khan vs broner at 147 who wins.

[Bushbaby]

Dude you are contradicting yourself. Time only matters when it suits your agenda. As in Maidana has gotten better since the Khan defeat - but Khan didn't get any better since Prescott? And Maidana was in his absolute prime then! Haha. This is ridiculous.

I don't know if Broner has the same power as Diaz - who has he knocked down or out to prove that? Gavin Rees? I mean, unless he starts proving he's got the power to drop or hurt decent fighters at 140 or 147, then I can't say for sure.

Well we were talking about Khan's speed, and you don't think it's a good idea to compare their only two similar opponents and how they did? Jesus, you are really reaching now.

Didn't diaz probably win against the guy who beat the guy who handled Maidana with ease as well?

Or was that just a fluke?

I never said Khan did not get better since Prescott. So your imaginary contradiction is just that, imaginary.

Maidan said Broner has power. I think it's safe to take his word over yours.

And you still turned around and added another triangle to your already inflated series of triangles, good job.

[LacedUp]

I never said Khan did not get better since Prescott. So your imaginary contradiction is just that, imaginary.

Maidan said Broner has power. I think it's safe to take his word over yours.

And you still turned around and added another triangle to your already inflated series of triangles, good job.

lol you said "Khan beat Maidana in something like 2010, he's proven to be a better fighter since".

and then you said: "Why does it matter when Khan lost?"

So I'm pretty sure you contradicted yourself since it mattered when Maidana lost, but not Khan - because it suited your agenda.

It wasn't a triangle theory my friend, it was a lineage.

Diaz > porter > Alexander > Maidana.

It's not a triangle. It was just meant to explain that maybe Diaz wasn't as bad as you made him out to be.

[Bushbaby]

lol you said "Khan beat Maidana in something like 2010, he's proven to be a better fighter since".

and then you said: "Why does it matter when Khan lost?"

So I'm pretty sure you contradicted yourself since it mattered when Maidana lost, but not Khan - because it suited your agenda.

It wasn't a triangle theory my friend, it was a lineage.

Diaz > porter > Alexander > Maidana.

It's not a triangle. It was just meant to explain that maybe Diaz wasn't as bad as you made him out to be.

I sure did, in response to you not understanding the time frame of Khan/Maidana to now. But you didn't get that? wow!!

And not only did you make a triangle theory again, you added another angle to your already bogus theory. Damn bro, you should rename yourself stretch.!!

[LacedUp]

I sure did, in response to you not understanding the time frame of Khan/Maidana to now. But you didn't get that? wow!!

And not only did you make a triangle theory again, you added another angle to your already bogus theory. Damn bro, you should rename yourself stretch.!!

So how can you dismiss Maidana's loss to Khan but hold Khan's loss to Prescott in such high regard? You are contradicting yourself - and now you're backtracking.

It's almost as funny as when you said Broner was tougher than Khan.

It's not a triangle, it's lineage. But I forgive you for not understanding the difference.

[SlySlickSmooth]

I really really really hate to say this, but I think Khan could beat Broner bad.... he might actually box circles around him. Its hard to call because Maidana just made Broner look so ****ty with a not so great chin.

but as of now that chin is a little too suspect to not say he wouldn't have the whole fight changed by having his chin hit by Broner.
50/50 fight

[chav]

Good fight, two flawed fighters. Khan seems to be going backwards since joining Hunter.
I need to see how Khan is since Dias as he looked shocking, but he could pepper Broner with speeds and long range jabs to a points win or get flattened in the process

[Bushbaby]

So how can you dismiss Maidana's loss to Khan but hold Khan's loss to Prescott in such high regard? You are contradicting yourself - and now you're backtracking.

It's almost as funny as when you said Broner was tougher than Khan.

It's not a triangle, it's lineage. But I forgive you for not understanding the difference.

I've never dismissed Maidana's loss to Khan. It seems you just have a hard time comprehending. What I said is that Maidana has become a better fighter since Khan while Khan has looked worse lately.

Broner is tougher than Khan, that much is clear to anyone with sense.

There's no such thing as your lineage. it's your lame triangle theory. Diaz greater than Broner cause Khan beat Diaz, who drew with Porter who beat Devon. That's not lineage. it's a triangle theory.

[LacedUp]

I've never dismissed Maidana's loss to Khan. It seems you just have a hard time comprehending. What I said is that Maidana has become a better fighter since Khan while Khan has looked worse lately.

Broner is tougher than Khan, that much is clear to anyone with sense.

There's no such thing as your lineage. it's your lame triangle theory. Diaz greater than Broner cause Khan beat Diaz, who drew with Porter who beat Devon. That's not lineage. it's a triangle theory.

No but you dismissed the importance of it, whilst pointing out Khans defeat to Prescott. But you're backtracking on that now I see - I'll let everyone else make up their mind about it.

He's tougher because.....? He tried to quit. When has Khan ever tried to quit? So no, you don't make much sense.

No, I think you're assuming a bit too much. You put down Diaz, and I simply said maybe he wasn't as bad as you think.

I didn't use it to prove Khan > Broner at all. But please quote me where I used it to say Khan would beat Broner because Diaz beat or drew with Porter.


I'll wait...

[Bushbaby]

No but you dismissed the importance of it, whilst pointing out Khans defeat to Prescott. But your backtracking on that now I see - I'll let everyone else make up their mind about it.

He's tougher because.....? He tried to quit. When has Khan ever tried to quit? So no, you don't make much sense.

No, I think you're assuming a bit too much. You put down Diaz, and I simply said maybe he wasn't as bad as you think.

I didn't use it to prove Khan > Broner at all. But please quote me where I used it to say Khan would beat Broner because Diaz beat or drew with Porter.


I'll wait...

No backtracking here, at all. In fact if anyone is backtracking, it's you. if time doesn't matter, then Khan's destruction to Prescott is still far greater than Khan barely surviving Maidana, true story.

I didn't put down Diaz. He did gave Khan hell. And hasn't been relevant except for giving Porter some problems.

Forgive me for not getting your triangle theory precise. Sorry bout that.

[LacedUp]

No backtracking here, at all. In fact if anyone is backtracking, it's you. if time doesn't matter, then Khan's destruction to Prescott is still far greater than Khan barely surviving Maidana, true story.

I didn't put down Diaz. He did gave Khan hell. And hasn't been relevant except for giving Porter some problems.

Forgive me for not getting your triangle theory precise. Sorry bout that.

Yes you are. Where am I backtracking exactly? I have never said time doesn't matter. I agree that both fighters made certain improvements - but I'm not sure the Maidana that fought Khan is exponentially worse than the Maidana that fought Broner.

What I do think though, is that the guy who was flattened in a minute by Prescott had made extreme improvements by the time he fought Maidana - I'm sure everyone would agree.

Yes you did. Hell is a bit strong, he put him down in one round - but Khan didn't seem to be overly hurt by that and had another round where Khan was running. In every other round Khan either shut him out completely or there was 1 or 2 close close rounds.

Maidana gave Khan hell, Diaz troubled him.

It still wasn't a triangle theory, but you are forgiven. Not everyone has the smarts to keep up.