is ****** hunter better than freddie roach for Khan?

[Beercules]

I thought Khan looked good. Maybe Virgil was the right move

[boliodogs]

I am not sure. Khan looked good in his fight with Collazo and he probably was over due to move up to 147 but his first two fights with Hunter were not at 147 and he looked unimpressive in those fights. He had some of his best wins training with Roach and Roach is a well proven good trainer and has been since before anyone ever heard of Hunter. They are both good trainers but Khan is the one who has to do the fighting. Let's see how Khan does against someone like Thurman, Porter, or a rematch with Garcia at 147 or even Alexander. Somebody much better than Collazo.

[FrankieBruno]

Yes....had Virgil been with Khan early on, AK would have took farrrrrr far less punishment

Its very difficult to fix mistakes that are somewhat set in stone, also i feel Virgil comes with a gameplan whereas Roach justtells his fighters to go out there all guns blazing and dazzle them with speed, and doesn't care about defence...and someones with Khans chin cant risk that..

Roach was good and bad for Khan

[sugarsmosley]

[IMG]http://cdn.*****************/instances/500x/49545420.jpg[/IMG]

[lets rumble]

a long way off roach at the moment !!!!!!
time will tell , but as of right now roach is a lot more acomplished

[Box-Office]

At the time Roach was a great choice, but now it is Hunter. You progress and would want to learn new things. He should have left Roach after Peterson even though he was cheated and he felt he won, he still should have gone to someone else.

I personally preferred Pedro Diaz or Brother Naazim, but Hunter has done well defense wise with Khan as it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks.