Amir khan's bizarre kell brook blast: "there's talk about him being gay"

[smashup]

Let’s get this right..Khan doesn’t need Brook.

Brook is more famous for his two losses than the fights he won.

Solid fighter, but his constant calling out of Khan is cringeworthy.

Khans legacy is already cemented and he can do what he wants..no matter what we all think of him..he creates excitement and people always seem to pay to watch.

This is spot on

[p4pking]

What is khans legacy though? He's defined by his losses too... It's not as if he's bound for the HOF, or that beating brook wouldn't be the highlight of his career. Could be wrong, but he probably sells a lot of tickets for the fact that he's Muslim/from Pakistan? I give him credit for taking challenges, but if that's what he intends to do from here on, why not brook? Its as good a time as any, brook looks like he could be slipping and making the weight could be hard on him. Who makes more sense from a risk reward standpoint?

[Fenster]

Khan was famous before he turned pro, he was Britain's only representative at the Olympics where he got a silver medal. And yes a 17-year-old British/Asian kid was an obvious ticket to stardom. His amateur rematch with Kinedelan (the gold medalist) was primetime live saturday night in front of millions on terrestrial tv. He was PPV when still British title level.

Khan doesn't have a great legacy but certainly a solid world-level one. He has plenty of proven world-class wins (Maidana, Zab, Kotelnik, Paulie, Peterson, Collazo and a bunch of exciting fights). He might get in the HOF, as he's a crossover muslim star - headlining several Vegas shows - who has done shitloads for charity in Pakistan/middle east and the UK/US.

But ultimately his career went from hero to zero.

Without doubt he'll be remembered for being ironed out, getting up to all kinds of embarrassing shit outside the ring and ducking Brook.

[Gandalf]

His fights were NOT PPV level though. They were journeyman career set ups fleecing fans due to hype. This is why many did not like him. It was like how a boyband is presented. It is absurd how British fans are fleeced. I even think the price of Whyte/Chisora is a con job. How much must it cost to be a fight fan? If the fans have to pay PPV they should vote who fights who.

[Fenster]

His fights were NOT PPV level though. They were journeyman career set ups fleecing fans due to hype. This is why many did not like him. It was like how a boyband is presented. It is absurd how British fans are fleeced. I even think the price of Whyte/Chisora is a con job. How much must it cost to be a fight fan? If the fans have to pay PPV they should vote who fights who.

There's no such thing as "PPV level" and nobody whose ever enjoyed a night of boxing has been fleeced. Journeymen produce classics and all-time greats snoozers. It's always been the way, it's unpredictable, that's the beauty. And you have a choice.

Lets be honest, virtually everyone who moans about PPV and boxing on TV isn't really a fan, they just like to watch the odd fight now and then. Anyone not interested in Chisora-Whyte because it's PPV wouldn't have been interested regardless.

[Master]

Just because it has always been the way does not make it right.

There should be standard for PPV level which should be world class fighters fighting one another or unification of major belts. Greedy promoters and their personal rivalries have resulted in poor PPV’s fights which have gradually got worse and now they are putting them on at the same time. There is no real choice for boxing fans who want to watch the fight live on the screen - pay or stream it.

[Fenster]

Just because it has always been the way does not make it right.

There should be standard for PPV level which should be world class fighters fighting one another or unification of major belts. Greedy promoters and their personal rivalries have resulted in poor PPV’s fights which have gradually got worse and now they are putting them on at the same time. There is no real choice for boxing fans who want to watch the fight live on the screen - pay or stream it.

No real choice for boxing fans? Is that a joke? You watch illegal streams every single week regardless of whether or not it's the most famous fighters in the world - Canelo, AJ, Fury, Wilder, GGG - or these "greedy shows" you consider a con.

You moaners don't buy anything, never have and never will, don't even pretend two PPV's at the same time effect you, or the "standard" matters. You'll be here Saturday night posting to yourself and Batman regardless

[imp]

What is khans legacy though? He's defined by his losses too... It's not as if he's bound for the HOF, or that beating brook wouldn't be the highlight of his career. Could be wrong, but he probably sells a lot of tickets for the fact that he's Muslim/from Pakistan? I give him credit for taking challenges, but if that's what he intends to do from here on, why not brook? Its as good a time as any, brook looks like he could be slipping and making the weight could be hard on him. Who makes more sense from a risk reward standpoint?

I would still rather watch Khan vs Crawford.

Khan is exciting and has the worldwide appeal.

Did Brook even beat Porter?

After Porter, why was he not calling out all the other top guys at 147?!..it was the perfect time.

Brook is known for the two courageous losses that nearly lost him an eye.

Khan can do anything he wants..Brook needs this fight as he isn’t very confident about attacking the top guys at 154.

I do want to see the fight.. but I totally understand the business side of things and the fact that Khan loves being arrogant in this situation as he knows he could easily loose.

[smashup]

After Brooks dubious win over Porter he went on a run of fighting piss poor fighters... Jo Jo Dan is one pathetic example.
He was happy to tread water and keep his belt by taking easy fights.
Just compare Khan and Brooks best wins, Khan wipes the floor with him for name scalps.
Its not even close.

[p4pking]

Khan has more name wins for sure, do think Brooks win over porter(yes he clearly won) is as good as any between them though. I definitely agree brook had a weird career path, as has been said. You could’ve argued he wasn’t confident of fighting top opposition, but then he moves up for ggg in his prime and takes on Spence... it didn’t make a lot of sense. His performance against Spence was also extremely good though, better than khan has ever looked arguably.

[Batman]

Why are you lot talking about boxing?

This thread should only be used for discussing if Brook is a massive bumder or not.

[Spicoli]

After Brooks dubious win over Porter he went on a run of fighting piss poor fighters... Jo Jo Dan is one pathetic example.
He was happy to tread water and keep his belt by taking easy fights.
Just compare Khan and Brooks best wins, Khan wipes the floor with him for name scalps.
Its not even close.

Was thinking about that prior and didn't know much of Brook until coming over to fight Porter. But keeping to 147 comparison and relevant scalps faced, for both Porter and Spence win-loss they remain top dogs in the yard right now. And he's just positioned himself to face other top names in another division most recently. Boxing can be a 'what have you done for me lately' gig. Khan can hang his hat on Collazo and Alexander who already lost to the same Porter but he wasted just as much time squealing for a Mayweather fantasy as he did doing relevant work.