Comments Thread For: Hearn: Amir Khan Will NEVER Be The Same, NEVER Face Brook

[LacedUp]

Triangle theories like this are pointless... Alexander beat Maidana, the guy who came close to beating Mayweather.

It's not a triangle theory

It's lineage.

[Box-Office]

And a WW fight between a Khan, and Alexander who lost to the guy Brook beat, for a non-title is a big fight?

Think about this. Khan has failed 3 world title attempts/defenses in a row. The last big fight he won was vs Judah 5 years ago.

That's ****ing sad.

So, losing to Porter makes you a less of a fighter? I thought Shawn is a top WW.



Peterson is not a loss, you're a PED supporter and that is a new low even by you standards to some how belittle Amir cuz you're a Brook fan.

[LacedUp]

So, losing to Porter makes you a less of a fighter? I thought Shawn is a top WW.



Peterson is not a loss, you're a PED supporter and that is a new low even by you standards to some how belittle Amir cuz you're a Brook fan.

Not being a world champion fight makes it less of a fight. It was a fight between to mid-table contenders.

Ok..... I could have sworn Khan has an L to Peterson on his record. We can try and hide behind the test pellets or whatever, but Khan lost that fight. Even if it was under suspecious circumstances - Not just the PEDs.

[Box-Office]

Not being a world champion fight makes it less of a fight. It was a fight between to mid-table contenders.

Ok..... I could have sworn Khan has an L to Peterson on his record. We can try and hide behind the test pellets or whatever, but Khan lost that fight. Even if it was under suspecious circumstances - Not just the PEDs.

Brook vs Bizier was also a World title fight.




You make it seem like "yeh well.....but etc etc". PEDs is where the conversation starts and ends, no ifs and buts.

[LacedUp]

Brook vs Bizier was also a World title fight.

You make it seem like "yeh well.....but etc etc". PEDs is where the conversation starts and ends, no ifs and buts.

Yeah and therefore a more meaningful fight.

No not really. It's a big excuse at the end of the day. It's something for you to cling on to.

[Box-Office]

Yeah and therefore a more meaningful fight.

No not really. It's a big excuse at the end of the day. It's something for you to cling on to.

So, Khan-Alexander and what they had achieved, the names beaten, means d.ick all because there was no belt on the line.


Do people ever discuss which or how many belts were on the line for such and such classic fight? Or is it about the people fighting? Just look at Thurman-Porter recently, no body cares about the WBA belt cuz the fight was 5/5 based on who was fighting.


Meaningful for Brook/Hearn fans.


You hide behind belts and rankings because it brings some sort of legitimacy to Brook.


Oh yeah, what a lame excuse, PEDs, no big deal, juice up all you want. Lance Armstrong must be a hero for you.








I take it you love Kell Brook, but it is really comical for you to call anyone a fan boy, remember that

[LacedUp]

So, Khan-Alexander and what they had achieved, the names beaten, means d.ick all because there was no belt on the line.


Do people ever discuss which or how many belts were on the line for such and such classic fight? Or is it about the people fighting? Just look at Thurman-Porter recently, no body cares about the WBA belt cuz the fight was 5/5 based on who was fighting.


Meaningful for Brook/Hearn fans.


You hide behind belts and rankings because it brings some sort of legitimacy to Brook.


Oh yeah, what a lame excuse, PEDs, no big deal, juice up all you want. Lance Armstrong must be a hero for you.

I take it you love Kell Brook, but it is really comical for you to call anyone a fan boy, remember that

No, it just didn't mean a lot. Why are you trying to strawman me? I didn't say it was totally meaningless. But was it for a title? No. Was it for a mandatory? No. Had people asked for the fight? No. Two exciting fighters? No (just one). Would the welterweight landscape be changed because of that fight? No not really. It was really a LWW fight taking place at 147. Not meaningless, just not a big fight.

Yes people do care and do discuss it. It does mean something who's the champ, and yes people did discuss who would be the champ of Thurman/Porter especially as it was two TOP contenders/champions with one unbeaten fighter and one with just one loss. Unlike Alexander and Khan who both had been outclassed on multiple occasions.

And yes Thurman/Porter was a 5/5 fight. The same cannot be said for Khan/Alexander. At all. It was quite a boring fight.

Belts and rankings.. Yeah they don't bring legitimacy at all

Let's rather go to the guys who aren't ranked and have no belts

I like Lance Armstrong. If you knew his story you might feel differently about him too. I know you only care so much about Peterson because he was in with your precious idol.

I like Kell Brook for sure. Definitely one of my favourite fighters. But unlike you I don't make ridiculous fanboy excuses for him. I often criticize Brook and Hearn for their choices of opponent, yet you preached how big a win average joes like Collazo, Alexander and Algieri were ffs.

Remember that