN give the european title to a tomato can!

kingmo
03-29-2005, 12:35 PM
Speculate all you want, and include the things Naz achieved at an older age than Khan's. By your line of reasoning Thomas Damgaard is more talented than Naz, since HE won the european title in his 9th fight!! So, there's your answer, yes they CAN give the european title to a tomato can!

I DIDNT compare the two at different ages.. go back and read the post.. nor am I comparing their achievements or speculating.. and thats not my line of reasoning smart ass, it was a reply to your ridiculous claim that you have to fight "proper fighters" in the amateurs in order to win titles, implying you dont have to in the pros... go back and read the thread.. i answered your posts, and proved your reasoning is irrelevant and POINTLESS.

PunchDrunk
03-29-2005, 01:58 PM
In the amateurs you have to fight the best out there to become European, World or Olympic champ. In the pro's you don't necessarily have to. I think everybody, including you know that.
You didn't prove anything. My only point was that the only thing you can really compare between the two at the present, is their amateur accomplishments. Anything other than that is pure speculation. You don't KNOW what Khan will fight like in the pro's. You don't KNOW if he has the chin, the punch, the stamina, the speed, the toughness needed for the pro game. All you can do is make guesses. We KNOW what they accomplished as amateurs though. Saying that you can't compare that is gibberish.
I'm done with you. Bye.

kingmo
03-29-2005, 05:21 PM
In the amateurs you have to fight the best out there to become European, World or Olympic champ. In the pro's you don't necessarily have to. I think everybody, including you know that.
You didn't prove anything. My only point was that the only thing you can really compare between the two at the present, is their amateur accomplishments. Anything other than that is pure speculation. You don't KNOW what Khan will fight like in the pro's. You don't KNOW if he has the chin, the punch, the stamina, the speed, the toughness needed for the pro game. All you can do is make guesses. We KNOW what they accomplished as amateurs though. Saying that you can't compare that is gibberish.
I'm done with you. Bye.

No im done with you.. infact I was done with you a few posts back now!! I proved your logic and reasoning to be plain DAFT.. so why do you continue to talk the same GIBBERISH?? go back, read the posts, and ANSWER the questions. seriously answer them, you'll have a good laugh.. lol.. I did, and im sure everyone reading this has aswel.. lol

Diricul
04-01-2005, 11:04 AM
i dont see why not
lota of fighters are more talented then naz
nazs defining attribute was his power
I donít agree. Naseem is exremely talented. May be his talent is a biggest one in the sport. I think so because when he first time entered the gym he brought all that he showed in the ring later.
He almost never improved and worked bad. And he thought seldom. All his successes are based on his talent. And his power is a result of natural-born body coordination.

Khan is a talented school boxer. Hamed is an offer of Nature.

Shaolin Bushido is right.

typeone
04-03-2005, 11:37 AM
I can't really say if khan is going to be a great fighter I have not realy seen enough of this guy to be honest! But better than Naz? That is really possible after all Naz was a show man Khan does not seem that type.Naz beat some good fighters but never beat the best thats a fact.. Yes he was good to watch yes he has a great style. But again never beat the best. So yes he was a good fighter but never a GREAT!!

PopA
04-04-2005, 07:39 PM
I really liked what I saw of Khan but the pros are a different story. We'll wait and see what he can achieve but he definitely has the talent and skills.