I disagree with that somewhat, but not totally.
Brook has had some soft touches since beating Porter, but that's no thanks to the IBF enforcing rubbish mandatories, plus he had a career threatening stabbing.
At least Brook went and fought Porter when Porter was very hyped at the time and seen to be very dangerous at WW, just go back on this forum for proof. Now he's fighting the supposed most dangerous up and coming WW when he probably could have vacated and gone to 154 and had a valid excuse that he can't make 147 after going to 160. He also did fight Golovkin when others were avoiding him, yeah he got paid well but he still did it. People say Khan fighting Canelo was similar, it was, but Canelo has never been an avoided fighter like GGG.
Khan has never shown this kind of willingness to fight other top dangerous opponents, not in the last 5-6 years anyway. I think that run of weak opposition between winning the title and the GGG fight have taken a bit of attention away from that fact he's willing to fight dangerous opponents too, and that run of weak opposition wasn't exactly his fault, 2 of them were IBF mandatories and 1 was a comeback from a stabbing. Apart from those mandatories/return from injury, the one before that was against Porter and the ones after were against GGG and Spence.
You can't just look at the names, you have to look at the situations involved.
Brook has had a habit of fighting piss-poor competition way before he even held the IBF belt for them to enforce their mandatories on him. To say Khan didn’t take the risks that Brook did, is nonsense.
For starters, it took Brook 32 fights and 10 years as a pro to finally travel out of the UK and take on a world class opponent. For comparison, it took Khan only 22 fights and 4 years to step up and win a world title. But for a direct “dangerous opponent” comparison to Brook’s Porter, you can look at Maidana – making it only 25 fights and 5 years. A Maidana that’s better and more dangerous than Porter. And during his reign he at least defended against respectable guys in Malignaggi, Judah, and took on a Garcia on the rise as well as a juiced-up Peterson in his back yard. Brook on the other hand settled for Frankie Gavin, Bizier, and Jo Jo Dan lol.
I
And if you’re gonna’ give Brook credit for stepping up in fighting GGG, why won’t you give credit to Khan for stepping up and fighting Canelo? If you’re talking about risks, why are you ignoring that one for Khan’s? Especially against a guy who, eventually, we’ll all see hand GGG his first pro loss.
But if we’re entirely objective, we’ll remember that both whored themselves out for those fights. It wasn’t for glory. It was for money. Khan, frustrated with the Mayweather and Pac fights escaping him, settled for the next A-list superstar. Likewise, Brook feeling dejected for not getting the Khan fight, settled for Eubank’s left-over 3-million deal.
And sure enough, this Spence fight is a great one. But let’s not pretend this was their first pick. They got forced into this one. They started preparing for a 147 return when Khan lulled them into a possible showdown. That excuse of no longer being able to make 147 fell flat, and so they couldn’t then be seen to avoid Spence – the first and only decent defence that’s been asked of him. And also, the options at 154 aren’t exactly appealing either. There are killers up there too, but for far less money. They were stuck between a rock and a hard place, and were forced to take this mandatory.*
I understand the dislike for Khan (because, yes, he is an utter tit), but the double-standards between him and Brook is laughable. Brook's abysmal selection of opponents has been so depressing, that the few moments he does fight a good opponent, we end up congratulating him more than he ought to be. He's taking a fight he's supposed to take, for crying out loud. He shouldn't be getting extra props for it. It's about time .