Khan schools Alexander and Malignaggi and gets less credit than Brook beating Gavin/Bizier/Jojo dan Anything Khan does don't get half the credit Brook gets Khan was doing better than Brook clearly, Brook almost got decapitated in round 1 and only had moderate success in 2-3 Khan was clean sweeping the 1st 4 rounds and was doing ok in the other rounds
Correct. Floyd bamboozled Canelo. People like to claim Khan was winning rounds easily v Canelo but that was BS. Watch Floyd v Canelo and you see the smaller guy not land powder puff shots. Floyd landed sharp right hand counters making Canelo scared to throw as he knew what was coming back. Floyd v GGG at 154 would see again Mayweather pick GGG off.
Brook was never getting sent to sleep. Khan looked the same he does every fight. Fast start but the opponent has no problem with it as they know round by round they will get closer as Khan after 3 rounds slows down. Algeri even got close to Khan. Chris Algeri. Do you believe Hearn and frank are both lying? Seems to be a mighty coincidence that two promoters who dislike each other both talk of having major issues dealing with team Eubank.
I really try to be subjective mate. I love boxing and have no dislike towards Khan nor do I think the sun shines out of Brook's backside.
I dislike Khan but he was excellent against Alexander and Malignaggi. I think there are many posters on here that are fair and honest and will credit a fighter if deserved even if they don't like them or their man gets beat. The thing is Khan does well and then opens his mouth, spouts a lot of delusional rubbish and upsets the majority of people and then they want to see him brought back down to earth with a bump and take pleasure when he gets battered. Also it goes without saying Khans resume is better than Brooks, it's not even an argument but the only way to settle this British beef once and for all is a fight.. Brook Vs Khan to settle all disputes.
That's all well and good and a reasonable post, but you're also taking Eubanks word as gospel, in reality like Hearn they are probably spinning it to make it look like they were victims. In reality none of us knows what happed, but what I do know is Eubank had big fights at 160 available and none were made but the chance to fight on ITV on PPV was made in a millisecond.
So hang on, you're comparing Floyd when he faced a completely green and weight drained Canelo to him facing prime GGG? GGG wouldn't be scared of anything Floyd has to throw at him either, he wouldn't even feel his shots.
Its the same as khan canelo, the two brits moved better, it was always going to be a case of been able to stay out of the way long enough before the power caught up. Khan had some really good rds but he had to do it all night not just the early rds. As soon as they were been caught up to they were both out of there. Both fights went as we all thought they were going to.
Canelo wasn't Green. Another myth started only because Canelo got dominated easily. Put Canelo in vs Floyd now and the same thing would happen.
There's not a hint of embarrassment when they talk about this being a world title fight... This content is protected
Isn't the undercard free though? If so, you're effectively playing 13 quid for Eubank JR to fight a 11-1 no-name for an unrecognised trinket. I actually think it's good for the business and for punters if there's more competition but this isn't competition to Hearn. Eubank Sr mistakenly thinks that his son has the same pull as he did and that he has the same pull he had 25 years ago. He doesn't. Maybe this is just to test the waters to see what their baseline buyer-numbers will be. Even if they do semi-lousy numbers, it will at least give them an idea of what their upside is if they put on a decent show.
