Floyd Mayweather vs. Amir Khan speculation & discussion

:?

How is that even a pro-Mayweather statement?

It just indicates the very low opinion I have of Khan, and his chances in that match-up.

 

First of all, that isn't what I'm doing. I'm not about the concealed-agenda games people around here play, and you've been here long enough to know I don't pull that shit.

If my aim was to say that Berto is a great choice of dance partner for the #49 slot, I'd just say that and make a case for it and not have to rely on sneakily underhanded tactics by eliminating superior alternatives to make him "acceptable through attrition". There are better choices Mayweather could have made that presented bigger challenges than Berto - several of them. Khan notwithstanding. Khan was never a threat, IMO. People have always made too much of his speed and supposed edge in outside boxing. Mayweather is faster (in terms of single punches; Khan's more liberal use of combinations helps feed the illusion that he's fleeter of hand, when he isn't) and the vastly superior boxer, from any range. Khan never had so much as one stylistic advantage over Mayweather, that he does has always been a myth.

2nd, how does thinking Khan would have no chance mean less than his sum of accomplishments? Isn't the very reason Berto is being dismissed because of the perceived lack of difficulty he poses for Mayweather, rather than for wont of achievements?

...which, if we're going off that...

Sharmba Mitchell defeated Rafael Limon, Rocky Lockridge, Terron Millett, Khalid Rahilou, Vince Phillips, Lovemore N'dou, Ben Tackie, Carlos Vilches, Jose Luis Cruz, Reggie Green, Chad Broussard, Michael Stewart and Chris Smith. That's a baker's dozen "solid" W's of at least B- or C+ vintage before you start getting into head-scratching obscurity and outright irrelevance.

Amir Khan, if you want to make it apples to apples stretching it out to find thirteen, has defeated Marcos Rene Maidana, Andreas Kotelnik, Marco Antonio Barrera, Paulie Malignaggi, Chris Algieri, Devon Alexander, Luis Collazo, Julio Diaz, Carlos Molina, Zab Judah, Paul McCloskey, Scott Lawton, and Gairy St. Clair.

Both have a couple of HOF names, but they both have asterisks besides them. (Lockridge and MAB were shot...as were Collazo, Diaz, and Judah)

Both have exactly two world title reigns, and both in the same single weight division. Khan reigned at 140lb from July 2009 until December 2011 (WBA, then unified with IBF as of July 2011) and was then reinstated without ever officially beating anyone in a world title fight as WBA champion when Lamont Peterson was stripped, "reigning" again from June 2012 until July 2014 without ever defending his unearned championship once. So really you can argue Khan has one single world title reign, which for a little under 5 months was a unified reign. Mitchell on the other hand was a 2-time champ at 140lbs, with the WBA from October 1998 until February 2001 - exactly matching Khan's 2.5 years of his first, real reign - and then if you want to count interim belts held the IBF version for most of 2004.

Mitchell is 5-2 in world title fights, Khan 6-2.

Really not that far apart, if we are splitting hairs.


In terms of threat posed to Mayweather, or inversely threat of a severe beating Mayweather poses to either - I do rank Khan below Mitchell in that he is even less of a threat and would get beaten up even worse than Mitchell did.

That is the metric by which everyone is judging Mayweather opponents, right? How "easy" they are for him? With titles and the rest falling by the wayside?

Based on ease, I think Khan would rank down there among the worst cherry picks. I mean, sure, Baldomir was easier than would be Khan, but how do you pass up a chance to "cherry pick" the lineal title?

 

He wouldn't.

Mayweather has ten better wins from 2001 until 2005 alone, before he even debuted at welter.

 

Like a helpless child, yes.