The question isn't whether he's a better fighter than they are, of course, but rather how Khan at 23/24 stacks up in ability to Mayweather and Pacquiao when they were that age. For those of who who followed their careers back then, how well-developed were they compared to now, and how do they stack up to Khan by comparison in terms of perceived ability and accomplishments at that age?
Mayweather was already a top ranked p4p fighter at 21 who'd defeated the top 130 lb. fighter in the world in Genaro Hernandez. He won Fighter of the Year for 1998. The year he turned 24, he had one of his best years, with the dominating win over Diego Corrales, a solid win over Jesus Chavez, and an ugly win over Carlos Hernandez. Pacquiao wasn't as known or respected as Mayweather, but he had won world titles at 112 and 122 before he turned 23. The win over Ledwaba for a title at 122 was an eye-opener for American audiences, although the Barrera fight a couple years later was the true "breakout" moment. I was pleasantly surprised, as I thought Barrera would be too good for him.
Pac had glaring wweaknesses back then which he's improved on since. Floyd less so though he obviously wasn't facing the level of competition he later faced. Could definitely see the potential in both.
Mayweather was fighting very good opposition in his early 20s. It's a big part of the reason why people say they miss the Floyd of 130 (and 135).
Pac was lineal champ by the age of 19. Mayweather was outclassing everyone. Khan just struggled with Maidana. not a good comparison for Khan.
Both were way ahead of Khan. Mute point though as every one has their own learning curve. Apples and Oranges.
