What has khan done?

Could cotto beat Floyd with roach? Yes

Will he? No, because he has no stamina and Floyd comes on strong late and will win the UD again

 

Look guys, a prime example of ignorance in the forums.

 

^That wasn't mean't to be a serious post in the first place...

 

:deal

We know the formula.

 

I know what his intentions were.

 

What you mean the Bernard hopkins school of racism?

If you don't support a black fighter no matter what, you hate everyone

If you don't love Floyd you must hate black people

You have to respect blatant racism Floyd throws out like calling PAC poochiao but act offended at the thought of anyone calling Floyd out

If another African American boxer calls Floyd out they must have sold out to the white man

 

You need some moderation to prevent perfectly good threads descending into a racist rant. It happens again and again. It's tedious.

 

Single out who you want.

 

So a boxer's record starts again after a defeat?

These 3 are just "starting their careers" then.

Cotto has won 2 fights since his last defeat.
Pacquiao has won 3 fights since his last defeat.
Khan has won 4 fights since his last defeat.

According to your logic, no one really accomplishes anything in boxing because whatever, they achieve does not count after a loss and they have to start again from scratch.

 

Khan doesn't have the ring IQ to compete with Floyd.

 

I like Amir Khan but just can't understand why people are so keen to anoint him on high everytime he cobbles together a few wins. I mean he's never held a world title at welterweight, scuttled off from 140 after being KO'd and a case can be made he's not even the best welterweight in the north of England.

This said from a selfish perspective I wouldn't mind the fight as it'd have a fun build up and may even take place in the UK which would provide me with a chance to go.

 

No that's not what I said.


For someone in a position at the top, they have to fight who's hot at the time. Not who was hot in the past. I'll give you some examples.


The big one and most obvious. Mayweather vs Pacquiao. Obviously should happen. But when Pacquiao got KO'd, the demand should have ceased for the time being. Pacquiao then beat Rios, still should not have happened. Then Pacquiao beat Bradley again, now the talks should start again. So from 12/2012 to 04/2014, there should have been no Mayweather-Pacquiao talks.


Khan has 4 victories since his loss, Pacquiao has 3. But look at who they fought and how they won. Pacquiao cruised passed Rios, overcame Bradley, and obliterated Algieri. Khan beat the **** out of Molina, barely survived Diaz, embarrased Collazo, and shutout Alexander. I didn't think Khan became a good option until he beat Alexander, prior to that there should have been no discussion.


At the time Mayweather put up that bogus poll for Maidana and Khan, only one person DESERVED it more. Even though Khan beat Maidana (3 years ago at that time), Maidana deserved it more. He was already at 147 and was 3-1 (2) at that weight. Khan hadn't even moved up yet but was 2-2 and KO'd once at the time.


So while past accomplishments matter, this is a "what have you done for me lately" sport. I'm not saying Khan needs to avenge his losses, because he doesn't, I'm saying your recent 'streak' matters more than what you have done years ago. You can't say Khan is a good opponent because he was hot in 2010. You can't say Khan is a good opponent based on his style despite being beaten convincingly recently. So Khan is a good opponent now, yes. But he was not in 2013. My opinion anyways.


Does that make sense?

 

Their past accomplishments matter, but if you've went down in ranking recently, it should not apply to earning you big fights.

 

" I just don't understand how people are saying pacquiao or khan over a second cotto fight..."

lost interest there.....