Lol at khan having a snowball chance in hell of beating Pryor.
That's even dumber than all the idiots claimin Leonard and Duran were scared of Pryor and ducked him
If Pryor wanted the fight so bad, he should have taken it.
But Gay Ray with his stupid sailor costume was a bigger and better fighter and also a diva.
But at least Pryor didn't take it in the pooper from Johnny Gill and get "molested" by a trainer when he was 20 years old.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ME4zwWwNhls
lol, I can't still people are asking this. Pryor was not a star until he beat Alexis Arguello.
By that time Leonard was already retired with a detached retna. This could be a good dream fight but Pryor was never in the running while Leonard was active.
Pryor was in the running. He rejected Leonard's offer, unlike Leonard's response to Johnny Gill's offer to rub him the right way.
The only reasons they peaked at those times were prob cuz of injuries, or they just stopped training like they use to. Naturally they would not peak until late 20s, early 30s. Ali's peak was like 25, but thats cuz he couldnt fight for 3 years after that, but naturally it would of been like 29.
Athletes generally should peak mid to late 20s but everyone is different. Some start earlier, some start later, sometimes they have some hard fights that affect them physically or mentally. Others just plateau at a certain age or level and can't improve anymore.
lol AT THIS RETARD, IVE NEVER HEARD OF A FIGHTER PEAKING AT 24:bottle:
Meldrick Taylor peaked at around 21-23, his last real good performance was at 24.
Wilfred Benitez peaked before he was 24.
Mike Tyson peaked at 21.
Donald Curry peaked at 23-24.
Pipino Cuevas peaked in his early 20s, arguably his late teens, and started going downhill at 22.
Fernando Vargas peaked at 22.
Sugar Ray Leonard's peak years were 23-25.
Davey Moore peaked at 23.
It's very easy actually to find examples of fighters peaking at 24 or younger.
Depression is a funny thing bro, people don't think straight. On top of that Gatti was an alcoholic.
I'm not saying he committed suicide but it has nothing to do with having a warrior attitude or quitting.
That "argument" that Gatti's heart in the ring proves he would never commit suicide is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. And lots of people use that illogical argument.
Hmm...his close friend and his own brother think he killed himself. He had known substance abuse issues, which has been heavily linked to depression and suicide. He very likely could have had brain trauma, which has links to depression and suicide.
Oh wait, he was a warrior in the ring, so that shows how he deals with everyday life, and possibly some terrible brain trauma!!
:stupid::stupid:
The case is strange and suspcious though, and a murder would not surprise me. A purse strap?
http://i.usatoday.net/sports/gallery/2009/07/30/s090730_boxingpg-horizontal.jpg
Ken Norton was never a World Champion. Khan is beyond that and not some one hit wonder.
Your arguments hide from the one thing that matters; how do the people feel and how are they remembered. One is the guy who had Ali's number, the other is synonymous with "glass jaw".
He'll, I don't even mind Kahn. But, comparing him to Norton in terms of value and legend is absurd.
:rofl:
:rofl:
Khan is in an era with 4 major belts, and the guys he beat for titles were Andriy Kotelnik and a Zab Judah who peaked in the early to mid 2000s.
Ken Norton was in an era with 2 major belts, and most of the time, one HW had both of them. He had to compete with Muhammad Ali (whom he beat 2 out of 3 in most people's eyes), George Foreman, and Larry Holmes.
And he still beat several contenders, including the greatest heavyweight ever, and at 35, gave absolute hell to a top 5 heavyweight of all-time in Holmes. A prime Holmes.
Beating the GOAT Heavyweight when he was still a great fighter, and (while Norton was past his prime) almost beating a prime top 5 HW ever...nothing compared to beating Zab, Kotelnik, Chino, and losing to the likes of Breidis Prescott and Danny Garcia.
:rofl:
Typical Khan-tards. A dollar short and a day late. Lacking in basic knowledge and respect of boxing history.
:rofl: :rofl:
Khan's weakness is punchers....as well as in-fighting, defense, footwork, brains, accuracy....actually almost everything besides speed and his jab is a weakness on the elite level.
There's a reason Floyd has been trying to cherry-pick him for so long. Khan doesn't have a chance in hell.
Donald Sterling has a better chance of being honored by the NAACP than Amir Khan does of being Floyd Mayweather.
A lucky night and that's about it. Big it up all you want. :bottle:
The 2nd fight was razor-thin and he was robbed the 3rd time. Although I don't think that much of beating a post-Manila Ali anyway.
He was past his prime and lost a razor-thin decision to a prime Larry Holmes. He beat several contenders in an excellent HW era. That's far better than anything Khan has done.
Norton has more quality wins AND had gave hell to 2 of the top 5 heavyweights of all-time. Khan has less quality wins and loses to the likes of Breidis Prescott and Danny Garcia, not George Foreman, Muhammad Ali & Larry Holmes.
Oh wait, Khan won titles, so that means he was better :rofl:
I supposed Charley Burley wasn't as good as Marcos Maidana. After all, Maidana won titles. :rofl:
Imagine a round-robin with Spinks/Jones/Foster/Charles at 175.
Some great matchups.
Add Moore to it too, even though we know he would not fare well versus Ezzard.
Cotto is an entertaining fighter who consistenly takes on good opposition.
Facing Mosley, Margarito, Clottey, and Pacquiao in a 2 year period was especially impressive.
Then he had some softer touches in 2010-11, facing a weak titlist in Yuri, old Mayorga, and one-eyed Plasterito. What does he do to follow it up?
Fights Floyd Mayweather.
The only thing that favors Sergio is that Hopkins has had problems with speed.
That's it. Hopkins is a great of the division, Sergio is merely a good fighter who is in a dreadful era.
mayweather might actually win at 154. duran was pretty inconsistent and lazy at 154, and also lost some of his footspeed. He was more controlled in his aggression, which might play into floyd's hands, as opposed to the duran who fought buchanan, dejesus (2nd fight), and leonard (1st fight).
The best Floyd at 135-147 does not beat the best Duran at 135-147.
Comparing a great boxer with some of the greatest reflexes and deadly power to a flat footed bum like Broner
Also Hammed was pretty much in the worst shape of his life and past his prime when he fought Barrera, and still put up a good fight
We're talking about what was more enjoyable, not who was a more accomplished fighter.
It's a given that as of now, the Prince was a better fighter
Mayweather won 7-8 rounds. Morales won 4-5.
Morales was very impressive given the stage he was in his career, having been in more wars than Napoleon, but not grading it on a curve, Floyd's was better as he fairly won.
Frank Fletcher vs. Antonio Margarito
Meldrick Taylor vs. Kostya Tszyu
Kostya Tszyu vs. Adrien Broner
Simon Brown vs. Miguel Cotto
Manny Pacquiao vs. Aaron Pryor
Ricardo Mayorga vs. Marcos Maidana
Felix Trinidad vs. Adrien Broner
Sugar Ray Robinson vs. Adrien Broner
There are some very good points in there.
Another thing I have thought about before is how would Buster Douglas do in an era like the current? I imagine he would do good. Had a natural flow in his boxing. As far as beating either Klitschko I'm not too sure, but still interesting to imagine him against some of the current heavies.
He would be good, but if you are lazy and lack dedication, that's just the way you are.
It would come back to bite him in the ass.