Where would you rank Amir Khan in the current 140/147lb division?

First topic message reminder :

There has been a lot of negative comments on the Mayweather vs. khan thread re: Khan's lack of apparent worthiness to face Floyd, even though many would agree it's a fight which would most probably be Mayweather's most difficult opponent given Khan's hand speed and boxing ability to fight at range.

I was wondering where everyone rates Khan amongst the current hybrid of 140/147lb fighters (assuming most of these fighters can comfortably make the WW limit).

I'd go for the following:

1. Mayweather
2. Manny Pacquiao (Marquez got lucky in the last fight)
3. JM Marquez, even though he's 40, he looks like he can now make 147lb.
4. Possibly Khan? Yes, he has lost to Garcia, but in a rematch I feel he would win.
5. Tim Bradley, although he was thoroughly outclassed by Pacquiao and was lucky to win his last fight.
6. Devon Alexander
7. Danny Garcia, I feel the fighters above have a better skill set although he's proved he's no mug in the division.
8. Adrian Broner, still largely untested at the weight but could well be higher.
9. Robert Guerrero
10. Marcos Maidana, feel he has more to his game than just being a crude slugger. His amateur record shows numerous wins other Lucas Matthyse (who I do feel is a crude slugger).

You could argue Khan could be 6 or 7th at worst on that list, but given Pacquiao and Bradley are TR fighters and that Mayweather has already taken Marquez to school for 12 rounds - I can't see why Khan isn't seen as a viable opponent? It's by no means a gimme fight for Floyd as to date Khan has not struggled with any fighters who are considered boxers (Paulie/ Judah/ Kotelnik) as opposed to come forward fighters such as Maidana and Garcia.

Possibly he deserves a bit of a break from 606v2 members?

So Khan's 4 best wins where current then were they!!??

"Where would you rank Amir Khan in the current 140/147lb division?"

If Broner's win against Paulie means nothing, then lets write off Khan's win against Judah as well. After all, they are just belts

Boxtthis wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Broner's world title means as much as any other title these days.........and he did go up two divisions to win it.......

A fact because he's so flash.........few give him credit for........

It's a good win (even though it was a disappointing performance) but is it enough to put you in the top ten of the combined divisions? I can't see how. Put it this way, would Paulie have been in anyone's top ten here before the Broner fight? I doubt it.

I'm not saying it's a great win.............But it's just written off because people don't like him..........I think it's proved his future lies below that weight but he did go up and conquer..........Two divisions is a stretch.......

Any other LWW who gets beat twice on the trot gets booted from the top 10. Why does Khan not?

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:So Khan's 4 best wins where current then were they!!??

"Where would you rank Amir Khan in the current 140/147lb division?"

If Broner's win against Paulie means nothing, then lets write off Khan's win against Judah as well. After all, they are just belts

a) You can't just write off people's records in a 'current' list. It's not like these wins were ancient history

b) Where did I say Broner's win means nothing? It means something, but one win (over Paulie) at the two weights doesn't jump you above the rest.

Khan is on the slide no doubt. He's ready to be leapfrogged by Broner soon. But, the guy needs more than one win over Malignaggi for god's sake. I mean, how easy do you want to make it to get in these rankings?

It's a stretch when it suits your argument Truss, I jest of course but for me Broner is severely over rated, relied on his size and now he doesn't have that looks half the fighter.

I think Mate because he's given a pass on Petersen...........wrongly in my opinion.......

Sure he juiced but Khan should have beat him..........Gave away rounds showboating........shocking performance..

Broner isn't overrated......because he continues to get no credit from people like you..who don't like him..and there is a lot of people like you out there......

So you knock Khan for his Peterson performance but not Broner for his Paulie performance??

Yes I do........Because Khan would have won if he'd have not chucked rounds away begging to be hit on the ropes.........

Khan threw it away...........and lost.........Broner didn't.

not saying Broner was great........But he was two divisions higher than normal.........Hagler should of tried it.

Broner was huge at lightweight, he weighed in at 152lbs or something in his last fight at super featherweight, heavier than Mayweather in his light middleweight fights.

Look all I'm saying is that appreciate his skills and the fact that even though he's won three alphabet titles at different weights he deserves a little bit more respect.....

When he gets beat I'll agree he may be overrated dependent on the performance and the opponent......

Till then it's a stretch...........to suggest he is considering he's just moved up two weights and won a title.......

Think his personality is being played and not his talent......

I don't see him the same way as you Truss, he has a very poor defence which he's got around by facing significantly smaller fighters then the weakest puncher going. I have at no point watched any of his interviews or post fight comments i'm judging him purely on his fights that have left me less than impressed.

Fair enough........

But I didn't think Hamed had a great defence either.......

Reflex fighter also.......Angles, speed and combinations.......

Hamed I regard as a one off talent that Broner can't be compared to at this time, possibly the biggest hitting featherweight of all time behind Saddler. His movement and reflexes were second to none and he had a brilliant chin to boot.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Hamed I regard as a one off talent that Broner can't be compared to at this time, possibly the biggest hitting featherweight of all time behind Saddler. His movement and reflexes were second to none and he had a brilliant chin to boot.

You would.........Sorry but Kevin Kelly, Barrera fights weren't that impressive..........Decked off other opponents also..

Me I regard Broner as every bit as talented.......and with more heart.........Power wise not as crisp...........

I overrate Broner perhaps......But you overrate Hamed for sure........

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Garcia is a bloody good boxer. Look how he dealt with Mathysse. Worked out pretty quickly that being hit was going to hurt so he made Mathysse work more than he ever has to actually land, which in the end knackered him. He was never directly in front.

Garcia boxed well and proved that he also has a very solid chin as he was caught with a few clean shots from Mathysse But I don't know how anyone can look past the fact that for half the fight Mathysse was boxing with one eye. Personally the round before that injury for me it looked like Mathysse was really putting Garcia under allot of pressure and starting to apply his pressure game, then when Mathysse has one eye Garcia starts landing hooks on his blind side and keeping him under control. To be honest I was quite surprised Mathysse made it to the 12th and done well to still come back at Garcia in the later rounds. Dont get me wrong, it was a punch that busted his eye so there for Garica deserves credit as you create your own luck with good tactics and hard work. but if we are talking levels, for me on another night it could have gone another way, I actually think it was a shame he busted his eye as before that it was turning into a real contest, with Garcia ahead on the cards but with Mathysse turning up the heat..

How anyone can rate Khan above Garcia is just...shocking.

Well he blasted Khan out in 4 rounds but if we only assess fighters by one fight then it would be a pretty boring sport. Prescot also knocked Khan out in 2 rounds, does that mean he is better than Khan?...
Khan was out boxing Garcia before he was stopped, Garcias tac tics worked a treat but ability wise Khan was more than a match for him, Then we can look at both their fights against Judah, Khan smashed him and Garcia struggled past him. So I think there is a legitimate argument that Khan is better.

I would agree that Garcia has improved and looks more solid and Khan has changed trainers and has stuttered but both at a young age I think both are still capable of tabling their best.. I did not see Garcia outbox Khan I saw him expose a weakness in Khan with good tactics, tac tics can be assessed and altered. boxing ability cant.... if Khan takes away that hook, then for me he boxes Garcias face off... and its not as if Garcia has proven to take his power into the later rounds when in a fight.

I don't think I do he was at times exceptional dazzling some very good fighters with awkwardness, too early to also suggest Broner has more heart when he's yet to lose. Kelley and Barrera are far better than anything Broner has faced and Hamed didn't massively outweigh them. He was a small featherweight with huge legs.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Hamed I regard as a one off talent that Broner can't be compared to at this time, possibly the biggest hitting featherweight of all time behind Saddler. His movement and reflexes were second to none and he had a brilliant chin to boot.

You would.........Sorry but Kevin Kelly, Barrera fights weren't that impressive..........Decked off other opponents also..

Me I regard Broner as every bit as talented.......and with more heart.........Power wise not as crisp...........

I overrate Broner perhaps......But you overrate Hamed for sure........

More heart? Based on what, slapping around a few smaller guys? He's never had to dig deep, other than perhaps in his weakest performance yet (being the only person of comparable size he's fought) so not sure where the 'heart' claim comes from. Other than Hamed's general fall from grace once his ego-bubble was burst by Barrera. KK was better and more dangerous than anyone Broner has fought too and, despite the odd wobble, Hamed still flattened him.

Based on the fact he took one hiding.......and never fancied it again........

Hamed was quality but he was a bully........

Barrera wasn't his last fight, he fought Calvo I think and decided he no longer wanted to go train.

He did and he was gunshy.........didn't fancy it again.......

1. Floyd
2. JMM
3. Garcia
4. Pacquiao
5. Bradley
6. Matthysse
7. Guerrero
8. Alexander
9. Maidana
10. Broner

I'm sure I missed one or 2 out but khan doesn't make my top 10

Based on the diaz showing he looks like he could be on he slide already and I honestly don't think he has the chin to be competitve with the better welterweights

He doesn't have the power to stop a lot of them neither the defence to stay away from them for long enough periods of time

So no not for me, if getting KOed by garcia didn't knock him down the list the recent opposition and going life and death with Diaz knocks him out of he top 10

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Based on the fact he took one hiding.......and never fancied it again........

Hamed was quality but he was a bully........

I'd say the same about Broner though, albeit not in quite the same mould. Quite happy bullying massively physically outmatched guys, struggled with his first opponent he couldn't bully. Just thankful for him that it was only a gatekeeper not an ATG.

Feel free to say the same Mate............Two divisions up against a well known stinker that makes everybody look bad...

Think you'll need more evidence than paulie.......who he did beat !!

You say that but he didn't make Hatton, Khan, Diaz or Cotto look bad.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Feel free to say the same Mate............Two divisions up against a well known stinker that makes everybody look bad...

Think you'll need more evidence than paulie.......who he did beat !!

Deja vu, we've had this conversation before. This is just an excuse you trot out to excuse your latest homeboy.

Khan and Hatton, two totally different fighters with techniques worlds apart, both looked excellent against him.

Okay it is then........

You need two points of reference to draw a line, two dots to connect. This is the issue with trying the assess Broners LWW/WW aptitude - he only has 1 dot.

Attempting to draw conclusions from such a shallow data-pool is an ignorant and fallacious exercise.