BoxRec

Pugilist-specialist wrote:

PredatorHayds wrote:.
He could of fought Brook, Thurman or Bradley but I feel Khan brings more to the table.

Khan hasn't won a world title fight for 4 years, Brook and Bradley are WW world champions. Bradley has a win over Pacquiao.
Porter was a WW champ and has a win over Floyd's pal (Broner)
Brook, Thurman and Garcia are undefeated. Garcia knocked Khan out.

World titles don't mean anything to Floyd anymore.
Bradley got a the worst decision of the year in the Pacman fight, lost the rematch convincingly and Floyd beat Pacman convincingly. No form line there to get Bradley a shot.
Can't fight Porter as he lost to Brook and can't fight Brook due to him not being known overseas and being good. Too much risk for not as much reward as others.
Thurman falls under same category as Brook.
Garcia even though unbeaten hasn't looked convincing lately and needs more fights at WW.
His knockout of Khan was a long time ago and also at a different weight class.
I'd prefer all of the above more than Berto. But if I was Mayweathers promoter Khan ticks the most boxes.

PredatorHayds wrote:

Pugilist-specialist wrote:

PredatorHayds wrote:.
He could of fought Brook, Thurman or Bradley but I feel Khan brings more to the table.

Khan hasn't won a world title fight for 4 years, Brook and Bradley are WW world champions. Bradley has a win over Pacquiao.
Porter was a WW champ and has a win over Floyd's pal (Broner)
Brook, Thurman and Garcia are undefeated. Garcia knocked Khan out.

World titles don't mean anything to Floyd anymore.
Bradley got a the worst decision of the year in the Pacman fight, lost the rematch convincingly and Floyd beat Pacman convincingly. No form line there to get Bradley a shot.
Can't fight Porter as he lost to Brook and can't fight Brook due to him not being known overseas and being good. Too much risk for not as much reward as others.
Thurman falls under same category as Brook.
Garcia even though unbeaten hasn't looked convincing lately and needs more fights at WW.
His knockout of Khan was a long time ago and also at a different weight class.
I'd prefer all of the above more than Berto. But if I was Mayweathers promoter Khan ticks the most boxes.

As Pugilist said above though, Khan has not contested a world title in years, only fought one fighter who would be considered a top 10 welter, when he has stepped up to fight fellow world champions he has lost, one in spectacular style. Plus, he wants big money

He hasn't done anything remarkable to stick out as clear number one.
But IMO if I was Floyds promoter he's got less negatives than the others.
Floyd has the luxury of hand picking opponents which 99.9% of boxers don't have.
If I was Floyd and I was hand picking I'd hand pick Khan.

PredatorHayds wrote: Can't fight Porter as he lost to Brook and can't fight Brook due to him not being known overseas and being good. Too much risk for not as much reward as others.
Thurman falls under same category as Brook..

So Floyd can't fight Brook and Thurman because they are good? He can't fight ex-WW world champ Porter because he lost his title to someone good in a close fight.
But he should fight Khan who lost to Peterson and got sparked by Prescott and Garcia.
Is your argument that he should fight Khan because he's not very good?

You're like a dog with a bone when it comes to Ingle fighters but never even popped up in the doping scandal thread?

mickey1975 wrote:You're like a dog with a bone when it comes to Ingle fighters but never even popped up in the doping scandal thread?

Mayweather and Khan aren't Ingle fighters and neither are Bradley,Porter, Thurman or Garcia. I just don't fully understand the argument that Floyd had to fight Khan.

Pugilist-specialist wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:You're like a dog with a bone when it comes to Ingle fighters but never even popped up in the doping scandal thread?

Mayweather and Khan aren't Ingle fighters and neither are Bradley,Porter, Thurman or Garcia. I just don't fully understand the argument that Floyd had to fight Khan.

You're only digging out Khan because he doesn't want to fight Kell.

Pugilist-specialist wrote:

PredatorHayds wrote: Can't fight Porter as he lost to Brook and can't fight Brook due to him not being known overseas and being good. Too much risk for not as much reward as others.
Thurman falls under same category as Brook..

So Floyd can't fight Brook and Thurman because they are good? He can't fight ex-WW world champ Porter because he lost his title to someone good in a close fight.
But he should fight Khan who lost to Peterson and got sparked by Prescott and Garcia.
Is your argument that he should fight Khan because he's not very good?

Your not understanding where I'm coming from.
I've got my Floyd Mayweather cap on. I was surprised he didn't fight Khan as he's less dangerous , more known and would generate more money than the other contenders.

Personally I'd of loved the Thurman or Brook fight, but if I was Haymon I wouldn't let him fight them.
Even the politics with Haymon works in Khans favour. I'm still in shock he didn't get the fight.

Floyd is pretty clear on why he won't fight Khan:

http://www.boxingnews24.com/2015/08/may ... ny-garcia/

mickey1975 wrote:

Pugilist-specialist wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:You're like a dog with a bone when it comes to Ingle fighters but never even popped up in the doping scandal thread?

Mayweather and Khan aren't Ingle fighters and neither are Bradley,Porter, Thurman or Garcia. I just don't fully understand the argument that Floyd had to fight Khan.

You're only digging out Khan because he doesn't want to fight Kell.

You've got nothing to contribute to this thread - it appears you are just spoiling for an argument.

Luckily there is a thread where you can enlighten us on German prostitutes, or you can embarrass yourself on another Fury thread by banging on about "gorgers".

Pugilist-specialist wrote:Floyd is pretty clear on why he won't fight Khan:

http://www.boxingnews24.com/2015/08/may ... ny-garcia/

He clearly said this to try and wind Khan up.
Bertos resume is worse that Khans

You've more than embarrassed yourself by keeping silent on the Barry/Ingle drug abuse scandal, yet commenting on everybody else who's ever stepped foot into Unity. As for the other comment, I am a gorger!

mickey1975 wrote:You've more than embarrassed yourself by keeping silent on the Barry/Ingle drug abuse scandal, yet commenting on everybody else who's ever stepped foot into Unity. As for the other comment, I am a gorger!

Like I said, you've got nothing to say on the thread but you're just spoiling for an argument. You love to harp on about yourself so we know you're not a gorger - which made your comments on a Fury thread even odder.
If you're being a smartar$e, the Unity was razed to the ground about 25 years ago.
Is it embarrassing not to post on a thread? There was a thread on your old drinking buddy Michael Hunter (who used his boxing skills to smash in his wife's face) which you chose not to post on.
Why don't you bump the Galahad thread back up. You're criticising me for not posting on it. On the thread you were criticising me by saying that I would be along in a moment to defend him!! Spoiling for an argument again!
You then did a full about turn by saying that you thought Galahad was innocent before finally killing the thread off in true mickey fashion by telling everyone how hard your mates are and that nobody messes with them.

You know I'm not a gorger? Are you for real? I've never even met Michael Hunter! I've met Parsons Cross, and I'm sure he'd vouch for me! I was playing devils advocate about Barry, I was a bit gutted when he got caught, to be honest. And I couldn't care less how "hard" my pals are, I'm 39 with 3 kids!

And I'm at shows every week where all Ingle fighters are announced as from Unity.

mickey1975 wrote:You know I'm not a gorger? Are you for real?

Typo from me. I suppose it serves me right for being a smartar$e!! And I was never going to defend the indefensible.

So is The Ingle gyms amateur section still known as Unity, because I'm cracking up if it's not.

mickey1975 wrote:So is The Ingle gyms amateur section still known as Unity, because I'm cracking up if it's not.

It was pal until recently - think it's the Ingle academy now. They took the Unity name because of a row about Brendan training ams and pros. Sadly, since Brendan has aged and has taken a back seat, there's nothing coming through.

There were some good kids come through there in the 80's and 90's, it's strange how different gyms seem to be in the ascendancy for a time and then ebb a bit - it seems to happen with towns as well - a glut of really good fighters and then it fades.

Brendan was the reason for the good kids coming through. The time he spent on them was unbelievable, constantly talking to them, taking them on long walks and to shows all around the country. The gym was open from early in the morning and not locked until the night.

What exactly promoted the fall out with Naz?

Must be serious as Brendan said he'd never speak to him again.

PredatorHayds wrote:What exactly promoted the fall out with Naz?

Must be serious as Brendan said he'd never speak to him again.

It was quite well documented at the time. The book "The Paddy and the Prince" came out just before the split. Just done a search and this was first up:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/boxi ... 95739.html

Pugilist-specialist wrote:

PredatorHayds wrote:What exactly promoted the fall out with Naz?

Must be serious as Brendan said he'd never speak to him again.

It was quite well documented at the time. The book "The Paddy and the Prince" came out just before the split. Just done a search and this was first up:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/boxi ... 95739.html

Really sad to read but it's something that happens all to often. Ingle deserved more respect.
The most shocking one is Teddy Atlas trying to kill Donny Lalonde.
Atlas is one trainer you don't mess with.