Nah, I just don't call guys great when they can't beat an elite fighter without a rehydration clause or a robbery.
So your telling me guys like Golovkin, Jacobs or Kovalev aren't great fighters? GGG fights could have gone either way, he beat Jacobs fair and square and even though Kovalev was faded, he still was a pretty good fighter. Yes there were rehydration clauses which diminish the wins, but at least they weren't catchweights. The facts are this: Canelo is a great fighter with a HOF resume and if you can't accept it, too bad for you.
No lmao GGG, Jacobs and Kovalev aren't great fighters. And he needed a robbery and two rehydration clauses to beat them. And two of them were old. In name only. A deep look at his wins shows its not a HOF resume, and that he's not a great fighter. Canelo will probably end up Top 150, but as of right now he's not even close.
Bringing us back to the original question: Frankie Randall IMO was defensively better, was a sharper puncher, was far better on the inside and firing shots (hooks uppercuts etc.), better jab, punch variety and more durable than Khan. As soon as Randall brings the fight inside, Khan would start to panic. Randall late stoppage.
Lol "a deep look" ? If canelos resume isn't good then who's is? You could pick apart anyone's resume if you want to
I'd say jabs comparable, and slight edge in hand speed to Khan - but yeah, Randall sweeps every other dept.
Like it or not Canelo by the time he retires hes gonna enter the top 10 Mexican fighters of all time, obviously ahead of Marquez and wouldn't surprised me if he also passes Morales and Barrera, he's already one of the great defensive and counter punchers Mexico has ever seen not to mention the highest paid Mexican fighter ever, Laugh now cry later.
