Amir Khan - potential to be the greatest British boxer of all time?

Laz brings some realism to a Khan thread.

 

We should discount the fighters from greater than 50 years ago as Khans advantages over those milk drinking cavemen isn't really fair.
Also guys of the lesser weight classes are generally **** so lets take them midgets out the equation too.

Khans resume is way above the more recent British fighters for his age.
He is rightly crowned the king of his division (by default of Tims cowardly ducking), an achievement that Lewis only got when he beat a Jurassic Holyfield when he was in his mid 30's. He also bailed quickly after getting out of jail with Vitali.
Calzaghe too was almost retiring before he decided to fight guys with a pulse.D:

 

I don't know why Laz gets such a bad rap 'round here.

Guy's a G.

 

Khan is weight drained goes up division to put weight on. Ortiz is weight drained, stays in same division and all of a sudden is not weight drained. Did the fairys tell you that?

What next Ortiz was a damaged fight when he fought Peterson... But all of a sudden he becomes 'undamaged' and beats Berto, but obviously when he loses it will be beacuse he is damaged.... Or maybe, maybe he will be weight drained (whichever one you decide to pick)

Maidana's not an inside fighter. So, any inside fighter would have a better chance. Namely Bradley, though he's that versatile it's difficult to class him as simply an 'inside fighter'.

Wow now you're making **** up, I never claimed he only lost once, I said he only 'truly' lost once, which is right, Kotelnik vs Maidana is a disputed decision no doubt.

Bradley is an inside fighter, no wait he isn't make up your mind and tell me which inside fighter would beat Khan.

Now err... Stop trying to stalk me and read upon my history, I don't swing that way, not that there's anything wrong with that:good

 

Neither would compare his career to that of Roy Jones, and Laz is my 'Akhi', whatever that means/is.

 

As I say, visual evidence testifies to it. I don't have to argue my point further.

Nah, I think you know I'm not saying that.

Again, visual evidence testifies to it. Ever hear of someone growing out of a division.

'Never truely lost once'(in your opinion) and only losing once is the same thing surely if you're of that opinion?

And no, it's not disputed. It was close, but Kotelnik was a worthy victor.

Never said he wasn't, I said it's hard to put him under one category due to his versatility. But he classifies as in inside if he chose to fight there, which is why I picked him

Gay jokes? Really?

Poor attempt. Nah, it's just evidence of how that was quite possibly the worst thing written in ESB history, as I've remembered it since.

 

I think its to early to talk about Khan being the all time great of British boxing, he does how ever have the ability to be very good and maybe one of the top ten but he has a long way to go before he over take Hatton Lewis Hamed Buchanan McKenzie even he is a true champion who is maybe two fights away from being in this group

 

Ok I can't be bothered with the other points as you seem to be failing in those points.... But you've yet to name an inside fighter based on my previous point,

 

I'm failing, or you can't argue with them?

Again, I've said Timbo twice.

 

read up on a man called jimmy wilde,look at his record and the stories of how he used to have pockets full of stones to make higher weights.very interesting and it will also answer your question.:good

 

Let's be clear: Herman and Villa beat a shot to **** Jimmy Wilde. Particularly Villa. It still took them seventeen and seven rounds respectively to put him away.