Tweet
I just wanted to make this thread because there are currently no less than 3 Khan beats Broner threads and Khan is actually winning in a poll.
Now I will say I dislike both Broner and Khan. I think they are both overrated, over protected, egotistical and annoying.
That said I want to add my two cents. I watched Paulie vs Broner and at the time I felt it could have gone either way and I was annoyed Broner got the nod as I wanted Paulie to win but the decision was fine.
People however seem to automatically see a close fight with Paulie as an indicator that Broner is garbage. They use tired triangle theories to convince themselves he would lose to Khan and that is just simply not true.
Khan looked great against Paulie as it took away his biggest weakness, his chin and defense. He was able to be reckless without consequence. He could jump in, get tagged with a shot and not get hurt so he could put more hurt onto Paulie than Paulie could to him.
Broner didn't look great against Paulie because his movement of feet and head is a great way to box against someone who is more flat footed but Paulie still got tagged hard when he came inside to land and if his chin wasn't so great he would have been hurt more than he was.
If people don't think Khan wouldn't jump in like he did against Danny and get caught by Broner with some fast, hard counters that would hurt and potentially KO Khan then they really don't know what they are talking about. Khans style nullifies all his advantages. He gives up his height and reach by jumping in to land combos and he doesn't utilize his jab. He gives up speed because instead of throwing one shot or two and getting out of the way, he throws 4 or 5 shots which means he is in range for as long as a slow fighter.
I think the best fighter to currently have a good chance of beating Broner is The Ghost. Guerrero struggles against fast footwork but Broner stands still. He has a great body attack which is the best shots Paulie got in, he is rough inside and he is a volume puncher with respectable power.
People need to stop looking at things like speed and power as the be all end all and try to realize a fighters weakness and think what fighters would capitalize on those weaknesses best.
The truth is, Broner beats most of these guys at 147 - 140. Guys like Danny throw shots that are too easy to defend against with Broners style of defense, he throws wide shots to the head that play into Broners defense. Lucas has the same problem, his shots are looping, perfect for Broner to pick off and counter. Broner is no A+ fighter but he is very effective against a lot of styles, it requires someone who can hit hard to the body and move around Broner, working him like a heavy bag, pivoting off to the side... getting out of range for the counters. Guys I think beat him are Floyd, Manny, Guererro, Ortiz... and that is about it for the moment... Ortiz and Guererro may not be the best and they might/would lose to some of the other top guys but they possess things that make it hard for Broner.
Now I will say I dislike both Broner and Khan. I think they are both overrated, over protected, egotistical and annoying.
That said I want to add my two cents. I watched Paulie vs Broner and at the time I felt it could have gone either way and I was annoyed Broner got the nod as I wanted Paulie to win but the decision was fine.
People however seem to automatically see a close fight with Paulie as an indicator that Broner is garbage. They use tired triangle theories to convince themselves he would lose to Khan and that is just simply not true.
Khan looked great against Paulie as it took away his biggest weakness, his chin and defense. He was able to be reckless without consequence. He could jump in, get tagged with a shot and not get hurt so he could put more hurt onto Paulie than Paulie could to him.
Broner didn't look great against Paulie because his movement of feet and head is a great way to box against someone who is more flat footed but Paulie still got tagged hard when he came inside to land and if his chin wasn't so great he would have been hurt more than he was.
If people don't think Khan wouldn't jump in like he did against Danny and get caught by Broner with some fast, hard counters that would hurt and potentially KO Khan then they really don't know what they are talking about. Khans style nullifies all his advantages. He gives up his height and reach by jumping in to land combos and he doesn't utilize his jab. He gives up speed because instead of throwing one shot or two and getting out of the way, he throws 4 or 5 shots which means he is in range for as long as a slow fighter.
I think the best fighter to currently have a good chance of beating Broner is The Ghost. Guerrero struggles against fast footwork but Broner stands still. He has a great body attack which is the best shots Paulie got in, he is rough inside and he is a volume puncher with respectable power.
People need to stop looking at things like speed and power as the be all end all and try to realize a fighters weakness and think what fighters would capitalize on those weaknesses best.
The truth is, Broner beats most of these guys at 147 - 140. Guys like Danny throw shots that are too easy to defend against with Broners style of defense, he throws wide shots to the head that play into Broners defense. Lucas has the same problem, his shots are looping, perfect for Broner to pick off and counter. Broner is no A+ fighter but he is very effective against a lot of styles, it requires someone who can hit hard to the body and move around Broner, working him like a heavy bag, pivoting off to the side... getting out of range for the counters. Guys I think beat him are Floyd, Manny, Guererro, Ortiz... and that is about it for the moment... Ortiz and Guererro may not be the best and they might/would lose to some of the other top guys but they possess things that make it hard for Broner.
Comment