As a Khan fan are you annoyed by his recent behaviour?

I always ignore the commentary, it's usually nonsense. Still, I put very little stock into Alexander's pitty pat punches. He lands little shots here and there with absolutely nothing on them. Porter was landing the solid shots all night, rocked Alexander several times and generally bullied him around. I'm not saying you need to be a big puncher to win, but you at least have to land good, accurate shots. All Alexander landed was arm slaps. I don't know why people seem to be rating Alexander over porter. Alexander really isn't all that special. If you have fast hands or the strength to bully him around there's not much he can do except clinch

Nope that fight was a hell of a lot closer if you watch it with the sound off - if you eliminate the crowd cheering and the commentary. When I first watched it I thought the same as you - I thought Porter beat Alexander easy. But on playback with the sound off that was actually a nip and tuck fight, both fighters had success fairly evenly throughout the course of the fight. But because Porter was the aggressor coming forward some people got duped into believing he was doing a lot better than he actually did. If you watch it again with sound off you might come back and agree. I'm starting to do that more now because crowds and commentary can really distort your own opinion of a fight. I always ignore the commentary, it's usually nonsense. Still, I put very little stock into Alexander's pitty pat punches. He lands little shots here and there with absolutely nothing on them. Porter was landing the solid shots all night, rocked Alexander several times and generally bullied him around. I'm not saying you need to be a big puncher to win, but you at least have to land good, accurate shots. All Alexander landed was arm slaps.

He doesn't though. Your argument is that so and so mentioned Brook's name. Woop de doo! I'm sure they've all mentioned Khan or would say they'd fight him if asked about him. That's just one of them. ' there mere fact that half the top fighters in the division are available to fight Brook but not Khan should tell you something. Then you can add up Haymon's willingness to let his top fighters fight each other, or even fight another top guy to the equation and Brook still comes out on top.

Again, I said Brook has more options than Khan. You're coming up with popularity contests and ifs and buts. I'm just stating a fact here, it doesn't matter how the fact came to be. He doesn't though. Your argument is that so and so mentioned Brook's name. Woop de doo! I'm sure they've all mentioned Khan or would say they'd fight him if asked about him.

Alexander-Porter wasn't really close, that was a 9 rounds to 3 beat down. Alexander had nothing to offer, his only moments of success came when Porter took a round off to get his breath back...Alexander sneaked a few rounds while Porter dominated his rounds. I reckon they could fight 10 times and Poter beats him up all 10. Nope that fight was a hell of a lot closer if you watch it with the sound off - if you eliminate the crowd cheering and the commentary. When I first watched it I thought the same as you - I thought Porter beat Alexander easy. But on playback with the sound off that was actually a nip and tuck fight, both fighters had success fairly evenly throughout the course of the fight. But because Porter was the aggressor coming forward some people got duped into believing he was doing a lot better than he actually did. If you watch it again with sound off you might come back and agree. I'm starting to do that more now because crowds and commentary can really distort your own opinion of a fight.

That's because Khan is boxer and naturally he is almost always asked who he'd like to fight next and what his goals are. He is a boxer so it's natural for people to ask him that in each interview. Should he lie and say that he doesn't want to fight the best? Should he say that his goal isn't to be the best by beating the best? What happened to the times when fighters were praised for wanting to face the ultimate competition, we're at a strange point in boxing history where fighters are hated on for setting their sets high and aiming for the stars. It's a funny old world we live in these days. No I agree and I have always respected Khan for taking the biggest challenges consistently and always wanting to fight the best. But there comes a point where I think you should do your talking in the ring.

If any of them were given the option, they'd choose to fight Khan over Brook. Again, I said Brook has more options than Khan. You're coming up with popularity contests and ifs and buts. I'm just stating a fact here, it doesn't matter how the fact came to be.

Of course most of the times it's that. But listen, Khan knows what makes headlines, he's not stupid. It's Mayweather and Pacquiao - especially in America. If they get mentioned, it's the headline and people will click, watch or read. Still doesn't change the fact that Khan hasn't done more than a handful interviews in two years where either guy hasn't been mentioned. That's because Khan is boxer and naturally he is almost always asked who he'd like to fight next and what his goals are. He is a boxer so it's natural for people to ask him that in each interview. Should he lie and say that he doesn't want to fight the best? Should he say that his goal isn't to be the best by beating the best? What happened to the times when fighters were praised for wanting to face the ultimate competition, we're at a strange point in boxing history where fighters are hated on for setting their sets high and aiming for the stars. It's a funny old world we live in these days.

They are all debatable points. I think Khan did get knocked out partially due to weight training combined with other factors. Pacquiao has been knocked out before due to weight-draining earlier in his career. Dawson got knocked out by Ward due to weight-draining. De La Hoya quit against Pac due to weight-draining. Arguably Cotto got stopped by Pac due to weight-draining. Both Cleverly and Bellew say they were weaker and got stopped at 175 due to weight-draining. The list goes on forever.. Once you realize weight-draining can have an impact on a fighters punch resistance & power, and that it has effected many fighters throughout boxing history, it won't seem so difficult for you to believe that Khan was also effected by weight-draining. I guess that might mean you're fairly new to the sport. Collazo was a decent win, he was an excellent choice of opponent for first fight at 147 to get used to the divison. The Porter vs Alexander fight was a lot closer than people would have you believe. Porter won it but only just. There were a lot of swing-rounds in that fight. Watch it with sound off and you'll see what I mean, ignore the retarded commentary. So in my opinion Brook's and Khan's wins over Porter and Alexander are almost on equal par - with Brook just edging it. I got Porter and Alexander as evenly matched fighters. If they fought each other 10 times, they'd win 5 each. Alexander-Porter wasn't really close, that was a 9 rounds to 3 beat down. Alexander had nothing to offer, his only moments of success came when Porter took a round off to get his breath back...Alexander sneaked a few rounds while Porter dominated his rounds. I reckon they could fight 10 times and Poter beats him up all 10.

I felt it was hyped a lot. It was a good fight, just not what it was hyped to be. Mstly because of Alexander. He isn't really the top fighter he was made out to be. I didn't say he wasn't the biggest name in America out of the two. I said Brook had more options. In fact, someone like Bradley said he was top of the list before he got stabbed. Marquez wants him, Thurman wants him, Porter wants him, there's Khan, Lopez, Guerrero, Rios all of these guys (well except Rios now) were available for Brook. Khan has Mayweather or Pacquiao, then he has Brook. After that, it's looking kind of slim. If any of them were given the option, they'd choose to fight Khan over Brook.

He doesn't always bring it up if he isn't asked about it. That's just way off and the sort of exaggeration I've been talking about which haters use. You magnify and multiply the times Khan talks about Floyd and Pac in your mind to the point you claim he "always brings them up". It's not in line with reality. Like I said, he does occasionally bring them up impromptu but most of the time you hear him talking about them it's because someone has asked a direct question about them, or a related question where it's justifiable/understandable to mention them. Of course most of the times it's that. But listen, Khan knows what makes headlines, he's not stupid. It's Mayweather and Pacquiao - especially in America. If they get mentioned, it's the headline and people will click, watch or read. Still doesn't change the fact that Khan hasn't done more than a handful interviews in two years where either guy hasn't been mentioned.

I don't feel it was that hyped up at all. Khan-Alexander was always going to suffer up against an HBO card at the same time. It was on the lips of the Showtime analysts after the fight. The media are hyping up Khan as the next guy in line. I'm not talking about the dweebs on these boards who don't matter one jot. Khan is the bigger name in America. A belt doesn't mean as much as that. If it did then Brook would be big news in the States and he's not. I felt it was hyped a lot. It was a good fight, just not what it was hyped to be. Mstly because of Alexander. He isn't really the top fighter he was made out to be. I didn't say he wasn't the biggest name in America out of the two. I said Brook had more options. In fact, someone like Bradley said he was top of the list before he got stabbed. Marquez wants him, Thurman wants him, Porter wants him, there's Khan, Lopez, Guerrero, Rios all of these guys (well except Rios now) were available for Brook. Khan has Mayweather or Pacquiao, then he has Brook. After that, it's looking kind of slim.

Once in a while? He ALWAYS brings it up if he isn't asked about it. One way or another. "Do you want to fight brook?" - "I think Mayweather or pacquiao" and goes on about speed, power and explosiveness. Well, luckily, I will watch his interviews if they are on video too to get the full idea, and he's definitely still delusional on camera. He doesn't always bring it up if he isn't asked about it. That's just way off and the sort of exaggeration I've been talking about which haters use. You magnify and multiply the times Khan talks about Floyd and Pac in your mind to the point you claim he "always brings them up". It's not in line with reality. Like I said, he does occasionally bring them up impromptu but most of the time you hear him talking about them it's because someone has asked a direct question about them, or a related question where it's justifiable/understandable to mention them.

And yet you didn't debate a single thing. You basically said that Brook is a bigger name and a higher reward fight than Khan. It's so obviously nonsense that there's nothing to debate. You also said Khan is ducking Brook. What are you basing that on? One would think a UK guy would have more respect and appreciation for Khan. I would kill for having such a great fighter in my country.

It was! It was talked about as a great fight. Porter-Brook was a better fight yet got nowhere near the publicity Khan-Alexander got! It did 650k peak and Khan-Alexander did 730k something if I remember correctly, but fair point about the cards even though main events were fought at different times. Is it on people's lips? :lol1: It's on Khan's lips! that's what it's on. You see more people on these boards wanting Mayweather to face Cotto or someone else, even Brook, than they want to see Khan. High reward, as in he has a belt + he's undefeated. Khan has already been knocked out multiple times and has no belt. Little reward. Keep up dirk. I don't feel it was that hyped up at all. Khan-Alexander was always going to suffer up against an HBO card at the same time. It was on the lips of the Showtime analysts after the fight. The media are hyping up Khan as the next guy in line. I'm not talking about the dweebs on these boards who don't matter one jot. Khan is the bigger name in America. A belt doesn't mean as much as that. If it did then Brook would be big news in the States and he's not.

Khan vs. Alexander was "hyped up beyond belief"? LOL....wut? Brook-Porter completely tanked in the ratings and it wasn't even competing with an HBO card at the same time. Khan's name is on the lips of people as "the next guy" after Pacquaio to get Mayweather. Brook's profile is nowhere near what his is. High risk, high reward? Again....what? It was! It was talked about as a great fight. Porter-Brook was a better fight yet got nowhere near the publicity Khan-Alexander got! It did 650k peak and Khan-Alexander did 730k something if I remember correctly, but fair point about the cards even though main events were fought at different times. Is it on people's lips? :lol1: It's on Khan's lips! that's what it's on. You see more people on these boards wanting Mayweather to face Cotto or someone else, even Brook, than they want to see Khan. High reward, as in he has a belt + he's undefeated. Khan has already been knocked out multiple times and has no belt. Little reward. Keep up dirk.

Pure nonsense but keep believing it if it makes you feel better. And yet you didn't debate a single thing.

Because Khan is tied to Goldenboy and showtime. So I didn't hear Marquez, Bradley, Thurman, Porter, Guerrero mention his name? I didn't hear Bob Arum talking about it? Or Oscar dela Hoya? Porter vs Brook almost did the same numbers as Khan-Alexander, and the latter was hyped up beyond belief. Besides, that doesn't really matter. He still has more options. Kell brook is a high risk, high reward fight. Khan is a high risk, low reward fight. Khan vs. Alexander was "hyped up beyond belief"? LOL....wut? Brook-Porter completely tanked in the ratings and it wasn't even competing with an HBO card at the same time. Khan's name is on the lips of people as "the next guy" after Pacquaio to get Mayweather. Brook's profile is nowhere near what his is. High risk, high reward? Again....what?

A side :lol1: Oh god. This A side bs has been floating around this site because of Floyd's propaganda. And now Khan fanboys will use it as if Khan is a superstar. He doesn't have great momentum in the UK and he's numbers aren't great in America either. Brook wants to fight Khan because it's a huge fight and Khan has said he'd fight him if he won a belt. Now he's just ducking Brook. Pure nonsense but keep believing it if it makes you feel better.

Maybe we should talk about Khan fanboys instead? Some of you are saying Alexander was a better win than Porter. :lol1: And that Khan is a more credible welterweight than Brook. Or that Collazo was a top 10 guy. Or that Khan got knocked out because of weight drain. .... the list goes on. They are all debatable points. I think Khan did get knocked out partially due to weight training combined with other factors. Pacquiao has been knocked out before due to weight-draining earlier in his career. Dawson got knocked out by Ward due to weight-draining. De La Hoya quit against Pac due to weight-draining. Arguably Cotto got stopped by Pac due to weight-draining. Both Cleverly and Bellew say they were weaker and got stopped at 175 due to weight-draining. The list goes on forever.. Once you realize weight-draining can have an impact on a fighters punch resistance & power, and that it has effected many fighters throughout boxing history, it won't seem so difficult for you to believe that Khan was also effected by weight-draining. I guess that might mean you're fairly new to the sport. Collazo was a decent win, he was an excellent choice of opponent for first fight at 147 to get used to the divison. The Porter vs Alexander fight was a lot closer than people would have you believe. Porter won it but only just. There were a lot of swing-rounds in that fight. Watch it with sound off and you'll see what I mean, ignore the retarded commentary. So in my opinion Brook's and Khan's wins over Porter and Alexander are almost on equal par - with Brook just edging it. I got Porter and Alexander as evenly matched fighters. If they fought each other 10 times, they'd win 5 each.