Amir Khan vs Adrien Broner

First topic message reminder :

Current reports suggest this is a done deal for May? Broner has since tweeted saying in talks and a that a fight could be round the corner.

On the other hand he could be playing an April fools so who knows but if the fight does occur who wins?

I'm going Khan via UD

DAVE667 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Is he a name in america - Yes
Will Khan look like the bee's Knees - Yes
Does Khan want to force Mayweather into a fight - Yes

How does beating a guy like Broner force Mayweather into a fight? You think Floyd waits for Broner to get slapped and then defends his honour like Vitali did with Wlad? Khan's improving with every fight so why would Mayweather take a risk fighting him now when he didn't fancy it last year?

I was under the impression that he was fighting on the Mayweather undercard, If Khan looks fantastic the clamour may grow. Force I suppose is the wrong word - Incentive is better.

ShahenshahG wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Is he a name in america - Yes
Will Khan look like the bee's Knees - Yes
Does Khan want to force Mayweather into a fight - Yes

How does beating a guy like Broner force Mayweather into a fight? You think Floyd waits for Broner to get slapped and then defends his honour like Vitali did with Wlad? Khan's improving with every fight so why would Mayweather take a risk fighting him now when he didn't fancy it last year?

I was under the impression that he was fighting on the Mayweather undercard, If Khan looks fantastic the clamour may grow. Force I suppose is the wrong word - Incentive is better.

I read Broner had said the fight WASN'T going to be on the undercard...I'll try find the article which may simply be evidence of me not reading stuff properly

Maybe i've read it wrong. When they said may I automaticall thought it was the undercard where everyone wants to be.

Cheers mate, I'm frigged if I can find the article I read either. Maybe I dreamed it all up

There's ego and there's the largest exposure boxing event in modern history.

Be mad to turn down an undercard slot.

Perfect fight for khan from a business perspective. High profile opponent who stylistically is made for him. Gets well paid, keeps his profile up, low risk. Keeps him knocking at floyd and manny's door. The brook fight will still be there for him afterwards.

Plus Broner's a Yank. Never under-estimate the denial of the average American. Plenty over there will still be sucked into how great Broner is, 3 weight world champ etc, so it could still be a 'big win' for Khan over there.

Khan has also said he won't be on the May 2 undercard and said something along the lines of it 'doesn't need a good undercard'.

Hate that mentality, even worse when it comes from boxing fans. I'd rather see big fights on the card of the biggest fight in years. Why wouldn't someone want the exposure?

How much hope do we hold for a good undercard?

Canelo-Mayweather had Garcia Matthysse on it

An undercard fight like that would be great

No way Floyd wants to be upstaged on one of his bills let alone on the biggest fight of his career thus far.

He'll probably have Rigo on the undercard just so he looks like Henry Armstrong in comparison Rs paid Johnny Nelson to come out of retirement to fight De Leon again just so people look forward to watching Floyd. There's a real danger that people watching Nelson/Deleon again will result in a body count to rival the Jonestown Massacre

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Yup. He supports ukip

Actually a Tory supporter. You're probably a socialist hater of those who aren't scrounging off the system so support labour.

You sum up everything that is wrong with a Tory's

Bet you played cricket at some sort of sh|t level aswell........

Hit a nerve with the benefit scrounging have I soldier? Not sure what I've ever said to you, as such you taking an interest in me is just plain weird.

Interest.........just a generalisation of Tory toffs. Like you generalised Labour supporters.

So I take it you play cricket badly then  

Must say I didn't mind labour under Blair, mainly because some of the economic policies were actually right of center.

And I'll tell you if I'm still useless in three weeks and have lost the remaining ability I did possess.

milkyboy wrote:Perfect fight for khan from a business perspective. High profile opponent who stylistically is made for him. Gets well paid, keeps his profile up, low risk. Keeps him knocking at floyd and manny's door. The brook fight will still be there for him afterwards.

Wanky fight for us fans though. The notion that Khan doesn't shirk a challenge is becoming a bit thin from his Maidana/Peterson/Garcia days.

If he doesn't get FMJ or Pac then he's just wasted a few years of his life chasing them/him around.

I do hope he knocks out Broner though, can't stand the guy. Yes Shah, you read that right - I want Khan to win and will be cheering for him. Then as soon as he does the inevitable and wins you'll probably be hearing me talking cack about how good he is and so forth

May 30th is the date Khan is pencilled in for. I like this fight and it makes sense its probably a bigger fight than the Brook one. Fancy Khan like many others to win this on PTS with some hairy moments as always.

Cheers, Rodders

TopHat24/7 wrote:Plus Broner's a Yank.  Never under-estimate the denial of the average American. Plenty over there will still be sucked into how great Broner is, 3 weight world champ etc, so it could still be a 'big win' for Khan over there.

Provocative and rather silly.................

Which ever way you look at it Broner is a good win for Khan.............

Feel sorry for Amir got no credit for alexander who he didn't need to fight !! There were easier keep busy fights..........

Only a complete idiot would think Broner isn't gifted and a test...But there are lots of them around it seems..

Most of us here regard Kessler as a good win for Ward and Froch.................Same applies here should Khan win..

Only a complete idiot would think Broner isn't gifted and a test...But there are lots of them around it seems..

If you struggle to a SD with Malignaggi then good god almighty you're not going to be much of a test to anyone above average at the weight.

Jesus. Christ.

........and in steps the resident Yank to help support my point nicely (albeit not as vociferously as I was expecting)

Coxy001 wrote:

Only a complete idiot would think Broner isn't gifted and a test...But there are lots of them around it seems..

If you struggle to a SD with Malignaggi then good god almighty you're not going to be much of a test to anyone above average at the weight.

Jesus. Christ.

If he'd had the ref Khan got in Washington he'd have outright lost that fight too.

And I'd just like to the whole ya-de-ya-de-da of styles make fights and plenty of fighters have lost to lesser oppo... BUT, Broner hasn't exactly backed up struggling with Paulie by dominating a better opponent. Instead he got spanked sideways by Maidana who ain't exactly a world beater himself.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

Only a complete idiot would think Broner isn't gifted and a test...But there are lots of them around it seems..

If you struggle to a SD with Malignaggi then good god almighty you're not going to be much of a test to anyone above average at the weight.

Jesus. Christ.

If he'd had the ref Khan got in Washington he'd have outright lost that fight too.

Barrera lost twice to Junior Jones..........Starling lost to Blocker..........Robbo with Turpin...Louis wth Conn ..etc etc etc...

History is full of fighters that struggle with certain styles.................

P**s poor argument..

TopHat24/7 wrote:........and in steps the resident Yank to help support my point nicely (albeit not as vociferously as I was expecting)

He's a changed man, plus 12 bans in one month is pushing it a bit!

DAVE667 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:........and in steps the resident Yank to help support my point nicely (albeit not as vociferously as I was expecting)

He's a changed man, plus 12 bans in one month is pushing it a bit!

Hagler vs Vito.............

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

Only a complete idiot would think Broner isn't gifted and a test...But there are lots of them around it seems..

If you struggle to a SD with Malignaggi then good god almighty you're not going to be much of a test to anyone above average at the weight.

Jesus. Christ.

If he'd had the ref Khan got in Washington he'd have outright lost that fight too.

Barrera lost twice to Junior Jones..........Starling lost to Blocker..........Robbo with Turpin...Louis wth Conn ..etc etc etc...

History is full of fighters that struggle with certain styles.................

P**s poor argument..

No it isn't. Nor is that a rebuttal to the point I made.

1. Broner simply has limitations. Two TOTALLY different styles (Khan & Hatton) dealt with Paulie M easily. Broner has no sytlistic excuses for struggling.

2. My point was that Khan got penalised for minor infringements that happen all the time. If Broner had had a similarly 'letter of the law' nit-picky ref he would've have lost to Paulie M as he would have had at least 2 points deducted.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

Only a complete idiot would think Broner isn't gifted and a test...But there are lots of them around it seems..

If you struggle to a SD with Malignaggi then good god almighty you're not going to be much of a test to anyone above average at the weight.

Jesus. Christ.

If he'd had the ref Khan got in Washington he'd have outright lost that fight too.

Barrera lost twice to Junior Jones..........Starling lost to Blocker..........Robbo with Turpin...Louis wth Conn ..etc etc etc...

History is full of fighters that struggle with certain styles.................

P**s poor argument..

No it isn't. Nor is that a rebuttal to the point I made.

1. Broner simply has limitations.  Two TOTALLY different styles (Khan & Hatton) dealt with Paulie M easily. Broner has no sytlistic excuses for struggling.

2. My point was that Khan got penalised for minor infringements that happen all the time.  If Broner had had a similarly 'letter of the law' nit-picky ref he would've have lost to Paulie M as he would have had at least 2 points deducted.

How ever you want to address it...........It is completely silly to suggest a win over Broner isn't a good win.....

Who doesn't have limitations.......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

Only a complete idiot would think Broner isn't gifted and a test...But there are lots of them around it seems..

If you struggle to a SD with Malignaggi then good god almighty you're not going to be much of a test to anyone above average at the weight.

Jesus. Christ.

If he'd had the ref Khan got in Washington he'd have outright lost that fight too.

Barrera lost twice to Junior Jones..........Starling lost to Blocker..........Robbo with Turpin...Louis wth Conn ..etc etc etc...

History is full of fighters that struggle with certain styles.................

P**s poor argument..

No it isn't. Nor is that a rebuttal to the point I made.

1. Broner simply has limitations.  Two TOTALLY different styles (Khan & Hatton) dealt with Paulie M easily. Broner has no sytlistic excuses for struggling.

2. My point was that Khan got penalised for minor infringements that happen all the time.  If Broner had had a similarly 'letter of the law' nit-picky ref he would've have lost to Paulie M as he would have had at least 2 points deducted.

How ever you want to address it...........It is completely silly to suggest a win over Broner isn't a good win.....

Who doesn't have limitations.......

1) the guy has no notable form or ranking above LW

2) he barely got by the more technical PM then got slapped around by a brawler- you can't say it's a junior J scenario as he lost (arguably) twice to two massively different styles

3) he isn't in a top 15 list of WWs/top 5 LWWs

Your argument, as usual, falls down on so many levels it's just made me exhale WTF

Coxy001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

Only a complete idiot would think Broner isn't gifted and a test...But there are lots of them around it seems..

If you struggle to a SD with Malignaggi then good god almighty you're not going to be much of a test to anyone above average at the weight.

Jesus. Christ.

If he'd had the ref Khan got in Washington he'd have outright lost that fight too.

Barrera lost twice to Junior Jones..........Starling lost to Blocker..........Robbo with Turpin...Louis wth Conn ..etc etc etc...

History is full of fighters that struggle with certain styles.................

P**s poor argument..

No it isn't. Nor is that a rebuttal to the point I made.

1. Broner simply has limitations.  Two TOTALLY different styles (Khan & Hatton) dealt with Paulie M easily. Broner has no sytlistic excuses for struggling.

2. My point was that Khan got penalised for minor infringements that happen all the time.  If Broner had had a similarly 'letter of the law' nit-picky ref he would've have lost to Paulie M as he would have had at least 2 points deducted.

How ever you want to address it...........It is completely silly to suggest a win over Broner isn't a good win.....

Who doesn't have limitations.......

1) the guy has no notable form or ranking above LW

2) he barely got by the more technical PM then got slapped around by a brawler- you can't say it's a junior J scenario as he lost (arguably) twice to two massively different styles

3) he isn't in a top 15 list of WWs/top 5 LWWs

Your argument, as usual, falls down on so many levels it's just made me exhale WTF

It's pointless you commenting on Khan................You're so vitriolic towards him it's redundant arguing with you...

Makes one think there is more to it than Boxing..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

Only a complete idiot would think Broner isn't gifted and a test...But there are lots of them around it seems..

If you struggle to a SD with Malignaggi then good god almighty you're not going to be much of a test to anyone above average at the weight.

Jesus. Christ.

If he'd had the ref Khan got in Washington he'd have outright lost that fight too.

Barrera lost twice to Junior Jones..........Starling lost to Blocker..........Robbo with Turpin...Louis wth Conn ..etc etc etc...

History is full of fighters that struggle with certain styles.................

P**s poor argument..

No it isn't. Nor is that a rebuttal to the point I made.

1. Broner simply has limitations.  Two TOTALLY different styles (Khan & Hatton) dealt with Paulie M easily. Broner has no sytlistic excuses for struggling.

2. My point was that Khan got penalised for minor infringements that happen all the time.  If Broner had had a similarly 'letter of the law' nit-picky ref he would've have lost to Paulie M as he would have had at least 2 points deducted.

How ever you want to address it...........It is completely silly to suggest a win over Broner isn't a good win.....

Who doesn't have limitations.......

1) the guy has no notable form or ranking above LW

2) he barely got by the more technical PM then got slapped around by a brawler- you can't say it's a junior J scenario as he lost (arguably) twice to two massively different styles

3) he isn't in a top 15 list of WWs/top 5 LWWs

Your argument, as usual, falls down on so many levels it's just made me exhale WTF

It's pointless you commenting on Khan................You're so vitriolic towards him it's redundant arguing with you...

Makes one think there is more to it than Boxing..

You must have missed the bit where I said I am supporting Khan as I really can't stand Broner.

And look truss, I like others view this as a hand picked business decision fight. Khan gains almost zero off the back of it with most fans. He isn't fighting a top contender, is he?! Thurman, Brook, Bradkey, JMM, Garcia, LM - but he chose a guy who alnost lost to Malignaggi (should have lost) then got spanked by Maidana.

Jesus man, you're almost as bad as D4. It is nothing but cherry picking at it's finest. We all know it's a business fight to get the winner of the big'un, apart from huggers like yourself who now start bigging AB up.

You aren't supporting Khan If you are going to say If/when he wins....he's beating a stiff when he isn't...

Do me a favor...

But still at 147 its a nothing win

Broner is a lightweight

WHU_Champo_League_in_7Yrs wrote:But still at 147 its a nothing win

Broner is a lightweight

He's a former champion at that weight...................

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

WHU_Champo_League_in_7Yrs wrote:But still at 147 its a nothing win

Broner is a lightweight

He's a former champion at that weight...................

He won a paper title, then got battered his first title defence

It appears Amir is fighting Chris Algieri instead of Adrien Broner.

Well then...