Khans win against Alexander looking a lot worse.

[LacedUp]

Too much drivel to shovel through.

The whole "years apart" thing is just a new constraint you conveniently added. Much like the one about the method (Dec/KO) of how the won/lost.

The original point you've always made on several other threads is: Porter>Alexander.

How is it drivel? You came up with a ridiculous analogy of Abraham beating Taylor better than Calzaghe beating Hopkins It just didn't make any sense, and as per usual I had to go and educate you.

Even if Taylor had beaten Hopkins at the time, Hopkins was still a 43 years old or whatever. And you also conveniently forget that Taylor was knocked senseless by Carl Froch and Pavlik before.

Compare Hopkins and Kovalev rather. Hopkins clearly the greater fighter, but a win over Kovalev means a helluva lot more than a win over Hopkins today. That's the analogy you should use.

How is it conveniently put in there? It's a fact. Brook fought the winner of Porter vs Alexander and Khan fought the loser. because you'd like Khan to stick his penis inside you, you're trying to say that fighting and beating the loser is better than fighting and beating the champion. Absolute nonsensical.

Yes, Porter > Alexander in every department. He showed that when both were at their best.

[Box-Office]

Why was Paulie shot to ****? When did he show that?

Mate, your logic to discredit Brook is so-far out there it's crazy

But Zab Judah holding a title when Khan fought him was over the hill according to you, amazing how quick we change the meaning of definitions.

I'll take that back, Malignaggi was a ok win, but Alexander is surely the best win on Porter's resume at the time he fought Brook. Don't be pedantic and hold on to that. Now tell me, was Porter's best win a flop then? Sure you didn't say it, but you did respond to that post.

Discredit? Uhh you're the one who ****s on his former flavor of the month Khan and his resume, funny enough you were probably bigging up the same wins.



Does excessive use of smiley makes you feel it adds some weight to your argument?

[LacedUp]

But Zab Judah holding a title when Khan fought him was over the hill according to you, amazing how quick we change the meaning of definitions.

I'll take that back, Malignaggi was a ok win, but Alexander is surely the best win on Porter's resume at the time he fought Brook. Don't be pedantic and hold on to that. Now tell me, was Porter's best win a flop then? Sure you didn't say it, but you did respond to that post.

Discredit? Uhh you're the one who ****s on his former flavor of the month Khan and his resume, funny enough you were probably bigging up the same wins.

Does excessive use of smiley makes you feel it adds some weight to your argument?

Did I not just say Zab Judah was **** when Malignaggi fought him? Yes I did.

Why are we going into being a flop etc? When did I say that? And you're calling me pedantic. Jesus.

I said Porter was a better win than Alexander and that = Alexander is a flop? Look back on this page, my first post said that Khan's win over Alexander was a solid win.

Yes it does.

[MPX309]

I considered the same thing myself earlier tonight, but I'm gonna let Khan have that one, and still put it down as a good performance. Not much more could have been asked from him that night.

[Bravado]

Amir khan simply is just trying to hold out as long as he can. Why do people make it seem like he's being avoided? There are boxers who you face because they're the best in the sport, same with guys who are slightly less great. Then there are boxers who are simply not elite, but they do a great job looking elite. That's what Amir khan is. He's like Andy dalton, looks better on paper but is avg at best and isn't what people make him out to be. Alexander is tailor made to lose to khan, that much everybody should know. Squares up, leaves his chin in the air, fights as clunky as you can and yet he still couldn't take advantage, that says a lot.

[alexguiness]

But Zab Judah holding a title when Khan fought him was over the hill according to you, amazing how quick we change the meaning of definitions.

I'll take that back, Malignaggi was a ok win, but Alexander is surely the best win on Porter's resume at the time he fought Brook. Don't be pedantic and hold on to that. Now tell me, was Porter's best win a flop then? Sure you didn't say it, but you did respond to that post.

Discredit? Uhh you're the one who ****s on his former flavor of the month Khan and his resume, funny enough you were probably bigging up the same wins.



Does excessive use of smiley makes you feel it adds some weight to your argument?

All Khan's opponents were either on the decline (Barrera, Alexander, Judah) or just ****.

Maidana - went life and death, saved by the referee in the championship rounds.

Paulie - Actually IMO his best win.

Algieri, Collazo, Diaz, Molina - GTFO.

[gmc_rfc_06]

Yeah and that happened AFTER Brook. I'm only saying this cuz you're a big Kell fan. So, the version Brook fought only had Alexander and a shot to **** Malignaggi on it.

That matters how?

If Porter goes on to beat Thurman on top of wins against Broner, Malignaggi and Alexander that doesn't make Brook's win look even more impressive? Of course it does.

There's a difference between being a fan of a fighter and being blindly biased, something more people would do well to remember.

[FrankieBruno]

Also Devon was coming off a win

Khan beat Devon at his own game, beat him to the punch

The scorecard says it all

Khan :120-108, 119-109 118-110

Porter: 115-113, 116-112, and 116-112

Porter did well, but Devon had "some" success against Porter, he had nought for Khan...

Devon was always going to lose to Khan, if you take away his speed or dont let him get his shots off, he is left with nothing.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Brook's best (only relevant) win's best win is a major flop???

Devon Alexander is a huge flop, I don't care who's "best win's win" (lol), he is.