Khan's comments ... What do you think?

This. This is correct. That said, do you think that the nature of boxing (i.e. boxers can only fight 3-4 times per year, perhaps due to health concerns) means that the only way it will ever run is through a popularity contest, since we'll never ever get to see a round robin of the top 10-20 fighters? Fewer fights means each fight draws a bigger chunk of revenue, meaning you have to make the most popular fights to survive as a sport/organisation/entity meaning you bow to the momentum of popularity rather than a centrally organised, scheduled set of fights? But yes, I think you hit the nail on the head. The current trend, where popularity (Big Draw Boxers) based events are staged is running its course. We currently only have a few boxer's that are considered top draws, and when they start to retire it is going to have a major impact on the sport. Because not many other boxer's have really been developed to become a name-brand, that non-hardcore fans will pay to see. The plus-side of the present business model is that the promoters, networks and boxers are cashing in profits. But the down-side is that once these boxers retire, there is going to be a drought because only a few up & coming can really carry the event torch. Another down-side is new talent exposure -- Since the top-guns won't fight a new-comer, their exposure is very limited. Take for example that 2015 will be Pac's and Floyd's last year in boxing. Because they have been the main cash cows, who's going to pickup the slack? {Canelo for GBP and (?) for TR} There's really no one else who can produce the CONSISTENT PPV numbers that Pac & Floyd generated. And really Canelo is limited in his attraction to a pure US market. Sure, he will always have the Mexican market to capitalize on - But outside of that demographic who really knows Canelo in the US? When the Organizations were more involved in the equation, everyone got exposure because of that round-robin routine. Since it has been eliminated, only certain names have gotten any exposure at all. So, bottom-line 800K-900K PPV's is gone after Pac and Floyd and Canelo will be lucky to pull in those numbers going forward. That's why I stated that Khan and others, should be fighting as often as possible regardless of the level of competition, because their exposure to the general populace is still very limited. And in this business, you have to make as much noise as possible whenever you can. And when I state "noise" I'm not referring to running your mouth .... I mean getting out and kicking some azz as often as possible. Because the door is going to be wide open for the one that does just that.

I posted this to get some feedback from fans .... and it would seem that only a few picked up on the irony. Khan's situation is strikingly similar to Brooks, minus the obvious opponent variations and perceived totem pole levels. Dirk asked "What is controversial about them?" Its not a question of controversy, its an observation that many boxer's and even fans do not acknowledge exist. That without an active authoritative organization few if any boxer's will ever get the shot they think they deserve. This authority used to be the governing bodies within boxing. Now, the so-called governing bodies apparently can't even regulate or dictate who deserves a shot at their titles. And it further raises the concern where popularity enables some to dictate what happens and with whom, to the detriment of the sport. What happens when the most popular boxer's who enjoy such dictatorial power retire? When the big names start to retire, its going to become a major concern for those who are late to the realization, that in reality, they have no leverage at all without a functioning governing organization in boxing. This may be a fly-by for some so-called fans ... This. This is correct. That said, do you think that the nature of boxing (i.e. boxers can only fight 3-4 times per year, perhaps due to health concerns) means that the only way it will ever run is through a popularity contest, since we'll never ever get to see a round robin of the top 10-20 fighters? Fewer fights means each fight draws a bigger chunk of revenue, meaning you have to make the most popular fights to survive as a sport/organisation/entity meaning you bow to the momentum of popularity rather than a centrally organised, scheduled set of fights? But yes, I think you hit the nail on the head.

I don't see any irony here whatsoever... Brooks resume doesn't touch Khans and Khans resume doesn't touch Floyds. Doesn't mean these fights don't make sense and aren't worth the B-sides pursuing. All these fighters are just doing what they gotta do. Don't you get it? You're the one getting things mixed up. Cause you're thinkin with your agenda

Fighting Brook is no bigger than Paul McCloskey at this point and at least that had a title on the line. Brook is from Ingle's gym and if it wasn't the case no one would've even cared about him. It is only a rivalry, because Brook can't shut up about Khan. It's like saying Khan has a rivalry with Floyd.

Not surprised to see idiots defending Khan. He says Brook has done nothing to deserve a title shot. What did Amir Khan do to deserve his first title shot against Andrey Kotelnik? The answer is even less than Brook has done. In fact Khan had never even fought at the weight he fought his first world title fight at. At least Brook actively campaigns as a Welterweight, something you could not say about Khan when he fought for a Junior Welter belt. I guess all Brook needs to do to deserve a shot at Amir Khan is to equal Khan's epic headbutt win over a shot to **** Marco Antonio Barrera. Hey... I hear Eric Morales is fat and looking for a fight.... Step up Brook! Be more like Amir! Ummm Khan is a big name and Kotelnik seemed content coming to England and defend his belt for good $, rather Khan going to Germany/Ukraine. Brook has been a pro for 10 years almost exclusively at WW and how many wins did it take Khan to make a bigger statement than him at WW? 1 How many world titles has Brook won or names beaten at WW? Brook has been a mandatory for 4 years of one title or another and never followed through with his shots and uses Khan's name to stay relevant. At least Khan has fought names like Judah, Paulie, Kotelnik, Maidana and Collazo. Collazo beats anyone on Brook's resume. Boxing is not fair and Khan doesn't owe Brook anything just like Floyd with Khan. The idiot here seems to be you defending Kell Brook.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle... Khan beats Collazo, so now considers himself 'A' level fighter. Brook beats errrr...nobody, so now considers himself a legit challenge to 'King' Khan. If ( and it is a big IF) Brook beats Porter then yes, he deserves the shot at Khan. Problem is, if Brook beats Porter he will probably then say he is only looking towards Mayweather...:haha: Both these guys are mildly deluded as to where they actually stand within the WW division. Neither currently hold a title, but Khan does have the credibility of a better resume. I think they should fight each other, it will be a big payday for both and hopefully put an end to their ***** ass whining. I can't really see Brook getting past Porter to be honest. That is a great post!!! The key point is, if Brook does manage to beat Porter, then Khan can forget about getting a shot at Brook. And as you stated, Brook would rightfully go for a Floyd fight in the UK -- Which would be a nice event and would steam Khan proper.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle... Khan beats Collazo, so now considers himself 'A' level fighter. Brook beats errrr...nobody, so now considers himself a legit challenge to 'King' Khan. If ( and it is a big IF) Brook beats Porter then yes, he deserves the shot at Khan. Problem is, if Brook beats Porter he will probably then say he is only looking towards Mayweather...:haha: Both these guys are mildly deluded as to where they actually stand within the WW division. Neither currently hold a title, but Khan does have the credibility of a better resume. I think they should fight each other, it will be a big payday for both and hopefully put an end to their ***** ass whining. I can't really see Brook getting past Porter to be honest. nice post Alex, a lot there I agree with even though I thought Khan's comments were pretty fair! I'm not convinced that Porter-Brook will even happen, and if it does can't see Brook winning. If somehow he did though, then Brook-Khan would be a big UK fight and the winner probably would get a shot against Mayweather by way of a "unification" fight. Ditto Porter-Khan.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle... Khan beats Collazo, so now considers himself 'A' level fighter. Brook beats errrr...nobody, so now considers himself a legit challenge to 'King' Khan. If ( and it is a big IF) Brook beats Porter then yes, he deserves the shot at Khan. Problem is, if Brook beats Porter he will probably then say he is only looking towards Mayweather...:haha: Both these guys are mildly deluded as to where they actually stand within the WW division. Neither currently hold a title, but Khan does have the credibility of a better resume. I think they should fight each other, it will be a big payday for both and hopefully put an end to their ***** ass whining. I can't really see Brook getting past Porter to be honest.

Fair comments. Brook doesnt particularly deserve a title shot against Porter. Just because he is undefeated isn't the be all, end all. He hasn't really fought anyone to earn a shot. Khan v Porter is better fight.

Brooks beats Porter, that would be a good fight in the UK.

I like Khan more than the Brook guy, but I can't understand why he is grandstanding with this guy. If he's a piece of sh.it, destroy him, and in your country (not). They don't consider you British, f..uck them. I think the British never considered you one of them, ever, because you are not white, and they don't anyone who is not white. Look at the non-whites who came before you. So, if I were you, I would beat the sh.it out of Brooks (another non-British) and renounce those as.sholes' nationality on the spot and sh.it on them. Don't sh.it on Brook, fight him. While you touched on several points ... some I won't even comment on :lol1: I will state this: Here's the big question: Why Not? This attempt at a national rivalry has been talked about for years by the UK networks, UK sports writers etc... There's several UK youtube videos where the question is raised to Khan during interviews, "what about Brook?" The only UK based person that doesn't seen to want any part of this, is Khan. And to be honest, I wished Khan didn't use the current (OP) reasoning, because 1.) It sets a horrible example 2.) It sets a precedent for other top fighters to outright deny Khan & others This BIG (I) little (u) mentality, used by Khan is not constructive, nor is it supportive of his so-called claim to fame.(I think its delusional) But Khan is entitled to his opinion of himself.

I like Khan more than the Brook guy, but I can't understand why he is grandstanding with this guy. If he's a piece of sh.it, destroy him, and in your country (not). They don't consider you British, f..uck them. I think the British never considered you one of them, ever, because you are not white, and they don't anyone who is not white. Look at the non-whites who came before you. So, if I were you, I would beat the sh.it out of Brooks (another non-British) and renounce those as.sholes' nationality on the spot and sh.it on them. Don't sh.it on Brook, fight him.

Well Khan's only saying it because it's convenient for him at the moment. It has an element of truth to it, but is it a cast-iron reason to not fight somebody? Obviously not.

Oh the irony Khan you idiot. :rofl:

I agree with Khan, Brook isn't doing anything other than padding his record with nobodies, I think the Diaz who fought Porter would have Brook running all night.

HUMMM sounds familiar doesn't it Khan

Amir seems to ignore the fact that he is doing the exact thing he accuses Brook of in trying to get a Mayweather fight. Going to 147 and beating a washed up Colazzo and feeling almost entitled to a Mayweather fight is pretty typical. Khan lives in his own little world in that regard, a world where delusion runs rampant.

Not surprised to see idiots defending Khan. He says Brook has done nothing to deserve a title shot. What did Amir Khan do to deserve his first title shot against Andrey Kotelnik? The answer is even less than Brook has done. In fact Khan had never even fought at the weight he fought his first world title fight at. At least Brook actively campaigns as a Welterweight, something you could not say about Khan when he fought for a Junior Welter belt. I guess all Brook needs to do to deserve a shot at Amir Khan is to equal Khan's epic headbutt win over a shot to **** Marco Antonio Barrera. Hey... I hear Eric Morales is fat and looking for a fight.... Step up Brook! Be more like Amir!

I don't have a problem with Khans comments. And nobody has ever accused me of being a Khan fan.

I posted this to get some feedback from fans .... and it would seem that only a few picked up on the irony. Khan's situation is strikingly similar to Brooks, minus the obvious opponent variations and perceived totem pole levels. Dirk asked "What is controversial about them?" Its not a question of controversy, its an observation that many boxer's and even fans do not acknowledge exist. That without an active authoritative organization few if any boxer's will ever get the shot they think they deserve. This authority used to be the governing bodies within boxing. Now, the so-called governing bodies apparently can't even regulate or dictate who deserves a shot at their titles. And it further raises the concern where popularity enables some to dictate what happens and with whom, to the detriment of the sport. What happens when the most popular boxer's who enjoy such dictatorial power retire? When the big names start to retire, its going to become a major concern for those who are late to the realization, that in reality, they have no leverage at all without a functioning governing organization in boxing. This may be a fly-by for some so-called fans ...