Comments Thread For: Alexander: Khan Better, More Dangerous Than Brook

[FrankieBruno]

I think Devons style would be more of a problem for Brook than it will be for Khan


Brooks power would have no issues on Devon. Brooks workrate is very low to medium, someone like Devon needs time to think, with Porter he didnt have that luxury

Khans fast hands and in and out style might be the deciding factor here, if Devon doesnt get a chance to settle, then i dont see him winning.

Styles do indeed make fights, i think Devon would be far more dangerous for Brook than he is for Khan. When we first heard about Devon vs Brook, many felt it was a dangerous fight, dont let the Porter beating fool you. People are so hung up on who beat who, triangle theories, but forget to look at the stylistic match-ups

If Devon does beat Khan, it would be good to see Devon vs Brook

[Wicky]

Brook would school Alexander. Might not even break a sweat. Khan would put up a good fight for 3 rounds, maybe 4.

[Box-Office]

That logic makes no sense. Just because Bailey picked up a vacant belt doesn't make him top 6 or top 4 at all. He doesn't just get catapulted in ability because he has a belt.

Neither Khan or Alexander has any legitimate top 10 (at the time) wins. But both have wins over Maidana.

You're saying Bailey being IBF champion still didn't even make him a Top 10 WW?

Being a belt holder alone does puts you in to top 10 at the very least because sometimes you have super star fighters who don't need belts. Again it is top 10 WWs not top 10 p4p. Cuz you're really suggesting some contenders who have never even fought for a title were somehow better than Bailey?

Plus where does it even say earning a belt catapults your ability? Did Provodnikov learn anything?

To prove my point read the 3rd last line of this article. Bailey was ranked #9 immediately after knocking out Jones by Ring.

http://fightnetwork.com/news/31833:i...nts-the-money/

[LacedUp]

You're saying Bailey being IBF champion still didn't even make him a Top 10 WW?

Being a belt holder alone does puts you in to top 10 at the very least because sometimes you have super star fighters who don't need belts. Again it is top 10 WWs not top 10 p4p. Cuz you're really suggesting some contenders who have never even fought for a title were somehow better than Bailey?

Plus where does it even say earning a belt catapults your ability? Did Provodnikov learn anything?

To prove my point read the 3rd last line of this article. Bailey was ranked #9 immediately after knocking out Jones by Ring.

http://fightnetwork.com/news/31833:i...nts-the-money/

What I am saying is that just because you win a belt, doesn't mean you are one of the best welterweights in the world. I'm not talking about P4P rankings, I'm talking about being one of the best in a specific weight division.

You claimed he was top 6 or even top 4, which he clearly wasn't. Not in this world anyway. He might have been ranked #9 after he won a belt, which clearly proves to you that he wasn't a legit top 10 contender regardless. His performance after that also proved he wasn't a legit top 10 contender too.

So I'm sticking to what I was saying, neither Alexander or Khan has a legit top 10 win on their record.

But you know who has? Brook.

[Box-Office]

What I am saying is that just because you win a belt, doesn't mean you are one of the best welterweights in the world. I'm not talking about P4P rankings, I'm talking about being one of the best in a specific weight division.

You claimed he was top 6 or even top 4, which he clearly wasn't. Not in this world anyway. He might have been ranked #9 after he won a belt, which clearly proves to you that he wasn't a legit top 10 contender regardless. His performance after that also proved he wasn't a legit top 10 contender too.


So I'm sticking to what I was sayng, neither Alexander or Khan has a legit top 10 win on their record.

But you know who has? Brook.

No, you said top 10.

Neither Khan or Alexander has any legitimate top 10 (at the time) wins. But both have wins over Maidana

1) Kev's original argument was neither has beaten a Top 10 WW. I countered that being a belt holder makes you at least top 6 because that is how normally it's like where a belt holder may rank 5 or 6 cuz of a bigger name in their division.

2) You come here saying the same thing and this time I actually bothered to look up rankings from then and the best I could do was that article.

Bailey was and not "might" be ranked top 10 at WW at the time when Devon beat him. You see you're sticking with saying Alexander doesn't have a top 10 win, but I already gave you a credible source that shows Bailey was Ring #9.

At the end of the day you can drift the convo of how wrong I was about top 6, but the initial argument was Top 10 WW by both you and Kev. I don't understand what is so difficult about this: Bailey was ranked # 9 by Ring and got beaten by Alexander, so Alexander has a win over a legit top 10 WW.

[FrenchDeLaHoya]

but but but.. brook > porter > alexander

[Lullaby]

Brook has only just beaten Porter, his 2nd best win is Carson Jones lol.


Khan's been on the bigger stage for years.

[LacedUp]

Brook has only just beaten Porter, his 2nd best win is Carson Jones lol.


Khan's been on the bigger stage for years.

And Porter is better than anything Khan has on his WW resume, maybe even his entire resume. Out of 110 boxing experts, 0 picked Kell Brook to win whereas Khan was a slight favourite going in against his best win to date which is Marcos Maidana.

No, you said top 10.


1) Kev's original argument was neither has beaten a Top 10 WW. I countered that being a belt holder makes you at least top 6 because that is how normally it's like where a belt holder may rank 5 or 6 cuz of a bigger name in their division.

2) You come here saying the same thing and this time I actually bothered to look up rankings from then and the best I could do was that article.

Bailey was and not "might" be ranked top 10 at WW at the time when Devon beat him. You see you're sticking with saying Alexander doesn't have a top 10 win, but I already gave you a credible source that shows Bailey was Ring #9.

At the end of the day you can drift the convo of how wrong I was about top 6, but the initial argument was Top 10 WW by both you and Kev. I don't understand what is so difficult about this: Bailey was ranked # 9 by Ring and got beaten by Alexander, so Alexander has a win over a legit top 10 WW.

Yes. Which is clearly what I explained as well. top 10 ww. Not P4P. And Bailey was not a legit top 10 WW whichever way you want to put it.

No, what I was saying is that Bailey wasn't a legit top 10, he was just catapulted up the rankings because he happened to pick up a vacant belt.

Being a legit top 10 means that you're an established top 10 contender in a specific division. 37 year old Randall Bailey was not.

[Box-Office]

Brook has only just beaten Porter, his 2nd best win is Carson Jones lol.


Khan's been on the bigger stage for years.

UK PPV vs journeymen fighters.

[LacedUp]

UK PPV vs journeymen fighters.

Khan hasn't been on UK PPV in 3 years and when he was it was on Primetime.

Get out of wonderland and step into reality.