Khan has always been a very good boxer, just lost his way under Roach..

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Darni187, Dec 17, 2014.


  1. Darni187

    Darni187 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,292
    646
    Nov 13, 2008
    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..
     
  2. alexthegreatmc

    alexthegreatmc Sound logic and reason. You're welcome! Full Member

    39,120
    1,801
    Sep 10, 2013
  3. Benh

    Benh New Member Full Member

    24
    0
    Dec 14, 2014
    He was never very good and he's not very good now . Khan fans are delusional
     
  4. Camaris

    Camaris Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,403
    963
    Jul 11, 2012
    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.
     
  5. Darni187

    Darni187 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,292
    646
    Nov 13, 2008
    Top post.. :good