BoxRec

Kotelnik wasn't a poor boxer or the worst champion ever; that is just absurd. Kotelnik was an Olympic silver medallist and a very skilled defensive counterpuncher. Khan was much too fast and mobile for him. Didn't Kotelnik beat Maidana? That's how crap he was!

palooka wrote:Kotelnik wasn't a poor boxer or the worst champion ever; that is just absurd. Kotelnik was an Olympic silver medallist and a very skilled defensive counterpuncher. Khan was much too fast and mobile for him. Didn't Kotelnik beat Maidana? That's how crap he was!

I dunno about Kotelnik to be honest. There's no doubt that he was no slouch as otherwise he wouldnt of won the silver medal. That said though, he was very slow in terms of his footwork and his defense seemed to consist of having a very good high guard and a very good chin when he did get tagged which I think got him through the Maidana fight as he got hit with some absolute bombs in that fight! Anyway good fighter but stylistically suited Khan down to the ground.

columbo wrote:

palooka wrote:Kotelnik wasn't a poor boxer or the worst champion ever; that is just absurd. Kotelnik was an Olympic silver medallist and a very skilled defensive counterpuncher. Khan was much too fast and mobile for him. Didn't Kotelnik beat Maidana? That's how crap he was!

I dunno about Kotelnik to be honest. There's no doubt that he was no slouch as otherwise he wouldnt of won the silver medal. That said though, he was very slow in terms of his footwork and his defense seemed to consist of having a very good high guard and a very good chin when he did get tagged which I think got him through the Maidana fight as he got hit with some absolute bombs in that fight! Anyway good fighter but stylistically suited Khan down to the ground.

I watched Kotelnik fight Rees for his world title in Cardiff, he totally out classed and dismantled him, he is not slow, but very effective, they don't give out Olympic silver medals out of a lucky bag either.

Anzi wrote:

columbo wrote:

palooka wrote:Kotelnik wasn't a poor boxer or the worst champion ever; that is just absurd. Kotelnik was an Olympic silver medallist and a very skilled defensive counterpuncher. Khan was much too fast and mobile for him. Didn't Kotelnik beat Maidana? That's how crap he was!

I dunno about Kotelnik to be honest. There's no doubt that he was no slouch as otherwise he wouldnt of won the silver medal. That said though, he was very slow in terms of his footwork and his defense seemed to consist of having a very good high guard and a very good chin when he did get tagged which I think got him through the Maidana fight as he got hit with some absolute bombs in that fight! Anyway good fighter but stylistically suited Khan down to the ground.

I watched Kotelnik fight Rees for his world title in Cardiff, he totally out classed and dismantled him, he is not slow, but very effective, they don't give out Olympic silver medals out of a lucky bag either.

Let's be honest though, Rees isnt a true world class fighter *Yeah I know he won a belt*.

Kotelnik was at least as effective as Collazo; the Ortiz blow out aside Luis is not a big time fighter. Khan will outbox him and probably drop him heavy, Khan is written off too easy. I think Collazo would beat Brook.

palooka wrote:Kotelnik was at least as effective as Collazo; the Ortiz blow out aside Luis is not a big time fighter. Khan will outbox him and probably drop him heavy, Khan is written off too easy. I think Collazo would beat Brook.

Collazo probably deserved the victory against Berto aswell though to be honest. He's not a big ticket seller or a big name so he's been jobbed on a fair few occassions. It's an intriguing fight. I think if Khan fights like he did against Diaz though, he'll lose.

Yes, I admire Collazo and think he's been stiffed a few times; he is not the untamed destroyer people are making out and Khan is not as fragile as people imagine; he's boxed some good, hard fighters and done well. If he's slipped or can't be bothered Luis will beat him, he's a win away from the biggest ticket in world boxing though. He'll be too fast for Luis and he has had 18 months to grow into the weight. It'll be a good bout but I think Khan would have beaten Ortiz similarly (as he did as an amateur).

palooka wrote:Yes, I admire Collazo and think he's been stiffed a few times; he is not the untamed destroyer people are making out and Khan is not as fragile as people imagine; he's boxed some good, hard fighters and done well. If he's slipped or can't be bothered Luis will beat him, he's a win away from the biggest ticket in world boxing though. He'll be too fast for Luis and he has had 18 months to grow into the weight. It'll be a good bout but I think Khan would have beaten Ortiz similarly (as he did as an amateur).

Ortiz is just really bad IMO. Khan should have too much for Collazo in this fight.

palooka wrote:Kotelnik was at least as effective as Collazo; the Ortiz blow out aside Luis is not a big time fighter. Khan will outbox him and probably drop him heavy, Khan is written off too easy. I think Collazo would beat Brook.

as far as i can remember khan hasnt dropped anyone heavy since maidana. that was at lww and was quite a few years ago. where's the evidence to suggest khan has any kind ko power at welter? collazo may not belong to any elite at welterweight, but as far as i know he is durable and tough...been put down a couple of times but always finished fights strong. khan , on the other hand, has been down plenty of times, and hardly at the hands of a murderers row of punchers. all the evidence suggests that if anyone is getting dropped heavy it will be khan.

palooka, if collazo would beat brook, then why is khan not fighting brook? brook is ranked much higher than collazo, and his management have offered more money for the fight than khan will be getting for collazo...so wheres the sense in fighting a better opponent , for less money, and less kudos within the boxing organisations to move up the rankings? I'm positive that im not alone in thinking that i'd much rather watch khan-brook than khan- collazo.

i put it to you that khan's management are well aware that their man has no chance against brook. they will only meet when khan has no where else to go, and wants a big payday before retiring.

jimcook wrote:palooka, if collazo would beat brook, then why is khan not fighting brook? brook is ranked much higher than collazo, and his management have offered more money for the fight than khan will be getting for collazo...so wheres the sense in fighting a better opponent , for less money, and less kudos within the boxing organisations to move up the rankings? I'm positive that im not alone in thinking that i'd much rather watch khan-brook than khan- collazo.

i put it to you that khan's management are well aware that their man has no chance against brook. they will only meet when khan has no where else to go, and wants a big payday before retiring.

I think Brook beats Khan by virtue of the fact that Amir simply has a questionabkle chin. However to state that Khan has 'no chance' against Brook is laughable. I like Brook and I think he's a decent fighter but who has he beaten to justify this image as some sort of wrecking machine??

Khan has fought at a much higher level and right now doesn't need Brook. Collazo is oceans away from anything Brook has fought yet some people are bemoaning him as an an opponent for Khan. That in itself tells you all you need to know about levels right there.

Have had £500 with VC this morning at 7/2 to match Gomez. Enough for them to cut it into 10/3. Most others have now priced it and none going any better than that. Be surprised if 3's are still available on Collazo come the opening bell.

Wow, the bookies really fancy Khan on this. even shortened, these odds still look like an early April Fools' joke. Not complaining though!

johnswan1 wrote:Have had £500 with VC this morning at 7/2 to match Gomez. Enough for them to cut it into 10/3. Most others have now priced it and none going any better than that. Be surprised if 3's are still available on Collazo come the opening bell.

Betting always carries risk, but the odds that VC are offering are a joke.

I only wish I could have gotten in on the 5/1 !

jimcook wrote:palooka, if collazo would beat brook, then why is khan not fighting brook? brook is ranked much higher than collazo, and his management have offered more money for the fight than khan will be getting for collazo...so wheres the sense in fighting a better opponent , for less money, and less kudos within the boxing organisations to move up the rankings? I'm positive that im not alone in thinking that i'd much rather watch khan-brook than khan- collazo.

i put it to you that khan's management are well aware that their man has no chance against brook. they will only meet when khan has no where else to go, and wants a big payday before retiring.

Have you seen the so called 5m offered to Khan by Matchroom ? Khan has denied it, that's the problem with forum people, one person says something, without proof and everyone assumes it's gospel and how do you know what Khan is getting for Collazo ? If the fight is on the undercard of Mayweather/Maidana, maybe the plan is a good performance and win against Collazo, then Mayweather, which would be real money and a chance to become a pound for pound king, if he was to win, if Brook wins a world title and Khan loses, you will see Khan looking for him, maybe Brook might not want to fight Khan then, just like when Mosley was pound for pound king and Mayweather wanted him, Mosely did not want to know, then when Mayweather become king, mosley was calling him out, fighters are not scared, but they fight for position, gain, money, titles, what is the point fighting someone behind you, Collazo is bigger in America then Brook, that's what matters most.

Riddick Blowe wrote:Wow, the bookies really fancy Khan on this. even shortened, these odds still look like an early April Fools' joke. Not complaining though!

Bookies don't get it wrong very often, they usually are right, take heed !

Wrists wrote:

jimcook wrote:palooka, if collazo would beat brook, then why is khan not fighting brook? brook is ranked much higher than collazo, and his management have offered more money for the fight than khan will be getting for collazo...so wheres the sense in fighting a better opponent , for less money, and less kudos within the boxing organisations to move up the rankings? I'm positive that im not alone in thinking that i'd much rather watch khan-brook than khan- collazo.

i put it to you that khan's management are well aware that their man has no chance against brook. they will only meet when khan has no where else to go, and wants a big payday before retiring.

I think Brook beats Khan by virtue of the fact that Amir simply has a questionabkle chin. However to state that Khan has 'no chance' against Brook is laughable. I like Brook and I think he's a decent fighter but who has he beaten to justify this image as some sort of wrecking machine??

Khan has fought at a much higher level and right now doesn't need Brook. Collazo is oceans away from anything Brook has fought yet some people are bemoaning him as an an opponent for Khan. That in itself tells you all you need to know about levels right there.

In my opinion Brook is better then Collazo and people are making too much of his stoppage of Ortiz, who is finished and quits whenever he gets hurt, but Collazo is bigger in America and that's why Khan's team have chosen him, a win over Khan might be big here, but over the pond, it don't make a ripple in the ocean, now if Brook wins a world title in style in America, then Khan/Brook will be higher profile in the states.

Anzi wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:Wow, the bookies really fancy Khan on this. even shortened, these odds still look like an early April Fools' joke. Not complaining though!

Bookies don't get it wrong very often, they usually are right, take heed !

Anzi wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:Wow, the bookies really fancy Khan on this. even shortened, these odds still look like an early April Fools' joke. Not complaining though!

Bookies don't get it wrong very often, they usually are right, take heed !

They are not the smartest in the boxing markets though. Very much into the hype and 'next big thing':

Calzaghe 3/1 to beat Lacy
Garcia 4/1 to beat Khan
Hopkins 11/4 to beat Pavlik
Haye evens to beat Maccarinelli!!!!

Are just a few off the top of my head

Only 4 or 5 over years sounds smart to me.

There are plenty around here without a pot to piss in and they are in the bookies every day; the bookie drives off in his merc.

G0mez wrote:

Anzi wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:Wow, the bookies really fancy Khan on this. even shortened, these odds still look like an early April Fools' joke. Not complaining though!

Bookies don't get it wrong very often, they usually are right, take heed !

Haha, is that from the earthquake in the studio news?

freddydoesdallas wrote:

Anzi wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:Wow, the bookies really fancy Khan on this. even shortened, these odds still look like an early April Fools' joke. Not complaining though!

Bookies don't get it wrong very often, they usually are right, take heed !

They are not the smartest in the boxing markets though. Very much into the hype and 'next big thing':

Calzaghe 3/1 to beat Lacy
Garcia 4/1 to beat Khan
Hopkins 11/4 to beat Pavlik
Haye evens to beat Maccarinelli!!!!

Are just a few off the top of my head

Holyfield 25-1 to beat Tyson initially, down to 6-1 by the week of the fight!

The bookies haven't got a clue about boxing, none of them will give boxing enough priority to have someone employed just to do boxing odds, there aren't enough fights - so they'll have some guy who has to cover maybe 5-10 minor sports and try and price them all up. Good for us.

But with what I just said in mind about them not knowing much, it would be very easy for them to join a few forums and see what the fans are saying.