WTF???
Quoted from the original article:
"Not many people were giving Amir Khan (35-3, 33 KO’s)..."
Where did you get such ridiculously wrong statistic???
Khan's not-that-impressive record is actually (38-5, 20 KO's) I repeat ONLY 20 KO's. It is a good record but nowhere as good as the misleading mentioned one. If he had such an impressive misleading record --similar to Maidana's when he destroyed Broner-- he would be an elite fighter WHICH HE IS NOT and he would have been a threat to Crawford instead of a pathetic punching bag. Please check your figures before publishing them!!!
NOTE: After my comment, the writer may correct the mistake but believe me, the error was there when I wrote this!
Quoted from the original article:
"Not many people were giving Amir Khan (35-3, 33 KO’s)..."
Where did you get such ridiculously wrong statistic???
Khan's not-that-impressive record is actually (38-5, 20 KO's) I repeat ONLY 20 KO's. It is a good record but nowhere as good as the misleading mentioned one. If he had such an impressive misleading record --similar to Maidana's when he destroyed Broner-- he would be an elite fighter WHICH HE IS NOT and he would have been a threat to Crawford instead of a pathetic punching bag. Please check your figures before publishing them!!!
NOTE: After my comment, the writer may correct the mistake but believe me, the error was there when I wrote this!
Comment