Khans win against Alexander looking a lot worse.

Brook's best (only relevant) win's best win is a major flop??? Devon Alexander is a huge flop, I don't care who's "best win's win" (lol), he is.

Also Devon was coming off a win Khan beat Devon at his own game, beat him to the punch The scorecard says it all Khan :120-108, 119-109 118-110 Porter: 115-113, 116-112, and 116-112 Porter did well, but Devon had "some" success against Porter, he had nought for Khan... Devon was always going to lose to Khan, if you take away his speed or dont let him get his shots off, he is left with nothing.

Yeah and that happened AFTER Brook. I'm only saying this cuz you're a big Kell fan. So, the version Brook fought only had Alexander and a shot to sh1t Malignaggi on it. That matters how? If Porter goes on to beat Thurman on top of wins against Broner, Malignaggi and Alexander that doesn't make Brook's win look even more impressive? Of course it does. There's a difference between being a fan of a fighter and being blindly biased, something more people would do well to remember.

But Zab Judah holding a title when Khan fought him was over the hill according to you, amazing how quick we change the meaning of definitions. I'll take that back, Malignaggi was a ok win, but Alexander is surely the best win on Porter's resume at the time he fought Brook. Don't be pedantic and hold on to that. Now tell me, was Porter's best win a flop then? Sure you didn't say it, but you did respond to that post. Discredit? Uhh you're the one who sh1ts on his former flavor of the month Khan and his resume, funny enough you were probably bigging up the same wins. Does excessive use of smiley makes you feel it adds some weight to your argument? All Khan's opponents were either on the decline (Barrera, Alexander, Judah) or just sh1t. Maidana - went life and death, saved by the referee in the championship rounds. Paulie - Actually IMO his best win. Algieri, Collazo, Diaz, Molina - GTFO.

Amir khan simply is just trying to hold out as long as he can. Why do people make it seem like he's being avoided? There are boxers who you face because they're the best in the sport, same with guys who are slightly less great. Then there are boxers who are simply not elite, but they do a great job looking elite. That's what Amir khan is. He's like Andy dalton, looks better on paper but is avg at best and isn't what people make him out to be. Alexander is tailor made to lose to khan, that much everybody should know. Squares up, leaves his chin in the air, fights as clunky as you can and yet he still couldn't take advantage, that says a lot.

I considered the same thing myself earlier tonight, but I'm gonna let Khan have that one, and still put it down as a good performance. Not much more could have been asked from him that night.

But Zab Judah holding a title when Khan fought him was over the hill according to you, amazing how quick we change the meaning of definitions. I'll take that back, Malignaggi was a ok win, but Alexander is surely the best win on Porter's resume at the time he fought Brook. Don't be pedantic and hold on to that. Now tell me, was Porter's best win a flop then? Sure you didn't say it, but you did respond to that post. Discredit? Uhh you're the one who sh1ts on his former flavor of the month Khan and his resume, funny enough you were probably bigging up the same wins. Does excessive use of smiley makes you feel it adds some weight to your argument? Did I not just say Zab Judah was sh1t when Malignaggi fought him? Yes I did. Why are we going into being a flop etc? When did I say that? And you're calling me pedantic. Jesus. I said Porter was a better win than Alexander and that = Alexander is a flop? :lol1: Look back on this page, my first post said that Khan's win over Alexander was a solid win. Yes it does.

Why was Paulie shot to sh1t? When did he show that? Mate, your logic to discredit Brook is so-far out there it's crazy :lol1: But Zab Judah holding a title when Khan fought him was over the hill according to you, amazing how quick we change the meaning of definitions. I'll take that back, Malignaggi was a ok win, but Alexander is surely the best win on Porter's resume at the time he fought Brook. Don't be pedantic and hold on to that. Now tell me, was Porter's best win a flop then? Sure you didn't say it, but you did respond to that post. Discredit? Uhh you're the one who sh1ts on his former flavor of the month Khan and his resume, funny enough you were probably bigging up the same wins. Does excessive use of smiley makes you feel it adds some weight to your argument?

Too much drivel to shovel through. The whole "years apart" thing is just a new constraint you conveniently added. Much like the one about the method (Dec/KO) of how the won/lost. The original point you've always made on several other threads is: Porter>Alexander. How is it drivel? You came up with a ridiculous analogy of Abraham beating Taylor better than Calzaghe beating Hopkins :lol1: It just didn't make any sense, and as per usual I had to go and educate you. Even if Taylor had beaten Hopkins at the time, Hopkins was still a 43 years old or whatever. And you also conveniently forget that Taylor was knocked senseless by Carl Froch and Pavlik before. Compare Hopkins and Kovalev rather. Hopkins clearly the greater fighter, but a win over Kovalev means a helluva lot more than a win over Hopkins today. That's the analogy you should use. How is it conveniently put in there? It's a fact. Brook fought the winner of Porter vs Alexander and Khan fought the loser. because you'd like Khan to stick his penis inside you, you're trying to say that fighting and beating the loser is better than fighting and beating the champion. Absolute nonsensical. Yes, Porter > Alexander in every department. He showed that when both were at their best.

Brook's best win is Porter who only had Alexander on his resume "at the time" or a shot to sh1t Malignaggi. So, if Alexander is a flop, Porter beat a flop, so Brook beat a guy whose only claim to fame is beating a flop. Just connecting the dots. Why was Paulie shot to sh1t? When did he show that? Mate, your logic to discredit Brook is so-far out there it's crazy :lol1:

"Brook's best win's win" :lol1: :lol1: Brook's best win is Porter who only had Alexander on his resume "at the time" or a shot to sh1t Malignaggi. So, if Alexander is a flop, Porter beat a flop, so Brook beat a guy whose only claim to fame is beating a flop. Just connecting the dots.

It wasn't really close, but it was not a bashing either. Porter did not win more than 4 rounds in the fight. Both of them were robberies. Taylor did not beat Hopkins. Mate, you are coming up with ridiculous analogies. Who cares who achieved more? Porter CLEARLY beat Alexander hence Porter > Alexander. It's as simple as that. And it's not like there was years between and Brook fought a different version of Porter that beat Alexander. He faced the winner of the two straight after, only Porter squeezed in a Malignaggi fight and looked destructive in it. Alexander really lost to Kotelnik, he really lost to Matthysse, he quit against Bradley. He hugged and clinched his way to beat Maidana and then fought a 100 year old Randal Bailey who couldn't even muster 100 shots through 12 rounds (thrown not landed) and then fought Lee Purdy of all people. It is clearly a crazy analogy as Prescott was a columbian goat farmer who never ever got a single win as good as Khan again and lost to the likes of Paul McCloskey even. Porter beat Alexander handily, beat a former world champion in Malignaggi who had just fought Broner and given him a tough fight and bested Zab Judah albeit a stinky version. Porter also beat Julio Diaz comfortably in their rematch and since losing to Brook beat Broner comfortably. Yeah it's in my sig because it's completely delusional to even suggest Alexander is better than Porter when they fought and he clearly lost :lol1: Say if someone was to fight Danny Garcia and win in 2013 (or even now), it would be a much better win than if he beat Amir Khan because he was smoked in 4 rounds. Too much drivel to shovel through. The whole "years apart" thing is just a new constraint you conveniently added. Much like the one about the method (Dec/KO) of how the won/lost. The original point you've always made on several other threads is: Porter>Alexander.

Brook's best (only relevant) win's best win is a major flop??? "Brook's best win's win" :lol1: :lol1:

Lets face it, Devon Alexander has now lost 6 of his last 10 fights. His wins were Maidana, Bailey, Soto-BumAss and Lee Purdy. The guy has been a major flop. Brook's best (only relevant) win's best win is a major flop???

Porter-Brook was close and was no bashing. Hopkins-Taylor fought twice, which one are you calling robbery? Between Porter-Alexander, Shawn is the better fighter, but Devon has achieved more than Porter, beating Alexander is getting a more accomplished name on your resume. Everyone has losses, they don't define the fighter. Is Kevin Mitchell beating Prescott better than DSG shattering Khan? cuz when they met Prescott>Khan? Please do answer that instead of inserting a million smileys calling me names and the usual trolling garbage. Also, nice try with my quote in your sign, the Kell-ends are one shook bunch, its called the Box-Office effect. It wasn't really close, but it was not a bashing either. Porter did not win more than 4 rounds in the fight. Both of them were robberies. Taylor did not beat Hopkins. Mate, you are coming up with ridiculous analogies. Who cares who achieved more? Porter CLEARLY beat Alexander hence Porter > Alexander. It's as simple as that. And it's not like there was years between and Brook fought a different version of Porter that beat Alexander. He faced the winner of the two straight after, only Porter squeezed in a Malignaggi fight and looked destructive in it. Alexander really lost to Kotelnik, he really lost to Matthysse, he quit against Bradley. He hugged and clinched his way to beat Maidana and then fought a 100 year old Randal Bailey who couldn't even muster 100 shots through 12 rounds (thrown not landed) and then fought Lee Purdy of all people. It is clearly a crazy analogy as Prescott was a columbian goat farmer who never ever got a single win as good as Khan again and lost to the likes of Paul McCloskey even. Porter beat Alexander handily, beat a former world champion in Malignaggi who had just fought Broner and given him a tough fight and bested Zab Judah albeit a stinky version. Porter also beat Julio Diaz comfortably in their rematch and since losing to Brook beat Broner comfortably. Yeah it's in my sig because it's completely delusional to even suggest Alexander is better than Porter when they fought and he clearly lost :lol1: Say if someone was to fight Danny Garcia and win in 2013 (or even now), it would be a much better win than if he beat Amir Khan because he was smoked in 4 rounds.

Lets face it, Devon Alexander has now lost 6 of his last 10 fights. His wins were Maidana, Bailey, Soto-BumAss and Lee Purdy. The guy has been a major flop. Better than Porter doe.

Lets face it, Devon Alexander has now lost 6 of his last 10 fights. His wins were Maidana, Bailey, Soto-BumAss and Lee Purdy. The guy has been a major flop.

Wtf did I just read. Are you thick? Hopkins got robbed against Taylor, Porter bashed Alexander up good. Absolutely terrible analogy. You know that's how it works in boxing - two guys fight, one wins and therefore he's better. Never thought I'd have to explain such simple logic to anyone. Further proves what a khanturd you are. :lol1: holy cow you've lost it good. Porter-Brook was close and was no bashing. Hopkins-Taylor fought twice, which one are you calling robbery? Between Porter-Alexander, Shawn is the better fighter, but Devon has achieved more than Porter, beating Alexander is getting a more accomplished name on your resume. Everyone has losses, they don't define the fighter. Is Kevin Mitchell beating Prescott better than DSG shattering Khan? cuz when they met Prescott>Khan? Please do answer that instead of inserting a million smileys calling me names and the usual trolling garbage. Also, nice try with my quote in your sign, the Kell-ends are one shook bunch, its called the Box-Office effect.

Are you Amir Khan's Dad? Honestly dude the way you talk you gotta be. Another of Khan's fanatical ethnic followers who have no real interest in anything else boxing related.

Porter's only good win was against Alexander :lol1: Yeah, but it's still better than Alexander? :lol1: