and thurman out-performed khan against their other common opponent, diaz. it doesn't necessarily mean anything; i'd still pick thurman to put khan's lights out
khan's performance vs collazo was 100X better
Collapse
-
-
-
Had Thurman not gotten hurt, no one would be saying this. I very much preferred Thurman's performance because I actually enjoy watching him fight, while Khan is enjoyable because of how vulnerable he is. Thurman seems more comfortable on his back-foot, using his feet to open up counter-punching opportunities ("Run-Time"). Khan couldn't finish Collazo and really didn't come all that close. Also, Collazo fought like a spaz in that fight, while last night he seemed more focused. Thurman beat him in 7, while Khan went the distance.Last edited by kiaba360; 07-12-2015, 09:29 AM.Comment
-
Destroyed Collazo???? Really???? So what do u call what Danny did to Khan???? He almost took that mans life away. And Thurman would smoke Khan cuz all he has to do is land once on that **** chin of Khans.Comment
-
Had Thurman not gotten hurt, no one would be saying this. I very much preferred Thurman's performance because I actually enjoy watching him fight, while Khan is enjoyable because of how vulnerable he is. Thurman seems more comfortable on his back-foot, using his feet to open up counter-punching opportunities ("Run-Time"). Khan couldn't finish Collazo and really didn't come all that close. Also, Collazo fought like a spaz in that fight, while last night he seemed more focused. Thurman beat him in 7, while Khan went the distance.
^ are you kidding me, did you even watch both fights? If Thurman didn't get hurt?? wtf are you talking about. That's one of the criteria of comparing....You know what. Forget it...I can't stand Kahn, but I know enough about boxing to say that Kahn did a better job in beating Collazo. Some ppl here just make themself look like huge ******s, because they can't stand to give credit where it is due.. Or they just don't know a thing about the sweet science. Freaking ******sComment
-
This! If khan's chin and/or ability to survive when getting battered, was better he'd make easy work of guys like Thurman.Comment
-
I was more impressed with Khans performance also but Collazo looked much more determined in this fight.Comment
-
Thurman beat him in 7, Khan went the distance. Had Thurman not gotten hurt, everyone would be looking at the result instead of obsessing over how he got hurt by a well-timed liver shot (who doesn't get hurt by those?). Khan clinched a lot against a less focused Collazo and couldn't finish him. All I know is that I had to spend less time in front of my TV for Thurman/Collazo and I was more entertained.^ are you kidding me, did you even watch both fights? If Thurman didn't get hurt?? wtf are you talking about. That's one of the criteria of comparing....You know what. Forget it...I can't stand Kahn, but I know enough about boxing to say that Kahn did a better job in beating Collazo. Some ppl here just make themself look like huge ******s, because they can't stand to give credit where it is due.. Or they just don't know a thing about the sweet science. Freaking ******sComment
-
I think saying Khan's performance was 100 times better is an exaggeration but I would expect nothing less from such a totally devoted Khan fan. I think Kahn's performance was much better than Thurman's performance. Khan was never hurt and he never ran away from Collazo. He took the fight to Collazo and dominated him. He knocked Collazo down in the 4th and twice in the 10th while Thurman failed to knock Collazo down even once. Thurman was clearly hurt by the body punch and forced to hold and run. Yep, Khan definitely won the Collazo stomping contest. Now it's time for Khan to man up and tell Haymon that if he doesn't get the Mayweather fight he wants to fight Thurman asap.Comment
Comment