BoxRec

looking to solve a dispute between me and a fellow fan
what are your opinions who is the better boxer
KAHN OR FROCH

froch is the proven fighter. he has showed he is world class. khan is yet to beat a genuine champion. kahn has bags of talent tho.

Khan is a good boxer but imo failed the big test,and is looking to avoid his next challenger who is a very big puncher,froch has never ducked anyone and is always after the big fights,so i'd go for froch,if khan does duck maidana i will never pay to watch him again.

llamalew wrote:looking to solve a dispute between me and a fellow fan
what are your opinions who is the better boxer
KAHN OR FROCH

Khan did very well as an amateur, with a silver olympic medal.

Froch was the first brit to medal at the World Amateur finals (bronze)

Froch : 8 defences of commonwealth title won on points, 7 defences of British title won by KO (apart from Barney, every defence was by KO of both belts)

Khan: won commonwealth by KO and then 4 defences of commonwealth (3 by ko)

They both have world titles,

Froch won the vacant WBC against Pascal and two defences against former unifed middleweight Jermain Taylor and Bronze Medallist Andre Dirrell.

Khan beat the silver medallist WBA champ in Kotlenik and has one defence against an unknown.

In closing, on paper they have relatively similar achievments, with Khan achieving more as an amatuer, but Froch has consistently fought respected opposition as a professional wheras Khan generally has not, or at least his own size.

Khan has also lost by knockout to an unknown fighter. Froch remains undefeated.

Khan was the better amateur, but so far Froch is the better pro.

Khans acheived all this to date and hes only 23 froch is 32, so but that into prespectie what khan has achieved is superb,

I think Khan is more talented, but Froch is the one beating top fighters right now. As mentioned Khan is nine years younger, so by the time he is 32 he can achieve a lot more than Froch has. But if he always avoids the top fighters in his division who have the attributes to beat him, it might not happen. Froch is the type who will fight anyone and I have alot of respect for him even though I don't like his personality.

crusader wrote:I think Khan is more talented, but Froch is the one beating top fighters right now. As mentioned Khan is nine years younger, so by the time he is 32 he can achieve a lot more than Froch has. But if he always avoids the top fighters in his division who have the attributes to beat him, it might not happen. Froch is the type who will fight anyone and I have alot of respect for him even though I don't like his personality.

crusader wrote:I think Khan is more talented, but Froch is the one beating top fighters right now. As mentioned Khan is nine years younger, so by the time he is 32 he can achieve a lot more than Froch has. But if he always avoids the top fighters in his division who have the attributes to beat him, it might not happen. Froch is the type who will fight anyone and I have alot of respect for him even though I don't like his personality.

crusader wrote:I think Khan is more talented, but Froch is the one beating top fighters right now. As mentioned Khan is nine years younger, so by the time he is 32 he can achieve a lot more than Froch has. But if he always avoids the top fighters in his division who have the attributes to beat him, it might not happen. Froch is the type who will fight anyone and I have alot of respect for him even though I don't like his personality.

totally agree with this post, i have respect for froch in the fact that he will fight anyone. imo this trait has yet to be seen in kahn.
however i think kahn has much more natural talent, with lightening quick hand speed, hes also one of the most dedicated fighters on the scene, moving to wild card to train for long periods at such a young age shows how good his attitude is to me. personally i think froch was lucky that the old man taylor ran out of steam, and was very lucky to get the decision against dirrell. looking forward i think kessler and abraham will show that froch is not in the same league as jc ever was. in conclusion i would say froch is a good fighter but kahn has the potential to be a great fighter.

I don't thing age has as much to do with it and others do.

Erik Morales was shot by the time he was 29, yet Hopkins still keeps winning well into his 40's.

Zab Judah was pound for pound undefeated and heading into a unification with Kostya Tszyu when he was just 23.

Kostya was 24 when he knocked seven shades out of Jake Rodriguez to capture the IBF title in his 12th bout.

Oscar De La Hoya was a 2 weight world champion and ring fighter of the year aged 21. When he was Amir's age he was a 3 weight world champion !

Sometimes I have scrambled eggs for breakfast, other times I have porridge. Both excellent high quality breakfasts. Not sure how I'd define which is best though. Its all about opinions.

Khan is the better boxer? Khan without a doubt. But that is just one ingredient in the make-up of a good champion.

Errol Christie was a better boxer than most British champions ... and Dennis Andries was probably the worse. ;;-)

Lets get this right, there are at least two things you can guarantee with Froch:

1. He doesnt run from or avoid his rivals; and
2. He can hold a punch.

Unfortunately the same cant be said for Khan. The fact that Khan is unable to absorb a punch really does detract from him as an all-round fighter. And if he avoids his forthcoming mandatory then he just as well feck off to America and fall into obscurity.

Khan does however have very quick hands and a great jab - which are without doubt very impressive.

Personally I rate Froch higher than Khan for in my opinion Froch opitimises what a fighter is and should be. He takes a shot, gives a shot and to date has not lost. He also clearly wants to fight the best.

Froch is more proven, Khan is more skilful. It depends how you want to put it. I suppose the question could be, pound for pound, who would win if they fought? To which I'd say Khan could do what Dirrell did except he would land punches.

Asterix wrote:Froch is more proven, Khan is more skilful. It depends how you want to put it. I suppose the question could be, pound for pound, who would win if they fought? To which I'd say Khan could do what Dirrell did except he would land punches.

Styles make fights. You'd think Froch has the sort of style Khan would look good against early, but you couldn't see him stopping Froch coming forward and you'd fancy Froch getting there in the end.

gobbles wrote:

Asterix wrote:Froch is more proven, Khan is more skilful. It depends how you want to put it. I suppose the question could be, pound for pound, who would win if they fought? To which I'd say Khan could do what Dirrell did except he would land punches.

Styles make fights. You'd think Froch has the sort of style Khan would look good against early, but you couldn't see him stopping Froch coming forward and you'd fancy Froch getting there in the end.

Froch never caught up with Dirrell.

Asterix wrote:

gobbles wrote:

Asterix wrote:Froch is more proven, Khan is more skilful. It depends how you want to put it. I suppose the question could be, pound for pound, who would win if they fought? To which I'd say Khan could do what Dirrell did except he would land punches.

Styles make fights. You'd think Froch has the sort of style Khan would look good against early, but you couldn't see him stopping Froch coming forward and you'd fancy Froch getting there in the end.

Froch never caught up with Dirrell.

Dirrell is much more of a spoiler than Khan. Dirrell was fast, but he wasn't very positive, Khan is always positive.

Who knows how good Khan is he's looked good against hand picked opponents appart from on one occasion when he looked bad.

Froch is a hard punching guy with a style that confuses orthadox fighters we know he's difficult to beat and will probably know more after Kesslar/Abrhams... I suspect Froch will have had a more auspiciouse carrer than khan.

tonyevs wrote:Khan is the better boxer? Khan without a doubt. But that is just one ingredient in the make-up of a good champion.

Errol Christie was a better boxer than most British champions ... and Dennis Andries was probably the worse. ;;-)

good point

so were all agreed then that froch is the better of the two D

Dont rate either,khan will dodge any1 who can punch and froch is a very lucky boy

Jayred wrote:Dont rate either,khan will dodge any1 who can punch and froch is a very lucky boy

What british boxers do you rate? All fighters have an eliment of luck many can be accused of ducking people

Khan has the better boxing ability but Froch has had the better career IMO, Froch has beaten a man who's gone up to 175lbs and taken a title and also beaten a former world middleweight champion although he looked crap in my eyes in his last fight.

Froch better all round boxer by far in my opinion.

Khan has all the skills but have my doubts whether he has the strength, determination, power or chin to truely fight at world class but I might be proved wrong.

Froch overall but Khan's athletic gifts could tip the balance in his favour one day.