Khan has not just overnight become a very good boxer, remember this guy won a silver in the Olympics at the age of just 17.. But under Roach Khan tried to become a puncher which he has never been or will be. Under Hunter Khan gone back to boxing, with Hunter improving his defence and refining his balance and ring IQ..
But then you are probably the sort of pen1s who thinks Tim Henman was rubbish at Tennis because he never won a major. It's tough to explain to plebby fans of a sport that when it comes to real life, active participation... to call the likes of Khan "not very good" is pretty cretinous. He is very good. in fact, like Froch, Calzaghe, Hatton, Lewis (insert world title holder name here) here is clearly very, very, very good by most sane yardsticks. Is he better than potentially the best boxer who ever lived in Floyd Mayweather, albeit a 37 year old version? Probably not. That doesn't make him rubbish. And neither, by the way, do a couple of losses along the way. The fact he may have a dodgy chin makes his achievements in the sport all the stronger.