amir khans future?

[Southpaw Stinger]

I thought he was meant to be fighting an American? Instead he's fighting a feather fisted french bloke...

[Flagellum Dei]

Wow aren't you insightful, I wonder who's alt you are?

Also anyone knowledgeable will tell you that the WBO title is a genuine title these days and besides the title means **** its the boxer or the champion that counts!

Khan is a good prospect, no more no less at this stage.

Lol!?! Those comments have shot your credibility!? The WBO is STILL a minor title, MOST professional boxers will tell you that. If the WBO is a major title why do Americans avoid it and go for the WBC; WBA and IBF! Christ, i thought this was a forum for people who actually knew something about boxing! How can the title mean **** - if it's the champion that counts? He wouldn't be champion unless he held a title d'uh!?!?!?

[kerrminator]

Khan needs to stop his mouthing off and get hismself away from his "celeb" status.

I hope he knuckles down and gets into it but he seems to have an ego the size of the planet.

We cant tell how good he is until he fights someone who actually fights back.

Andre Berto was competing in the samr games as Khan and imo he has been diong it properly.....keeping busy and getting on with it in the Gym.(He's one to watch for sure)

Khan was on TV a couple of weeks ago saying he was ready for a world title now!!! come on Amir, your not even ready for the british title.

[MickyHatton]

Lol!?! Those comments have shot your credibility!? The WBO is STILL a minor title, MOST professional boxers will tell you that. If the WBO is a major title why do Americans avoid it and go for the WBC; WBA and IBF! Christ, i thought this was a forum for people who actually knew something about boxing! How can the title mean **** - if it's the champion that counts? He wouldn't be champion unless he held a title d'uh!?!?!?

Ok, lol, I will explain it simply for you.

Boxing is about politics, lets pick a organisation that in your opinion is more credible, like say the WBC. (This is hypothetical) They because of politics class a fighter as a top ten fighter but all the other organisations do not.
Then this fighter becomes the champion of the WBC but due to his poor record he is still not rated by the other organisations.
Now you have say a fighter who has reigned for years and beaten everyone but decides for political reasons to take a lesser title fight (Still hypothetical)
Everyone in that weight division knows that he is the man to beat, this includes the boxers, trainers and the money i.e. the promoters and the tv stations.

Therefore the boxer is the important component these days not the title, when Hopkins reigned if he had decided for some reason to give up his titles, his successor would never have received credibility until he beat Hopkins in the ring!

This is the reality of the sport in 2006.

As for your statement about the WBO??? Do you read anything about this sport that does not come from websites, forums or tabloids. Try reading the likes of Boxing News or The Ring occasionally and you will see that the WBO has become an established organisation for several reasons including their organisational skills and most importantly integrity in trying to bring the sport back into line.

[Flagellum Dei]

Ok, lol, I will explain it simply for you.

Boxing is about politics, lets pick a organisation that in your opinion is more credible, like say the WBC. (This is hypothetical) They because of politics class a fighter as a top ten fighter but all the other organisations do not.
Then this fighter becomes the champion of the WBC but due to his poor record he is still not rated by the other organisations.
Now you have say a fighter who has reigned for years and beaten everyone but decides for political reasons to take a lesser title fight (Still hypothetical)
Everyone in that weight division knows that he is the man to beat, this includes the boxers, trainers and the money i.e. the promoters and the tv stations.

Therefore the boxer is the important component these days not the title, when Hopkins reigned if he had decided for some reason to give up his titles, his successor would never have received credibility until he beat Hopkins in the ring!

This is the reality of the sport in 2006.

As for your statement about the WBO??? Do you read anything about this sport that does not come from websites, forums or tabloids. Try reading the likes of Boxing News or The Ring occasionally and you will see that the WBO has become an established organisation for several reasons including their organisational skills and most importantly integrity in trying to bring the sport back into line.

I understand what you're saying, and agree about the politics in boxing. However, you're arguing that the boxer is the important element, not the championship, title or rankings. Therefore, why have a title or rankings at all, we could simply do away with them right - thats what you're saying! If that was the scenario then boxing would cease as a sport! A boxer doesn't really recieve recognition until he has been champion - which wouldn't happen if there was no ranking/title system initially! And to become champion you have to beat the current champion (vacancies aside)

You judge a fighter on his status and his world rankings, thus the title is much more important than you think! Also, you're saying that a good boxer doesn't need to win a title to win recognition, not to mention an increase in his bank balance! Bottom line is, the public are only interested in title fights, and very few are interested in non-title bouts! Therefore titles are much more important than you would have us believe

[MickyHatton]

I understand what you're saying, and agree about the politics in boxing. However, you're arguing that the boxer is the important element, not the championship, title or rankings. Therefore, why have a title or rankings at all, we could simply do away with them right - thats what you're saying! If that was the scenario then boxing would cease as a sport! A boxer doesn't really recieve recognition until he has been champion - which wouldn't happen if there was no ranking/title system initially! And to become champion you have to beat the current champion (vacancies aside)

You judge a fighter on his status and his world rankings, thus the title is much more important than you think! Also, you're saying that a good boxer doesn't need to win a title to win recognition, not to mention an increase in his bank balance! Bottom line is, the public are only interested in title fights, and very few are interested in non-title bouts! Therefore titles are much more important than you would have us believe

To be honest I wish they would do away with titles and just have one champion as they did in the past.

I can see your point due to the way boxing has evolved and the importance of titles however I still believe the fans and the money follows the boxer and not title.
This has become prevelant in recent years in the poor following in comparison to years gone by of the Heavyweight title. Many fans would pay more to see Hatton or Mayweather rather than a Briggs or Klitschko.
The former 'flagship' weight of boxing has flagged due to the lack of talent (and a personality)

[Nacho_Analstain]

i dont think khan is ****y? on all the interviews i have seen him in he is very calm and collected and just talks about the fights,usually gives praise to his opponents aswell,wouldnt say he is ****y?

maybe just abit star struck