BoxRec

Of course he doesn't. Simple as.

BABY BLUE wrote:i would laugh my socks off when this fight does go ahead. khan cant run foever agaisnt descent oppants. he will have to fight witters, bradley etc... he cant dodge them other wise i can see witters fuming about this.
fwanky boy wont let his top boy take a good beating from a decent L welter. so the best option would be to drop back to LW.

Kotelnik is a tough fighter, Hatton and Bradley would have a tough night against him, he may be the "weakest" of the titlists but by no means is he a pushover at all. If Khan beats him then you can't argue against him being a world class fighter even if it's a close decision, will he be the best in the world? Absolutely not but he'd still deserve a lot of credit if he beats him.

allegedly thinks boxing fans are stupid. Sooner or later Khan will be exposed again. Then Frank won't be laughing.

There have been less deserving fighters having shots (not just with Mr Warren), but there have been more deserving ones not getting a shot.

Khan has won one eliminator for the WBO title, and won one fight with the #1 ranked with the WBO.

At 140 - no chance though. Just like Hamed didn't deserve his shot at 126. He's about as deserving as Hamed was at 122.

liamlion wrote:

Hagler2002 wrote:Did any of the following? Gavin Rees, Alex Arthur, Nicky Cook, Gary Lockett, Enzo Maccarinelli, Kevin Mitchell, going back a bit further, John Davidson, Billy Hardy......feel free to add more.

Just more Khan bashing due to his high profile status.

I dont agree. Stating the very obvious that Khan has done little to deserve a world title shot is not in anyway "Khan bashing" - but instead is pretty much a statement of fact. Its simply immaterial to mention other fighters who may or may not have been given underserving world title opportunities. The likes of Rees, Arthur, Lockett, Jennings (etcetera) in no way justify Khan being given a world title shot.

What I think Hagler is saying, is because Khan is more high profile he is subjected to a 6 page, multiple threat attack condemming this shot, Kotelnik, the WBA whatever.

Kevin Mitchell has had a similar shot, at a similar time and so far I've yet to read 1 negative comment.... so there is "inconsisteny" due to Khan's higher profile - if you are "Khan Bashing" why not "Mitchell bash" also.

liamlion wrote:

Hagler2002 wrote:Did any of the following? Gavin Rees, Alex Arthur, Nicky Cook, Gary Lockett, Enzo Maccarinelli, Kevin Mitchell, going back a bit further, John Davidson, Billy Hardy......feel free to add more.

Just more Khan bashing due to his high profile status.

I dont agree. Stating the very obvious that Khan has done little to deserve a world title shot is not in anyway "Khan bashing" - but instead is pretty much a statement of fact. Its simply immaterial to mention other fighters who may or may not have been given underserving world title opportunities. The likes of Rees, Arthur, Lockett, Jennings (etcetera) in no way justify Khan being given a world title shot.

No it does not justify it.
But that said, the point he was making is that is happens in boxing. SO complaining about it all of a sudden about something normal is just silly.

stujones wrote: Kevin Mitchell has had a similar shot, at a similar time and so far I've yet to read 1 negative comment.... so there is "inconsisteny" due to Khan's higher profile - if you are "Khan Bashing" why not "Mitchell bash" also.

Because it's not as enjoyable.

Seriously though (not that I was being untrue) it is down to Khan's more public profile, the fact he's on big money, PPV, lauded by the national media as the next big thing (Mitchell isn't), and probably lots more.

Edit - Oh - I see DaveyH and Quixall have basically said this already.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

stujones wrote: Kevin Mitchell has had a similar shot, at a similar time and so far I've yet to read 1 negative comment.... so there is "inconsisteny" due to Khan's higher profile - if you are "Khan Bashing" why not "Mitchell bash" also.

Because it's not as enjoyable.

Seriously though (not that I was being untrue) it is down to Khan's more public profile, the fact he's on big money, PPV, lauded by the national media as the next big thing (Mitchell isn't), and probably lots more.

Edit - Oh - I see DaveyH and Quixall have basically said this already.

Off course that is all true, although not sure if the nationals still laud him as the next big thing after Prescott (I don't read the nationals on boxing)... do the nationals care about boxing enough to write about Khan... apart from the naturally bias allegedly column - just a question here, I don't know.

But we are a little different, we are not just the general public, we are all big boxing fans, we all know Mitchell is fighting Martinez. I fully expect not to discuss Mitchell vs Martinez with my mates who don't follow the sport religiously and I am sure Khan vs Kotelnik will be discussed, and yes nobody will say that he doesn't deserve it cause he hasn't fought at 140 or Barrera was past it etc.... however, I was talking about the lack of negativitiy towards Mitchell vs Martinez on here and other specialised forums. Are we simply being positive about that shot, or not discussing it negatively, in a way to "compensate" for the lack of media attention? In a similar way I didn't read much negativity about Howard Clarke's world title fight on ESB and the like?

For once and shoot me for uttering these words but I think I agree with Stu on this one



Time to hit the bottle me thinks

Wrists wrote:For once and shoot me for uttering these words but I think I agree with Stu on this one



Time to hit the bottle me thinks

Don't worry I am sure normal service will resume... fancy starting a Calzaghe thread

(Joke BTW, please don't got a shit load of marking to do!!)!

stujones wrote:There have been less deserving fighters having shots (not just with Mr Warren), but there have been more deserving ones not getting a shot.

Khan has won one eliminator for the WBO title, and won one fight with the #1 ranked with the WBO.

At 140 - no chance though. Just like Hamed didn't deserve his shot at 126. He's about as deserving as Hamed was at 122.

But whoever made Barrera ranked number one in the WBO wants there head looking at, it was such a false position, because Barrera had'nt fought for a while, certainly not at lightweight and there are other fighters who deserved the number one slot over him at that time.

Khan is now no5 in WBA LWW rankings!

stujones wrote:

liamlion wrote:

Hagler2002 wrote:Did any of the following? Gavin Rees, Alex Arthur, Nicky Cook, Gary Lockett, Enzo Maccarinelli, Kevin Mitchell, going back a bit further, John Davidson, Billy Hardy......feel free to add more.

Just more Khan bashing due to his high profile status.

I dont agree. Stating the very obvious that Khan has done little to deserve a world title shot is not in anyway "Khan bashing" - but instead is pretty much a statement of fact. Its simply immaterial to mention other fighters who may or may not have been given underserving world title opportunities. The likes of Rees, Arthur, Lockett, Jennings (etcetera) in no way justify Khan being given a world title shot.

What I think Hagler is saying, is because Khan is more high profile he is subjected to a 6 page, multiple threat attack condemming this shot, Kotelnik, the WBA whatever.

Kevin Mitchell has had a similar shot, at a similar time and so far I've yet to read 1 negative comment.... so there is "inconsisteny" due to Khan's higher profile - if you are "Khan Bashing" why not "Mitchell bash" also.

A lot of it is down to Khan himself. He was the one who said before the Pacquiao - De La Hoya fight, " Pacquiao and De La Hoya are great fighters, but i know i could beat them now...."

At the time he said this, his best two opponents were St.Clair and Gomez, then he goes and gets sparked out by a virtual unknown.......It does'nt help his cause, does it

Maybe this is why he gets a 6 page diatribe written about him. Surely, if he is as good as he says he is and Warren has the confidence, he should be facing one of the elite fighters at 133lbs

They are trying to tip toe to a world title, because taking the traditinal route would result in Khan losing two or three times and never getting anywhere near a world title shot.

Quixall wrote:
But whoever made Barrera ranked number one in the WBO wants there head looking at, it was such a false position, because Barrera had'nt fought for a while, certainly not at lightweight and there are other fighters who deserved the number one slot over him at that time.

I would say Yes and No... yes there were more deserving ones - but there have been ALOT worst. Barrera had fought twice in the last 6 months at Lightweight, and made his intention known that he was campaigning at the weight devision before that.

Eric Morales walked straight into a lightweight title fight, without ever fighting there, and being on a losing run. Leonard walked into a Middleweight title fight, without ever fighting there and being inactive for over 2 years (and looking poor in that fight).

So while I would say yes there were more deserving fighters, there have been ALOT less derserving mandatories - Kristjansen for one!, and I think on past accomplishments, that fact he was busy also, he did deserve a fairly "lofty" ranking - maybe 3 or 4 (ish). An independent ranking (Fightnews) had him at #4 and they are supposed to be not bias. He did run two of the best P4P pretty close 2 years before and was undefeated in his Lightweight comeback.

stujones wrote:

Quixall wrote:
But whoever made Barrera ranked number one in the WBO wants there head looking at, it was such a false position, because Barrera had'nt fought for a while, certainly not at lightweight and there are other fighters who deserved the number one slot over him at that time.

I would say Yes and No... yes there were more deserving ones - but there have been ALOT worst. Barrera had fought twice in the last 6 months at Lightweight, and made his intention known that he was campaigning at the weight devision before that.

Eric Morales walked straight into a lightweight title fight, without ever fighting there, and being on a losing run. Leonard walked into a Middleweight title fight, without ever fighting there and being inactive for over 2 years (and looking poor in that fight).

So while I would say yes there were more deserving fighters, there have been ALOT less derserving mandatories - Kristjansen for one!, and I think on past accomplishments, that fact he was busy also, he did deserve a fairly "lofty" ranking - maybe 3 or 4 (ish). An independent ranking (fightviews) had him at #4 and they are supposed to be not bias. He did run two of the best P4P pretty close 2 years before and was undefeated in his Lightweight comeback.

Fightviews rankings are horrible

Terry D wrote:As far as I can see it, and I am not quite on the ball, the difference between Mitchell and Khan is that Kev dealt with his nearest domestic rival. Khan is never going to face off against his domestic rivals at LW, and will not do so at LWW, why? Because Murray is not there on the risk/reward ratio, and Hatton, win or lose next month, is his rival at LWW, and would take Amir to school, college, Uni and would probably give him his first twenty years of paid employment to boot.

It is deceptively simple with Amir, grab a world title, vacate, batter someone small/old/not very good, grab another world title, vacate, is Marquez 99 yet? Nope, Ok, batter someone small/old/not very good, grab a world title, vacate, How is Prescott looking? Still winning, Ok, batter someone...etc.

Amir is great for British boxing, but is not going to make a historical impact as anything other than a guy who was cannily manoeuvred into his shots.

As of this point I cannot see how people take the whole Khan thing seriously. There is literally nothing to debate, it is what it is, a rather nice facade.

I would argue Nicky Cook and Alex Arthur are more his nearest domestic rival. And to me, at the time of the fight- Graham Earl was the #1 Lightweight in the UK.

The rest of your post could be right, but why don't we just wait an see instead of saying "oh this is crap, this is going to happen" - this might happen, but it might not. I'm not blind when it comes to Khan, I've been the among the first ones to be critical of backward steps - like Gomez etc after he had dealt with Limond (fresher) and Kristjansen (bigger)... but when he makes a giant stride, which I think he has done since Fagan in both of his fights, then why not give him the credit and play a "wait and see" before judging.

You could be proved right, and then you can say "I told you so", and believe you me if Khan vacates and seems to be playing the waiting game I will be critical, or even defends his WBA title aganst substandard opponents I will also be critical. However, why the bashing when he is making forward strides.

Alot of people have been bang on about Khan, alot of people have been terribly innacurate with their predictions... including me - I thought Barrera was a PR stunt as did many posters - it was nice to be proven wrong and he deserves the credit.

stujones wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

stujones wrote: Kevin Mitchell has had a similar shot, at a similar time and so far I've yet to read 1 negative comment.... so there is "inconsisteny" due to Khan's higher profile - if you are "Khan Bashing" why not "Mitchell bash" also.

Because it's not as enjoyable.

Seriously though (not that I was being untrue) it is down to Khan's more public profile, the fact he's on big money, PPV, lauded by the national media as the next big thing (Mitchell isn't), and probably lots more.

Edit - Oh - I see DaveyH and Quixall have basically said this already.

Off course that is all true, although not sure if the nationals still laud him as the next big thing after Prescott (I don't read the nationals on boxing)... do the nationals care about boxing enough to write about Khan... apart from the naturally bias allegedly allegedly column - just a question here, I don't know.

But we are a little different, we are not just the general public, we are all big boxing fans, we all know Mitchell is fighting Martinez. I fully expect not to discuss Mitchell vs Martinez with my mates who don't follow the sport religiously and I am sure Khan vs Kotelnik will be discussed, and yes nobody will say that he doesn't deserve it cause he hasn't fought at 140 or Barrera was past it etc.... however, I was talking about the lack of negativitiy towards Mitchell vs Martinez on here and other specialised forums. Are we simply being positive about that shot, or not discussing it negatively, in a way to "compensate" for the lack of media attention? In a similar way I didn't read much negativity about Howard Clarke's world title fight on ESB and the like?

Re- the daily newspapers, outside of a few red tops, it does'nt get much coverage, but read what Jeff Powell says about Khan in the Daily Mail, how that guy can call himself a sports journalits i don't know, he's certainly not a boxing journalist, i know that much.....

I think that High profile fighters will always get more attention on forums, but i think that Khan's high profile has been generated, not from his boxing prowess, but from him being marketable after gaining the silver medal at the Olympics. He seemed to tick all the boxes, in terms of promotion, young kid, flash style of fighting, an example and a role model for a supposedly multi cultural Britain, photogenic, nice lad blah de blah. The difference between Mitchell and Khan, is that Mitchell, to my knowledge, has not made any grandiose statements, based on a boxing record that can't back up such claims.....Not to date anyway

world ranked wrote:

stujones wrote:

Quixall wrote:
But whoever made Barrera ranked number one in the WBO wants there head looking at, it was such a false position, because Barrera had'nt fought for a while, certainly not at lightweight and there are other fighters who deserved the number one slot over him at that time.

I would say Yes and No... yes there were more deserving ones - but there have been ALOT worst. Barrera had fought twice in the last 6 months at Lightweight, and made his intention known that he was campaigning at the weight devision before that.

Eric Morales walked straight into a lightweight title fight, without ever fighting there, and being on a losing run. Leonard walked into a Middleweight title fight, without ever fighting there and being inactive for over 2 years (and looking poor in that fight).

So while I would say yes there were more deserving fighters, there have been ALOT less derserving mandatories - Kristjansen for one!, and I think on past accomplishments, that fact he was busy also, he did deserve a fairly "lofty" ranking - maybe 3 or 4 (ish). An independent ranking (fightviews) had him at #4 and they are supposed to be not bias. He did run two of the best P4P pretty close 2 years before and was undefeated in his Lightweight comeback.

Fightviews rankings are horrible

They most definately, but I do think Barrera deserved to be well inside the top 10, pushing for a place in the top 5. Alot of Lightweights are leaving the devision, alot of lightweights, although excellent, are losing more than they are winning of late, and there were a couple who hadn't established themselves as Lightweights at the time (like Barrera, but I am refering to guys like Valero). And thats no subjective view based on the fact he fought Khan... I would have certainly had Barrera ranked ahead of Prescott (and thats Prescott after he fought Khan).

sgtcecil wrote:Khan is now no5 in WBA LWW rankings!

Oh dear....It gets worse

They must pick names out of a hat

"Ok Jerry, who's next........"

Of course Khan doesn't deserve a shot, but that's boxing.

Terry D wrote:As far as I can see it, and I am not quite on the ball, the difference between Mitchell and Khan is that Kev dealt with his nearest domestic rival. Khan is never going to face off against his domestic rivals at LW, and will not do so at LWW, why? Because Murray is not there on the risk/reward ratio, and Hatton, win or lose next month, is his rival at LWW, and would take Amir to school, college, Uni and would probably give him his first twenty years of paid employment to boot.

It is deceptively simple with Amir, grab a world title, vacate, batter someone small/old/not very good, grab another world title, vacate, is Marquez 99 yet? Nope, Ok, batter someone small/old/not very good, grab a world title, vacate, How is Prescott looking? Still winning, Ok, batter someone...etc.

Amir is great for British boxing, but is not going to make a historical impact as anything other than a guy who was cannily manoeuvred into his shots.

As of this point I cannot see how people take the whole Khan thing seriously. There is literally nothing to debate, it is what it is, a rather nice facade.

Very true Terry......

"Hey, Marquez is now 112, let's set up the match........"

Your bit about Marquez and Prescoot made me laught mate.....good stuff

stujones wrote:

Quixall wrote:
But whoever made Barrera ranked number one in the WBO wants there head looking at, it was such a false position, because Barrera had'nt fought for a while, certainly not at lightweight and there are other fighters who deserved the number one slot over him at that time.

I would say Yes and No... yes there were more deserving ones - but there have been ALOT worst. Barrera had fought twice in the last 6 months at Lightweight, and made his intention known that he was campaigning at the weight devision before that.

Eric Morales walked straight into a lightweight title fight, without ever fighting there, and being on a losing run. Leonard walked into a Middleweight title fight, without ever fighting there and being inactive for over 2 years (and looking poor in that fight).

So while I would say yes there were more deserving fighters, there have been ALOT less derserving mandatories - Kristjansen for one!, and I think on past accomplishments, that fact he was busy also, he did deserve a fairly "lofty" ranking - maybe 3 or 4 (ish). An independent ranking (fightviews) had him at #4 and they are supposed to be not bias. He did run two of the best P4P pretty close 2 years before and was undefeated in his Lightweight comeback.

Basically Stu, the whole ranking system is a mess, because as has been said a thousand times before, it's all about politics and finance etc etc.......

Ps Which governing body do you think gets it even half right ? Or are they all as bad as each other ?

Fightviews rankings are horrible [/quote]

They most definately, but I do think Barrera deserved to be well inside the top 10, pushing for a place in the top 5. Alot of Lightweights are leaving the devision, alot of lightweights, although excellent, are losing more than they are winning of late, and there were a couple who hadn't established themselves as Lightweights at the time (like Barrera, but I am refering to guys like Valero). And thats no subjective view based on the fact he fought Khan... I would have certainly had Barrera ranked ahead of Prescott (and thats Prescott after he fought Khan).[/quote]

Two things about the Khan - Barerra fight. Firstly, i saw some footage of Barrera before he fought Khan and said that he looked shot. His speed and reflexes had gone and he had no power at lightweight and whilst Barrera could have made a better fist of it against a less agile and slower fighter, he looked, if not shot, then well well past his best days, so i reluctantly don't give Khan much credit for the victory. Secondly, the cut was as bad in the 2nd round, as it had been in the 5th round, so the fight should have been stopped and declared a "no-contest" and re-scheduled. I think that Khan would have beaten Barrera anyway, regardless of the cut, but it was very dodgy that the fight was allowed to pass the four round marker, so it could go to the cards and Khan get his win.....

sgtcecil wrote:Khan is now no5 in WBA LWW rankings!

Are you f*cking kidding me? What a big, steaming lump of excrement they all are.

Quixall wrote:

sgtcecil wrote:Khan is now no5 in WBA LWW rankings!

Oh dear....It gets worse

They must pick names out of a hat

"Ok Jerry, who's next........"

Yes, I agree there and I am not for one minute saying Khan deserve a title fight.

On your other point about Khan and his comments... I really cannot remember those specifics... there always seems to have been a "disagreement" between Warren and Khan, especially back in the ITV days about how ready he was... Khan was going "yeah, Naz's record" and all and Warren was going "hold on now patients" - so I don't think Warren has always had the confidence of Khan. Maybe he needed to KO to realise his errors, change trainers, and improve his defence. Maybe its only now Warren can see he is ready (and Warren was obviously right cause he wasn't ready before).

Why don't we just wait untill we see what he does after Kotelnik. I'm not sure Kotelnik is easily the worst champion in 133 or 140. The WBO 133 title will soon be vacant, the IBF title is vacant and the WBA champion is Moses - very unproven. Looking at the LWW - If Bradley defends his WBC title - the WBO becomes vacant... a good chance Willy Blain will be #1 - much easier for Khan, and anyway since when has Juan Urango become much better than Kotelnik?

It was fine to knock Khan when he was fighting Substandard opposition or blown up Feather... I could even see some logic in the Barrera fight, I didn't agree but could see what people were saying, but this is a marked step up - fighting out of his weight against a credible, fresh, champion and yet he is still getting condemmed.