Is Amir Khan's wealth and fame limiting his in ring potential?

[Box-Office]

Damn. 2014 recovering alcoholic Collazo was even better than he was in his prime baby!

You're getting worse by the day. I implore you to take a sabbatical from NSB to save yourself further embarrassment.

Every one of your posts is becoming sig worthy.

You add more tools as you spend more time doing anything, not just boxing, if not you stay the same, Collazo was already a World level guy, so worst case scenario he remained on that level. Especially considering he was never a guy who relied on his physical gifts like Witter who relied a lot on reflexes as an example. He was always a guy who relied on his intangible ABILITY.

We never discussed his physical decline it was his ability. Spell with me: A-B-I-L-I-T-Y.


Your prime argument also falls flat, when we discuss late bloomers like Martinez or even Sam Soliman.

But why does it matter? You're back to trolling, the crack must have kicked in now, time for the: dozen emoticon in one post "huh? wuh? duh?" dorky dumbler routine. Not long till you go racial. Piece of advice, just stay away from discussing the in ring nitty gritty and stick to which boxer was offered what and which promoter's hair are the best looking, you know the qualitative stuff you can run with.

Honestly....who cares? This is a boxing forum

Except when you want to abuse other posters for their background.

[Box-Office]

What does that matter? Khan's 3rd or 4th defence was Paul McCloskey

You're just shifting goalposts to suit your argument. Collazo is a just career loser according to your logic. A poor man's Lovemore N'Dou.

So, now back to being pedantic? I've always maintained name or champ, you're so so pathetic.

The point is, Brook is 29, has 1 name out of 35 and his second best or someone who is being built as his second best is Diego Chaves a guy who has never beaten a name or won a title.


Now you'll pick apart Khan's resume, play dumb to the obvious, go racial, take this to page 10, remind me how you're bored of me, then start this in the next Khan thread.

Even if he is a career loser, Khan fought him in his WW debut, Brook is facing such level in his career defining defense. Stay salty.


p.s. Khan faced McCloskey after a solid run of: Barrera, Kotelnik, Malignaggi & Maidana.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

You add more tools as you spend more time doing anything, not just boxing, if not you stay the same, Collazo was already a World level guy, so worst case scenario he remained on that level. Especially considering he was never a guy who relied on his physical gifts like Witter who relied a lot on reflexes as an example. He was always a guy who relied on his intangible ABILITY.

We never discussed his physical decline it was his ability. Spell with me: A-B-I-L-I-T-Y.


Your prime argument also falls flat, when we discuss late bloomers like Martinez or even Sam Soliman.

Collazo had the intangible A-B-L-I-T-Y to lose to Freddy Hernandez not long before he fought Khan.

That is special. #latebloomer

[Dirk Diggler UK]

So, now back to being pedantic? I've always maintained name or champ, you're so so pathetic.

The point is, Brook is 29, has 1 name out of 35 and his second best or someone who is being built as his second best is Diego Chaves a guy who has never beaten a name or won a title.


Now you'll pick apart Khan's resume, play dumb to the obvious, go racial, take this to page 10, remind me how you're bored of me, then start this in the next Khan thread.

Even if he is a career loser, Khan fought him in his WW debut, Brook is facing such level in his career defining defense. Stay salty.


p.s. Khan faced McCloskey after a solid run of: Barrera, Kotelnik, Malignaggi & Maidana.

Barrera? LOL. I suppose he was a late late late bloomer too. Better when he fought Khan than when he beat Naz baby!

Solid run? All those fights were tailor made for Khan expect Maidana which was a mandatory.

No one said Chaves was career defining for Brook except you. You also said he was a career loser because he lost all his big fights. Same logic applies to Collazo. Except Collazo was also ancient and a recovering alcoholic. Great win for Khan doe!

You are simply drowning in double standards at the moment.

[Box-Office]

Collazo had the intangible A-B-L-I-T-Y to lose to Freddy Hernandez not long before he fought Khan.

That is special. #latebloomer

Not long? 3 years ago, ummm wouldn't it be his supposed prime?

Styles make fights. Like I've said kiddo, stick to what you know.


I can pull out examples of prime fighters losing to not so good fighters if not pure bums, but you come here to flame, troll and spew abuse, not to discuss boxing.

At this point you're like my neighbour's dog who barks at me when I come/leave the house, doesn't mean I'm gonna over and actually argue with the pup. If you're not here to chat boxing, feel free to not quote me.

[Box-Office]

Barrera? LOL. I suppose he was a late late late bloomer too. Better when he fought Khan than when he beat Naz baby!

Solid run? All those fights were tailor made for Khan expect Maidana which was a mandatory.

No one said Chaves was career defining for Brook except you. You also said he was a career loser because he lost all his big fights. Same logic applies to Collazo. Except Collazo was also ancient and a recovering alcoholic. Great win for Khan doe!

You are simply drowning in double standards at the moment.

I said "you could call it" career defining because that's his best fight as a World champion, or is that Frankie Gavin?

You can stop holding on to my every word, so predictable you pick apart Barrera. LOL.

Well, I've always maintained a name or champ, feel free to find a quote of me "contradicting" myself. As a proof, I even say Senchenko is still Brook's 2nd best post-Chaves because while he had no names he at least had a proper title.


Again, let's call Collazo a career loser, lets do that for a second cuz that equates him to Chaves? right? So, it goes to show that Khan fights such guys in his WW debut and that same level of guy is Brook's second best opponent out of 36 now? A 10 plus years career WW we're talking here.

[Beercules]

Uh oh. McLaddie war

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Not long? 3 years ago, ummm wouldn't it be his supposed prime?

Styles make fights. Like I've said kiddo, stick to what you know.

Ok he lost to Freddy Hernandez 3 years before Khan fought him. That makes the win sound a lot better for Khan

And it's cute how you're trying to act condescending after you got absolutely slaughtered yesterday. That's it Box-Office, stiff upper lip! Try to maintain control.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

I said "you could call it" career defining because that's his best fight as a World champion, or is that Frankie Gavin?

You can stop holding on to my every word, so predictable you pick apart Barrera. LOL.

Well, I've always maintained a name or champ, feel free to find a quote of me "contradicting" myself. As a proof, I even say Senchenko is still Brook's 2nd best post-Chaves because while he had no names he at least had a proper title.


Again, let's call Collazo a career loser, lets do that for a second cuz that equates him to Chaves? right? So, it goes to show that Khan fights such guys in his WW debut and that same level of guy is Brook's second best opponent out of 36 now? A 10 plus years career WW we're talking here.

Well there's also the fact that Collazo was 36 or something and recovering from alcoholism. The fact that he was losing to guys like Freddy Hernandez. The fact that his losses in big fights came several years ago whereas Chaves' have been coming in recent times and he's still a relevant fighter.

But anyway, I'm beating a dead horse at the moment. And I mean very dead. You were flatlined yesterday.

I'm basically just pissing on your grave for kicks at the moment.

[G_Child_123]

What does that matter? Khan's 3rd or 4th defence was Paul McCloskey

You're just shifting goalposts to suit your argument. Collazo is a just career loser according to your logic. A poor man's Lovemore N'Dou.

Gatekeepers don't come any better, hard as nails.