Crolla of that short, impressive, really improved, prime run of form he was on.. when he beat Ismael Barroso, Darleys Perez, John Murray, and in the first Linares fight where in the middle rounds it looked like he was doing well and might stop Linares ( but then Linares ran away with with it the last few rounds) vs Khan of lightweight..Prescott/Limond/Gomez fights Who would have won? They have a mutual opponent - Limond, who Crolla beat easy, but Khan got dropped heavily and struggled with. I think Crolla would've probably give the fragile Khan a beating.
Khan beats Crolla IMO. Didn't think there was any genuine danger of Linares being stopped and the class difference between the two was pretty clear. Perez a decent win, probably a little better than the Barroso one. Khan's run at LW wasn't great by any means but I'd still back Khan over the distance
Khan all day. Crolla might have success but he doesn't have the foot or hand speed to really cause Khan problems and his style is so basic than Khan would have been able land when he wanted. Khan maybe even a stoppage win
Crolla at his best beats the Khan who fought at 135. Khan struggled with Limond and a faded Gomez, and was obviously blasted out by Prescott. He was very vulnerable at that weight, at that time in his career. The more mature, rounded Khan at 140 is a different matter. The Khan who beat Maidana beats any version of Crolla.
The sword cuts both ways - a year after the Khan v Limond fight Crolla would loose to Youssef Al Hamidi on a Khan under-card and to Sykes a year after that. Khan had durability problems for sure but he also paid these guys back in spades with stoppage wins.
The criteria in the OP was Crolla around the time of his championship run against Khan of the Prescott/Limond/Gomez fights. Domestic level Crolla from 2008 probably loses to Athens Khan, never mind any pro version. Khan undeniably reached a higher level and has had a better career than Crolla. The version we're talking about though was not good enough to get past a solid top-5 lightweight, which is what Crolla was during his best run.
Yeah definitely. Khan has/had A level talent but arguably a B level fighter at times. Crolla is a C level fighter.
Khan would have won. To beat Khan you either need to be a big puncher or a very accurate top level counter puncher and Crolla is and was neither of these things. I like Crolla and I love the way he has improved and dragged every ounce out of himself to have had the good career he has had but he wasnt as good as Khan (who I think was overrated for the record).
Strictly of the period your talking about, I reckon if go with crolla. Ant at that time in his career was bordering on been a world level fighter. Gomez, limond etc although good fighters weren't as good as any was in that little run he had. The constant pressure and body shots would of caught up with Khan at that period in his life. Overall tho Khan was a better fighter.
