khan more talented than naz?

[kingmo]

Speculate all you want, and include the things Naz achieved at an older age than Khan's. By your line of reasoning Thomas Damgaard is more talented than Naz, since HE won the european title in his 9th fight!! So, there's your answer, yes they CAN give the european title to a tomato can!

I DIDNT compare the two at different ages.. go back and read the post.. nor am I comparing their achievements or speculating.. and thats not my line of reasoning smart ass, it was a reply to your ridiculous claim that you have to fight "proper fighters" in the amateurs in order to win titles, implying you dont have to in the pros... go back and read the thread.. i answered your posts, and proved your reasoning is irrelevant and POINTLESS.

[PunchDrunk]

In the amateurs you have to fight the best out there to become European, World or Olympic champ. In the pro's you don't necessarily have to. I think everybody, including you know that.
You didn't prove anything. My only point was that the only thing you can really compare between the two at the present, is their amateur accomplishments. Anything other than that is pure speculation. You don't KNOW what Khan will fight like in the pro's. You don't KNOW if he has the chin, the punch, the stamina, the speed, the toughness needed for the pro game. All you can do is make guesses. We KNOW what they accomplished as amateurs though. Saying that you can't compare that is gibberish.
I'm done with you. Bye.

[kingmo]

In the amateurs you have to fight the best out there to become European, World or Olympic champ. In the pro's you don't necessarily have to. I think everybody, including you know that.
You didn't prove anything. My only point was that the only thing you can really compare between the two at the present, is their amateur accomplishments. Anything other than that is pure speculation. You don't KNOW what Khan will fight like in the pro's. You don't KNOW if he has the chin, the punch, the stamina, the speed, the toughness needed for the pro game. All you can do is make guesses. We KNOW what they accomplished as amateurs though. Saying that you can't compare that is gibberish.
I'm done with you. Bye.

No im done with you.. infact I was done with you a few posts back now!! I proved your logic and reasoning to be plain DAFT.. so why do you continue to talk the same GIBBERISH?? go back, read the posts, and ANSWER the questions. seriously answer them, you'll have a good laugh.. lol.. I did, and im sure everyone reading this has aswel.. lol

[Diricul]

i dont see why not
lota of fighters are more talented then naz
nazs defining attribute was his power

I don’t agree. Naseem is exremely talented. May be his talent is a biggest one in the sport. I think so because when he first time entered the gym he brought all that he showed in the ring later.
He almost never improved and worked bad. And he thought seldom. All his successes are based on his talent. And his power is a result of natural-born body coordination.

Khan is a talented school boxer. Hamed is an offer of Nature.

Shaolin Bushido is right.

[typeone]

I can't really say if khan is going to be a great fighter I have not realy seen enough of this guy to be honest! But better than Naz? That is really possible after all Naz was a show man Khan does not seem that type.Naz beat some good fighters but never beat the best thats a fact.. Yes he was good to watch yes he has a great style. But again never beat the best. So yes he was a good fighter but never a GREAT!!

[PopA]

I really liked what I saw of Khan but the pros are a different story. We'll wait and see what he can achieve but he definitely has the talent and skills.