BoxRec

Anzi wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

freddydoesdallas wrote:
If only there was a database of records that someone could check

One can only dream. "Sigh."

You need to wake up bro.

Anzi wrote:According to the WBC it should happen, they have retained Amir Khan as no 1 for Garcia title after his loss to Alverez.

G0mez wrote:

Anzi wrote:According to the WBC it should happen, they have retained Amir Khan as no 1 for Garcia title after his loss to Alverez.

And his team are stupid enough to make that fight next.

Team Khan , Al Haymon and the other sycophants would put poor stupid Amir in the Wicker Man if there was enough loot on the table and box office interest.

jimcook wrote:apart from the olympic silver khan holds, there is not so much difference. in fact crolla has been kod once to khans 3 or 4. crolla is 29 and is a current world champ, who faced down his domestic rivals. khan is 29 and was a world champ about 5 years ago. khan has fought more recognisable names but most were well past thier sell by. crolla had the cojones to fight murray. its true khan has fought some good fighters , but he always got kod by them. im sure crolla couldve ran for six rounds against canelo before going down. the only exceptional thing about khan was his speed, and his marketing...a bit like micheal owen...arrived with great fanfare and success but ultimately failed to live up to his potential. made a lot of money tho.

Horse wrote:

jimcook wrote:apart from the olympic silver khan holds, there is not so much difference. in fact crolla has been kod once to khans 3 or 4. crolla is 29 and is a current world champ, who faced down his domestic rivals. khan is 29 and was a world champ about 5 years ago. khan has fought more recognisable names but most were well past thier sell by. crolla had the cojones to fight murray. its true khan has fought some good fighters , but he always got kod by them. im sure crolla couldve ran for six rounds against canelo before going down. the only exceptional thing about khan was his speed, and his marketing...a bit like micheal owen...arrived with great fanfare and success but ultimately failed to live up to his potential. made a lot of money tho.

Crolla is as good as Khan?

You're really still trying to push that one?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Horse wrote:

jimcook wrote:apart from the olympic silver khan holds, there is not so much difference. in fact crolla has been kod once to khans 3 or 4. crolla is 29 and is a current world champ, who faced down his domestic rivals. khan is 29 and was a world champ about 5 years ago. khan has fought more recognisable names but most were well past thier sell by. crolla had the cojones to fight murray. its true khan has fought some good fighters , but he always got kod by them. im sure crolla couldve ran for six rounds against canelo before going down. the only exceptional thing about khan was his speed, and his marketing...a bit like micheal owen...arrived with great fanfare and success but ultimately failed to live up to his potential. made a lot of money tho.

Crolla is as good as Khan?

You're really still trying to push that one?

Bit silly really.

Syntax Error wrote:No.

How far do you want to stretch the term great?

Syntax Error wrote:Great fighters don't usually get violently knocked out 3 times in their primes.

Syntax Error wrote:Khan is very good & game fighter, but it is unlikely he'll be remembered as a great unless he goes on a remarkable run, including avenging all his losses & possibly beating FMJ & Pac.

Horse wrote:

jimcook wrote:apart from the olympic silver khan holds, there is not so much difference. in fact crolla has been kod once to khans 3 or 4. crolla is 29 and is a current world champ, who faced down his domestic rivals. khan is 29 and was a world champ about 5 years ago. khan has fought more recognisable names but most were well past thier sell by. crolla had the cojones to fight murray. its true khan has fought some good fighters , but he always got kod by them. im sure crolla couldve ran for six rounds against canelo before going down. the only exceptional thing about khan was his speed, and his marketing...a bit like micheal owen...arrived with great fanfare and success but ultimately failed to live up to his potential. made a lot of money tho.

Crolla is as good as Khan?

You're really still trying to push that one?

Stuarty30 wrote:saying Crolla is as good as Khan is almost as ridiculous as having Khan as an ATG

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:saying Crolla is as good as Khan is almost as ridiculous as having Khan as an ATG

How many British ATGs are there then?

Horse wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:No.

How far do you want to stretch the term great?

The top 100 or so.

How many British greats do you think there are?

Why won't anyone who says that Khan's not great answer that question?

Syntax Error wrote:Great fighters don't usually get violently knocked out 3 times in their primes.

The positives matter more than the negatives.

Syntax Error wrote:Khan is very good & game fighter, but it is unlikely he'll be remembered as a great unless he goes on a remarkable run, including avenging all his losses & possibly beating FMJ & Pac.

Ridiculous.

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:saying Crolla is as good as Khan is almost as ridiculous as having Khan as an ATG

How many British ATGs are there then?

freddydoesdallas wrote:

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:saying Crolla is as good as Khan is almost as ridiculous as having Khan as an ATG

How many British ATGs are there then?

Greats are the best of the best. As a starting point I might go with 15 actual greats.

Khan is up there with the likes of junior witter, Clinton woods and similar fighters who have picked up a belt but failed to dominate a division or really have a decisive win.

Looking at the last 20 years or so I'd say the only greats are probably Lewis, calzaghe and possibly Hatton.

Truthfully, I think Froch is caught in no man's land between the 2

Syntax Error wrote:Well, if your 'GREATS' list is 100 or so long, Amir Khan qualifies as a great.

Syntax Error wrote:Positives do outweight negatives, but when the negatives are humongous, it's hard to downplay them.

Syntax Error wrote:Facing & beating all the best of your era, especially when the era is stacked & avenging defeats are all the hallmarks of ATGs & is not a ridiculous assertion.

freddydoesdallas wrote:Greats are the best of the best. As a starting point I might go with 15 actual greats.

freddydoesdallas wrote:Khan is up there with the likes of junior witter, Clinton woods and similar fighters who have picked up a belt but failed to dominate a division or really have a decisive win.

Looking at the last 20 years or so I'd say the only greats are probably Lewis, calzaghe and possibly Hatton.

Truthfully, I think Froch is caught in no man's land between the 2

Stuarty30 wrote:Matter of opinion I suppose but I'd def have Froch in there. He got everything he possibly could have and more out of the ability he had. Same can't be said for Khan. Possibly Naz though the way his career abruptly ended tarnishes his career.

Stuarty30 wrote:I'd have guys like Eubank and Benn in no mans land. Legends though but there's a fine line.

Stuarty30 wrote:

freddydoesdallas wrote:

Horse wrote:How many British ATGs are there then?

Greats are the best of the best. As a starting point I might go with 15 actual greats.

Khan is up there with the likes of junior witter, Clinton woods and similar fighters who have picked up a belt but failed to dominate a division or really have a decisive win.

Looking at the last 20 years or so I'd say the only greats are probably Lewis, calzaghe and possibly Hatton.

Truthfully, I think Froch is caught in no man's land between the 2

Matter of opinion I suppose but I'd def have Froch in there. He got everything he possibly could have and more out of the ability he had. Same can't be said for Khan. Possibly Naz though the way his career abruptly ended tarnishes his career. I'd have guys like Eubank and Benn in no mans land. Legends though but there's a fine line.

Horse wrote:

freddydoesdallas wrote:Greats are the best of the best. As a starting point I might go with 15 actual greats.

So Pacquiao isn't a great then? I'm pretty sure that he isn't a top 15 P4Per of all time.

freddydoesdallas wrote:Khan is up there with the likes of junior witter, Clinton woods and similar fighters who have picked up a belt but failed to dominate a division or really have a decisive win.

Looking at the last 20 years or so I'd say the only greats are probably Lewis, calzaghe and possibly Hatton.

Truthfully, I think Froch is caught in no man's land between the 2

Froch is better than Hatton, in my opinion.

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:Matter of opinion I suppose but I'd def have Froch in there. He got everything he possibly could have and more out of the ability he had. Same can't be said for Khan. Possibly Naz though the way his career abruptly ended tarnishes his career.

International Hall of Famer Naseem Hamed isn't a British great?

Stuarty30 wrote:I'd have guys like Eubank and Benn in no mans land. Legends though but there's a fine line.

They are legends, but not greats?

freddydoesdallas wrote:P4P'er list is completely subjective. You've said he's not a great.

Stuarty30 wrote:I would have Naz as an ATG absolutely. I grew up in awe of him and he's one of the reasons I and probably 100s of others started boxing.

Stuarty30 wrote:As I said it's a matter of opinion. You see I try and look at things impartially. I am not a pompous wind bag like your good self.

Stuarty30 wrote:I would say legends and ATGs are again a matter of personal interpretation. Legends of British boxing but just missing out on ATG status.

Stuarty30 wrote:

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:Matter of opinion I suppose but I'd def have Froch in there. He got everything he possibly could have and more out of the ability he had. Same can't be said for Khan. Possibly Naz though the way his career abruptly ended tarnishes his career.

International Hall of Famer Naseem Hamed isn't a British great?

Stuarty30 wrote:I'd have guys like Eubank and Benn in no mans land. Legends though but there's a fine line.

They are legends, but not greats?

I would have Naz as an ATG absolutely. I grew up in awe of him and he's one of the reasons I and probably 100s of others started boxing. As I said it's a matter of opinion. You see I try and look at things impartially. I am not a pompous wind bag like your good self.

I would say legends and ATGs are again a matter of personal interpretation. Legends of British boxing but just missing out on ATG status.