Page 2 of 2
Re: Barrera vs Khan - Historical Relevance.
Posted: 17 Jan 2009, 12:06
by stujones
The difference for me is two.
1) Barrera is alot less faded than RJJ, maybe on a par with Hopkins.
2) Amir Khan isn't a 36 year old champion of 10 years. He is still very much a prospect.
Re: Barrera vs Khan - Historical Relevance.
Posted: 17 Jan 2009, 12:09
by Autobarn
How is Casamayor "shot to shit" since Kid Diamond fight. A fight that many had Casa winning. Casa's had his ups and downs but between then and now he won his 2nd weight world title.
He beat Corrales in a 3rd fight, stopped Katsidis in a war, and though lucky to beat that tall Mexican guy that everyone thougt should have got a rematch, he boxed superbly before Marquez stopped him.
He's probably through now as a top level fighter, though.
Re: Barrera vs Khan - Historical Relevance.
Posted: 17 Jan 2009, 12:22
by tonyevs
G0mez wrote:If Barrera puts Amir down in the first round, then loses on points..
..it will have the same significance as another fight or two from last year.
That in their prime these originally smaller fighters would have handled themselves and won.
Instead they are older, extremely shopworn (50+ fights apiece) and fighting at a higher weight they dont belong in - against a fighter much nearer there peak, who's far from shopworn.
In a nutshell Barrera is whoring his name, but maybe thinks in his mind he can still do the biz.
Historically it's got no bearing on anything for me - and if Khan calls himself a 'legend killer' afterwards he deserves all the stick he gets !
I kinda agree with this .. but if a very shopworn Michael Gomez could catch and drop Khan ...
Re: Barrera vs Khan - Historical Relevance.
Posted: 17 Jan 2009, 12:28
by stujones
Shot to Shit might be harsh, but faded I think. I don't think he has been the same since he moved up to Lightweight.
Corrales was shot when they fought, the fact he has a struggle with Kastidis says alot and Santa Cruz got robbed.
Infact, I was very suprised he was so competitive against JMM.
Re: Barrera vs Khan - Historical Relevance.
Posted: 17 Jan 2009, 12:29
by Dioufy
Looking at a brief clip of Barrera in China, he looked very fat at the weight.
Re: Barrera vs Khan - Historical Relevance.
Posted: 17 Jan 2009, 13:43
by adwatson
Autobarn wrote:How is Casamayor "shot to shit" since Kid Diamond fight. A fight that many had Casa winning. Casa's had his ups and downs but between then and now he won his 2nd weight world title.
He beat Corrales in a 3rd fight, stopped Katsidis in a war, and though lucky to beat that tall Mexican guy that everyone thougt should have got a rematch, he boxed superbly before Marquez stopped him.
He's probably through now as a top level fighter, though.
ok then shot to shit is a little harsh, but certainly been on the downward slope for a long time
In 2 years Corrales fought Casa in 2 hard fights, Frietas in a war, the 2 fights with Castillo ending in him getting KTFO. I think it took everything out of him
As much as i like Katsidis, he struggled with Graham Earl, struggled with the unknown Amonst and got beat by Diaz
And Santa Cruz should have got the nod, despite being an average fighter.
Casa was an ATG amature and a solid elite fighter, but his best days ended when he left super feather. My point was simply that I think a totally shot Casa would probably still beat Khan
Re: Barrera vs Khan - Historical Relevance.
Posted: 17 Jan 2009, 13:48
by ApolloCreed
I just can't see Khan winning, and the would be plenty of mileage in more learning fights for him.
Even if he did win it would propel him into top class which he just isn't ready for.
So if Warren got another dummy like Fagan he would be slated and now there is criticism for putting him in with MAB.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't...