Brook. Khan. Who Is The Greater Fighter?

[soul_survivor]

Why is Brook better? Ranking someone on achievements, which is essentially what a greatness ranking is, shouldn't take into account a mythical basis on who would win. Can't you put forward a better, more boxing oriented argument?

Khans best wins are HOFer Judah, Paulie who would go onto win a world title yet again (that title would then go form Broner to Maidana to Mayweather), including wins over Alexander, Kotelnik, Maidana and Algieri.

All of these guys were future, current or future title world holders.

Brooks only top class win, in 30 years and 30+ fights is Shawn Porter.

Which is greater?

Once again no reply from LacedUp who acts like he is a boxing fan but is just some weird teenager fangirl.

[LacedUp]

Why is Brook better? Ranking someone on achievements, which is essentially what a greatness ranking is, shouldn't take into account a mythical basis on who would win. Can't you put forward a better, more boxing oriented argument?

Khans best wins are HOFer Judah, Paulie who would go onto win a world title yet again (that title would then go form Broner to Maidana to Mayweather), including wins over Alexander, Kotelnik, Maidana and Algieri.

All of these guys were future, current or future title world holders.

Brooks only top class win, in 30 years and 30+ fights is Shawn Porter.

Which is greater?

No that's your definition of what a greater fighter is. A greater fighter can be better, have more ability or of better quality. You should look it up.

Brook does everything better than Khan and since Khan ducked him shamelessly, it's impossible for me to say Khan is better.

You do know Judah was 10 years past his prime when Khan fought him right? All of the guys you mentioned are extremely average. Brook would be ridiculed if he fought Algieri or Kotelnik or Malignaggi. Just look at when he signed to fight a better fighter in Chaves - People said that was a cherrypick ffs.

You of course also forget to mention that Khan was iced by Garcia, by Prescott and by Canelo. He lost to Peterson.

He was dropped by Limond, dropped by Diaz, and dropped by a whole host of fighters that were complete crap. He had a war wth Algieri for crying out loud.

Sometimes your losses or wars tell you exactly what level of fighter you are. Khan was knocked spark out by Prescott, Garcia and Canelo. Brook had a competitive fight with GGG and didn't go down once. He beat an undefeated WW champ in Shawn Porter - A better win than any of Khans.

Even a guy like Bizier who beat an undefeated Frederic Lawson would probably give Khan fits ffs. That's his level if we're honest.

If he's a greater fighter than Brook, he should prove it in the ring - You know, against Brook.

[English Lion]

Amir Khan has a far superior legacy and resume compared to Brook that's not even a debate. The only credible win that Brook has is the victory against Shawn Porter. Khan has multiple wins against fighters who were considered top contenders at the time of him beating them. No matter how hard people like Laced up tries, there is no way you can undermine Khan's victory over Maidana in anyway...Maidana was considerd pound 4 pound one of the most ferocious fighters at that time and Khan beat him. Not to mention the fact Khan won the Olympic silver medal at 17 years of age which in turn lead to huge amount of funding for future British Olympic teams and amateur fighters.

So when you are talking about legacy and resume, Khan wins hands down, he's just done way too much compared to what Brook has done. What Brook did in the Golovkin fight was highly admirable, the skills he shown were impressive but in the end, Getting your eye socket broken and having your corner wave a white flag does not give you a greater legacy than Khan in boxing.

If Brook fights Khan today, it's a 50/50 fight. You can argue that Brook is the more skilled and accurate fighter, where as Khan has the faster hand speed and combination punching.

[soul_survivor]

No that's your definition of what a greater fighter is. A greater fighter can be better, have more ability or of better quality. You should look it up.

Brook does everything better than Khan and since Khan ducked him shamelessly, it's impossible for me to say Khan is better.

You do know Judah was 10 years past his prime when Khan fought him right? All of the guys you mentioned are extremely average. Brook would be ridiculed if he fought Algieri or Kotelnik or Malignaggi. Just look at when he signed to fight a better fighter in Chaves - People said that was a cherrypick ffs.

You of course also forget to mention that Khan was iced by Garcia, by Prescott and by Canelo. He lost to Peterson.

He was dropped by Limond, dropped by Diaz, and dropped by a whole host of fighters that were complete crap. He had a war wth Algieri for crying out loud.

Sometimes your losses or wars tell you exactly what level of fighter you are. Khan was knocked spark out by Prescott, Garcia and Canelo. Brook had a competitive fight with GGG and didn't go down once. He beat an undefeated WW champ in Shawn Porter - A better win than any of Khans.

Even a guy like Bizier who beat an undefeated Frederic Lawson would probably give Khan fits ffs. That's his level if we're honest.

If he's a greater fighter than Brook, he should prove it in the ring - You know, against Brook.

This is a load of bollocks and you know it..if you don't, you are too far gone.

One aspect of greatness if what a fighter does better than another fighter but that's not the only criteria. Plus greatness if not based on some fantasy on how your fave is going to beat some guy you have an illogical hatred for.

And Khan beat guys that were world champions. You can twist it any way you like but that's what he did. Kotelnik holds a win over Maidana and was a top 3 light welter at the time. Khan then beat the guy everyone said he was avoiding, Maidana, and unified too.

Why would brook be ridiculed for facing power punchers and world title holders? I don't even understand the complaint about Judah as he not only held a world title but would go on to do it yet again.

Khan, simply put, has a better resume.

In terms of skills and attributes, Khan is quicker, both hands and feet. He also has better punch combinations. Brook has a better chin and hits harder. The guys match up quite well.

So no, Brook is not greater but you stick to your one point agenda and criteria.

This is the only forum where fans would actually argue the fighter with a superior resume, more world titles and more accomplishments is worse off than a fighter with one world class win.

[hugh grant]

Hagler has a bettervtesume than GGG. But GGG beats hagler. Pretty similar situation there. Resume aslone cant trump everything as how good a fighter is, is theoretical. If you talk about how great all the fighters hagler beat were you might start sou ding like a hagler fanboy.
Once GGG gets statistics record of fdefenses he would be classed as greater than hagler

[champion4ever]

Legacy - Amir Khan

Resume - Amir Khan

Ring IQ - Kell Brook

Skill - Kell Brook

Right now or at least for the time being, Amir Khan is the greater fighter based on his resume alone. Until last Saturday night, Kell Brook was very much an unknown and untested entity. Gennady Golovkin was the best fighter he has ever fought in his professional career.

Amir Khan has taken on many more challengers and risks in his career. As opposed to Kell Brook; Who has been largely content on fighting on his own soil while taken the path to least resistance in the process against limited competition.

[mani1]

Beating the Killer shawn porter who got a gift draw against a shot blown up feather fisted lightweight and beat Alexander whom was considered a cherry pick for Khan is the biggest single win since Duran beat Sugar

Not to mention struggled against another killer Alfonso Gomez

I'm also very Surprised Khans win over Diaz isn't bigged up a lot more since officially he was coming of a "Draw" against killer Porter

[IllegalDeath]

The triangle theories never worked. Yes GGG is better than Canelo but Brook's took a worse beatdown and it was over in 5 rounds. It was smart of them to just throw the towel when a devastating knockout was coming.
Porter is an average fighter and losing to Thurman proved it that he is no top dog at 147.
Khan's resume is much much better than that of Brook's.

If the meet up Idk, maybe Brook knocks him out but if he can't he'll loose a wide UD as skills wise Khan is much superior.

[LacedUp]

This is a load of bollocks and you know it..if you don't, you are too far gone.

One aspect of greatness if what a fighter does better than another fighter but that's not the only criteria. Plus greatness if not based on some fantasy on how your fave is going to beat some guy you have an illogical hatred for.

And Khan beat guys that were world champions. You can twist it any way you like but that's what he did. Kotelnik holds a win over Maidana and was a top 3 light welter at the time. Khan then beat the guy everyone said he was avoiding, Maidana, and unified too.

Why would brook be ridiculed for facing power punchers and world title holders? I don't even understand the complaint about Judah as he not only held a world title but would go on to do it yet again.

Khan, simply put, has a better resume.

In terms of skills and attributes, Khan is quicker, both hands and feet. He also has better punch combinations. Brook has a better chin and hits harder. The guys match up quite well.

So no, Brook is not greater but you stick to your one point agenda and criteria.

This is the only forum where fans would actually argue the fighter with a superior resume, more world titles and more accomplishments is worse off than a fighter with one world class win.

I'm not denying Khan has a better resume, but trying to pass off his average resume as anything special is just ridiculous. He beat Kotelnik and Judah for the belts. Some of the worst champions we've seen. He didn't beat the two guys that actually mattered at the time.

What exactly did Judah go on to do again?? Other than lose every subsequent fight he had He was an absolute shell of his former self. And his "world title"? Who gives a flying *** - It was a vacant title win over Kaizer Mabutu ffs.

I have a very logical dislike for Khan since he fights no one we want him to fight. Since Garcia no one has asked for any of the fights he's had.

Khan has better combinations than Brook? Hahahahahaha. My God I've heard it all. Khan's amateur version of 1-2-1-2-1-2 is nothing close to Brook's actual combinations! It has absolutely nothing on Brook.

Brook is clearly greater as 70%+ has voted in this thread.

Khan has one world title more than Brook which he won against Zab Judah. That's the extent of "more world titles" haha. Absolutely ridiculous.

Add to that he's been knocked out at all levels.

Brook simply classes above, which is why Khan's balls went hiding years ago and we haven't seen them since.

[LacedUp]

Why is Brook better? Ranking someone on achievements, which is essentially what a greatness ranking is, shouldn't take into account a mythical basis on who would win. Can't you put forward a better, more boxing oriented argument?

Khans best wins are HOFer Judah, Paulie who would go onto win a world title yet again (that title would then go form Broner to Maidana to Mayweather), including wins over Alexander, Kotelnik, Maidana and Algieri.

All of these guys were future, current or future title world holders.

Brooks only top class win, in 30 years and 30+ fights is Shawn Porter.

Which is greater?

Also Zab Judah HOFamer. Haha, that was ***ing funny.