What's next for Khan ?

Its well publicised Khan was waiting on a fight with either Floyd or Manny, with these two meeting that's down the pan now. So what is realistically Amir Khan's next matchup ? I warmed to Khan over the past few years but he seems to reverted to a delusion of grandeur with recent statements of "Floyd took the easy option" and "Brook is not on my level". What recently has elevated Khan to this opinion ?? Brook beat Porter who handsomely defeated Alexander as did Khan and its not too long back Khan was struggling against Diaz and being pancaked by Garcia.. Realistically Brook seems the most viable option to me , sit out until July/August when the match can be made.

Either...
Brook
Maidana
Broner.. would be my picks but really not sure as Khan seems to think he is the big cheese now.

Cheers, Rodders

You'd have to think that picking up a world title at the weight and being in a massive fight that is viewed as quite 50/50 would elevate him to the status where he would get one of the major names next. Maybe the loser of Mayweather/Pacman.

What next for Khan

Waiting for Mayweather to become available at a guess. At which point when he does he will have fought a rematch with Pacquiao (after winning the first by wide UD yet the judges have it much closer) and then retires after obliterating Manny inside 5 rounds in said rematch.

The list of potentials are:

JMM
Brook
Bradley
Maidana

And he loses by knockout to them all. Kid thinks he's much better than he actually is. Hoodwinked the likes of Trussy here who can't see past how horribly average Alexander & Collazo actually are. As Rodders has said, wasn't long ago he was getting outhustled by the horridly average Peterson, smashed by Garcia and then struggled past a fat LW in Diaz.

Wlad he is not. As Wlad is smart enough to not engage knowing that he has a horribly average chin. Khan wades in thinking he's Chuvalo once he gets tagged and involved in the ensuing brawl.

We haven't got a hope for Brook. Which is weird as it'd be massive here and would earn him a career high payday. Expect him to challenge an average LW like Algieri.

C'mon Khan - grow some of the necessaries and get it on with Brook.

Keith Thurman's looking for an opponent if he beats Guerrero...

Herman Jaggery wrote:Keith Thurman's looking for an opponent if he beats Guerroro...

Thing is if they're involved a FOTY candidate (and I think it'll be a half decent scrap but not that sort of barnstormer) or it's controversial then they'll have a rematch.

The dimwit and his "advisors" have already got it wrong numerous times so should chase someone who's available. Should also not mention Cotto again, bit embarrassing that whole shambles.

Tone it down Coxy.

Bradley for starters doesn't knock anybody out and i've always had serious doubts he makes it competitive against Khan, he's good just doesn't have that USP to beat someone so much quicker than him.

Maidana didn't knock him out when they fought and he threw the kitchen sink at him in that tenth round, he's still slow and fairly ponderous.

Marquez is just too old now and despite the Pacquiao knockout isn't someone i'd consider a big puncher above lightweight, give him a punchbag like Alvarado and he'll still look half decent.

Brook is the most interesting match up, has a bit of everything but again like Bradley is he good enough in any one area? I could the fight going one of two ways; either Brook times Khan on the way in and edges to a decision or Khan simply outspeeds and outworks him on the way to a comfortable and clear decision. Brook is too measured a fighter to be steamrolling through Khan, he'll take his time and wait for the openings, he will not go gung-ho.

Julio Diaz may have fought at lightweight but so did Khan and he was definitely not fat, just a lazy and incorrect assessment of the situation.

Brook would seem the sensible option, is easy to make, would sell well domestically and would be an almost certain PPV fight in the UK. Also a route back to a belt for Khan and is winnable. Ticks all the boxes for me.

Think most of us would like to see Brook v Khan at some point..........

Have an uneasy feeling though that we might have just seen it with Khan v Alexander........

Manny v May may be a good thing for Khan.............It's a fight that won't be won easy and Khan is still a young Man.....

From a Manager point of view it may be best to just shoot the breeze for a while with a 70/30 fight while he sees where the cards drop after May 2nd........

Whoever he chooses the future looks bright and it seems he's found the right trainer...

Bradley for starters doesn't knock anybody out and i've always had serious doubts he makes it competitive against Khan, he's good just doesn't have that USP to beat someone so much quicker than him.

"Lost" to Pacquiao (yet got the nod) in a competitive fight, seemed to cope ok with Pacmans blistering speed. And Willie Limond couldn't knock out his grandma, yet had Khan on the seat of his pants. Going on the Pacquiao fight he seemed to do rather well against a massive odds on favourite who is nigh on as quick as Khan but is better in every other area. Yes, styles make fights et all - did Khan like getting roughed up by Peterson? Nope. And Timbo isn't exactly scared to get down and dirty now.. especially with that rock solid noggin of his.

Maidana didn't knock him out when they fought and he threw the kitchen sink at him in that tenth round, he's still slow and fairly ponderous.

Maidana now he has a proper trainer has come on leaps and bounds. Crude slugger = all wrong for Khan and he knows it. He'd be making noises about rematching him after what was an entertaining fight last time out. But he's not... guy was a big enough drawer for FMJ to fight him but not Khan?

Marquez is just too old now and despite the Pacquiao knockout isn't someone i'd consider a big puncher above lightweight, give him a punchbag like Alvarado and he'll still look half decent.

Is again relative. If he can knock out Pacquaio and figure him out he can certainly do the same to Khan. As you say, it's how far he's slid at to whether Khan gets past the 6th

Brook is the most interesting match up, has a bit of everything but again like Bradley is he good enough in any one area? I could the fight going one of two ways; either Brook times Khan on the way in and edges to a decision or Khan simply outspeeds and outworks him on the way to a comfortable and clear decision. Brook is too measured a fighter to be steamrolling through Khan, he'll take his time and wait for the openings, he will not go gung-ho.

For such an easy fight and such a big payday I'm finding it a bit random that Khan wants absolutely no piece of him?

Julio Diaz may have fought at lightweight but so did Khan and he was definitely not fat, just a lazy and incorrect assessment of the situation.

One was a career lightweight. The other one wasn't.

How long ago was Willie Limond ??

Larry Holmes nearly got stopped by Snipes..........So what ??......

You must have an agenda pal because If you can't see that this kid is world class you've got a problem..

I'll leave you to it Coxy.

Brook next would be preferable, a big fight in this country but that I feel is why it won't happen, the pair of them would sell it over here and I don't think Khan's ego could handle it.

Aside from that the winner of Thurman-Guerrero would be good or maybe Bradley, as usual he's waited too long and left himself short of options as everyone else has fights lined up.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:How long ago was Willie Limond ??

Larry Holmes nearly got stopped by Snipes..........So what ??......

You must have an agenda pal because If you can't see that this kid is world class you've got a problem..

And? Everyone still views Wlad's chin as glass-esque - you learn to protect the chin, you can't make it Chuvalo-esque. Wlad bores people to death but is effective at protecting his chin. Khan still gets wild and doesn't.

The kid isn't world class, FFS. His best wins are Alexander and Collazo and he's 2-4 in his last 6 - that ain't world class. World class would insinuate being on the verge of P4P (or already being on the list) level - he's not exactly near is he Trussy?

Get the blinkers off would you?

2-4
Only just got the nod against the "elite" Diaz and could quite easily be 3-3

One thing for sure, Amir can't just sit around waiting for one of Manny or Floyd to oblige him. Strategically, it would seem to make sense to clear up enough of the available credible welterweight opposition that he makes himself the obvious candidate to fight the winner (rather than the relatively damaged goods loser) of Floyd-Manny. That probably means Brook, but it does bring a guy like Thurman into the reckoning as a decent option.

If all went well, it might be as long as a year before Khan could share a ring with the winner of Manny-Floyd. There could be a re-match of that fight, as others have said, although possibly not if it turns out to be the stinker that we all devoutly hope that it won't be. That gives Khan space to do a number on Brook (which I happen to think he would) and outspeed someone like Bradley (again, a strong possibility), thereby making him the undoubted first choice if either Mayweather or Pacquiao decided that they want a different challenge.

I have the same problem with you that I have with Haz...........Coxy boy.

I get criticised for popping at Louis and Duran...............But Duran is 11 on my ATG list and Louis is number 2 on my Heavy !!!..

You two just completely dismiss a top class fighter with very little reasoning........

Hopkins lost to a guy called Clinton Mitchell before he hit the World stage........Manny lost to no-names too !!............Limond and Prescott are forgivable.....

He was dominating Garcia and got caught.............The other time he beat a guy on steroids and lost.....

We can all play silly games with records..........I'll do it with my number 1 Ali....

Frazier was sloppy seconds.........
Liston threw both fights.......
Foreman was green.......
and he lost to Norton three times.........

Thing is, the brook fight is always there for khan... The Brit public will always buy it, even if either of them picks up a loss in the meantime. I would like to see khan brook, but if I managed Khan I'd try and find a well known but light hitting opponent to keep busy and profile up and try and get the winner or loser of manny/floyd.  

With that fight being only may 2nd, there's also an argument to wait and see how it goes. On balance, given there's every chance of a rematch and the time it takes to negotiate a big fight, better to take a relatively safe fight now.

I think khan beats brook, but If he fights brook and loses, those fights are likely gone forever. Brook will likely always be there.

I'll agree with you on the above Truss, it's all very subjective and it may be somewhat obvious but I'm not his biggest fan.

Personally from a domestic point of view I'd want him to face Brook. Spent years with the Hatton/Witter nonsense (unlike Witter brook went to America and beat a much fancied name), would rather not repeat that again.

If he were to fight someone across the pond then someone like Thurman, Garcia, Maidana, Bradley would suffice. JMM also, but if he's slid then I don't want to see him in the ring again.

And before anyone chirps some of my favourite cricketers to watch/follow have been Afridi, Ahktar, Younis etc.

Unless Brook goes and loses in a "routine" defence in the meantime, milky. Outside Floyd and Manny, Khan wouldn't get paid as well against any other fighter right now as Brook. Don't know how important that is to him, but nurturing a fight for the future can be taken too far. The iron is as hot now as it's ever likely to be and I would accordingly like to see Khan strike. To me, there's a greater risk that Brook gets beaten before Khan can get at him than that Amir will actually lose to Brook, whom I regard as a sound, but far from exceptional, belt-holder.

He hasn't got the desired Mayweather fight for May, and due to Ramadan Floyd's other classic September date is out - with all that in mind, there is absolutely no reason why Khan shouldn't want to take the Brook fight this summer. Everything points to it and it's the obvious, most straight-forward option (as long as Brook doesn't fluff his lines against Dan, of course).

It's also highly winnable - I'm not sure how Brook is going to win based on styles and Khan's recent form. An IBF belt on the line, possibly big enough to the a stadium fight over here and certainly big enough for PPV, starting as the betting favourite and a chance to take a good fighter's '0'. There's a hell of a lot in it for Khan and I can't figure out what other option could possibly be ahead of Brook in his mind right now.

Failing that, though, I'd like to see the Bradley fight. Still a bit of needle between them and has that 'unfinished business' feel to it due to them not meeting at 140 when they were the top two guys there. But it's a harder fight to win than Brook, and doesn't yield a title (not a necessity, but still a nice bonus) for Khan if he were to win, which I'm not sure he would. There's a theory growing for some reason that Bradley is slow or some kind of plodder - he's not as fast as Khan, but he's quicker in hand and foot than the likes of Peterson and Garcia, that's for sure. He's also a bully on the inside and knows how to get there, which is Khan's weakest area.

But the Brook fight ticks all the boxes ahead of that one (or any other one) anyway.

I'm not convinced that the Brook fight is as big fight as us fans believe, Brook is hardly a household name, and  it would need some hyping to get it up to stadium filler (but if Clev v Bellows 3 is.. who knows). I don't believe that Khan would duck him any more than Hatton ducked Witter, or Calzhge ducked Froch, but giving a local, dangerous rival a payday seems to bother some fighters-it's an ego thing more than a fear thing.

Not in a global sense, HH, but then again, nor was Froch-Groves II, really, and yet it not only filled Wembley, but got the attention of the US fight fraternity as a result. Not saying that Khan and Brook are household names in America either, but they certainly bring CVs that are every bit as sound as Groves's, for example.

In the UK, only Frampton-Quigg would be in the same parish as a domestic stoush. Fight fans here have shown that they have the appetite for that sort of thing. Surely, with the added element of cross-Pennine rivalry, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of the marketing boys and girls to fill one of the northern football stadia?

it shouldn't be beyond the wit of the marketing boys and girls to fill one of the northern football stadia?

Will be held down south. Not wanting to offend, there is a north/south divide in terms of earnings. Financial capital of europe is here etc.

Interesting quote from Khan:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2373812-what-mayweather-pacquiao-might-mean-for-amir-khan-and-kell-brook

Khan, per the Daily Mirror, said at the start of February that Brook was an option, saying: "It would bring a lot of money for him to fight me. But he's my third choice. You know who the first two are: Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao."

So the first two are now tied up fighting each other... Khan can't fight in September - will be totally perplexed having said the above that he wouldn't sign to fight Brook

captain carrantuohil wrote:Unless Brook goes and loses in a "routine" defence in the meantime, milky. Outside Floyd and Manny, Khan wouldn't get paid as well against any other fighter right now as Brook. Don't know how important that is to him, but nurturing a fight for the future can be taken too far. The iron is as hot now as it's ever likely to be and I would accordingly like to see Khan strike. To me, there's a greater risk that Brook gets beaten before Khan can get at him than that Amir will actually lose to Brook, whom I regard as a sound, but far from exceptional, belt-holder.

That's true to a point captain, and I hadn't discounted it, but I think they could both lose and it would still be sold as a make or break comeback for ex British world champions. The money on these fights are made in the ability to sell to none fight fans, nobody outside of Sheffield who isn't a fight fan has heard of brook anyway. Just like no-one had heard of groves. Though,of course  one of the protagonists having a belt helps the sell.

There is a fair argument brook khan might never be bigger than it is now, but I think on a risk management basis you can assume, that injury, retirement etc aside it will always be pretty big this side of the pond.

Would certainly agree that you can't base an entire career on mapping the timing of future fights, as there's always a curve ball coming from somewhere.

My feeling for khan is if he loses to brook he has nowhere to go in the immediate future, if he loses to anyone else he still has brook... Ie 2 guaranteed decent pay days, not 1.

It's not cut and dry obviously. The higher risk, possibly higher gain strategy is to take brook, win, use the belt as leverage for a unification (if that matters to the marketability these days) with the winner of floyd manny... Or as a belt (if that matters these days) to entice the loser.

I don't think Brook v Khan is as big a fight as people think.............

Khan is a biggish name but Brook isn't well known out of the "trade"..........

In big British fights I've known.............There is a big pull for either fighter.......Or a great selling point !!

Lewis v Bruno...........Benn v Eubank.........Froch v Groves 2 !!

I think people are in-different to kell...........If it's big it's because of Khan and If Hearn is looking for parity then forget it !!

Also agree with those who say it should be made as soon as possible ............Kell is good but not that good and I'm not sure Hearn will be able to take the Pee with the Welterweight crown like he's been doing with the WBA super bantam !!

and Khan likes to give suckers a break...........

I think what we'll see though Truss is the "wish I was there" non-hardcore fan jumping on the bandwagon after Froch vs Groves I/II. Similar to what we saw with the paraOlympics that did so well here after the Olympics themselves.

There is enough of a buzz around boxing at present for this fight to surf that particular wave - so whilst you think we're overestimating the fight itself (I don't believe we are, they genuinely don't like each other and it'll make for great viewing in the build up) I think you're ignoring the aforementioned wave.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
If you can't see that this kid is world class you've got a problem..

He's definitely world class. It's just a shame it's one in a far off galaxy and not this one.

Paulie went on to have success after he got beat............Maidana too.........McCloskey was Euro champion and he outclassed Judah and Alexander........

Now If that doesn't suggest a guy is world class then I'm missing something !!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Paulie went on to have success after he got beat............Maidana too.........McCloskey was Euro champion and he outclassed Judah and Alexander........

Now If that doesn't suggest a guy is world class then I'm missing something !!

For me Khan's definitely not world class at welterweight.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Paulie went on to have success after he got beat............Maidana too.........McCloskey was Euro champion and he outclassed Judah and Alexander........

Now If that doesn't suggest a guy is world class then I'm missing something !!

adjective: world-class; adjective: worldclass

(of a person, thing, or activity) of or among the best in the world.

He's not though. Even at WW there is a clear, clear gap between FMJ, Pacquiao, Bradley, JMM and Khan + the rest.

Can't be world class and there be a gulf in class to those ranked above you in terms of notable career wins to date and so forth.

That's garbage.............Manny and May are legends..........

So there wasn't world class heavyweights in the 60s when Ali was dominating ??

Come on..........

Of course he's world class; whether he would beat Pacquiao and Mayweather or not, he's that. You don't need to be the apex predator of your division to be regarded as world-class; there have been hundreds of fighters throughout the ages who never sniffed a title who would merit the description.

In the case of Khan, if you can go through the fire against Maidana and dismiss someone like Alexander (both also world-class, by the way) then you're obviously entitled to the epithet. No, he's not an all-time great, or a likely candidate for my Hall of Fame. Once again, it has nothing to do with his standing as a world-class fighter. Colin Jones, to give one example of a fighter from these islands who achieved less than Khan has, was undoubtedly a world-class fighter - the fact that he fell short of the ultimate goal against better men in no way detracts from that judgement.

Anyone who thinks otherwise has problems understanding what the term "world-class" actually means.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:That's garbage.............Manny and May are legends..........

So there wasn't world class heavyweights in the 60s when Ali was dominating ??

Come on..........

Note I gave the example of a group of fighters at world class level. FMJ is ahead of Pacquaio/Bradley/JMM but that group are ahead of the likes of Khan/Brook/etc as respective groups. You couldn't make a case for Khan or Brook being ranked among that group even though they're right behind them in the ratings.

Not saying you can but it doesn't mean he's not World class......

I wouldn't put Bradley in that group..........

Wouldn't put Curry, Starling and Brown in Leonard and Hearns class..........But they were world class..

Just to proverbially **** on your bonfire Coxy, Brook and Khan are ranked ahead of JMM and Bradley, you seem to have missed a years worth of results.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Just to proverbially **** on your bonfire Coxy, Brook and Khan are ranked ahead of JMM and Bradley, you seem to have missed a years worth of results.

I'm guessing you're looking at The Ring's rankings.

http://ringtv.craveonline.com/ratings/welterweight

Out of that list Khan has only fought Maidana at light welter and Brook only fought Porter. Rankings are gerrymandered nonsense.

When the dictionary defines world-class as "of a quality or standard regarded as high around the world", I don't think there is any defence to the argument that Khan somehow doesn't make the cut. Even in these days of cheapened titles, his CV is chock-full of opponents who have also attained such a standard; his rating around the world is accordingly high. Only in certain corners of this board is that status mystifyingly denied to Khan. What is he then, Euro-level? Domestic class?

Fringes of the top 30 boxers of all time at any weight in Britain, say his achievements, above the Sibsons, Colin Joneses and John H. Straceys of this world, with all due deference to their almost equally world-class credentials.

They also haven't lost/drawn their last fights which some seem to be forgetting.

Bradley well and truly burst the Marquez bubble, whose bubble was burst by Pacwuiao, throw in unconvincing fights against Prov and Chavez then they clearly aren't undeserving of their rankings.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Just to proverbially **** on your bonfire Coxy, Brook and Khan are ranked ahead of JMM and Bradley, you seem to have missed a years worth of results.

Wlad is also rated above Pacquiao in the P4P list. Your point is?

I hate to sound like a fan boy ( Strongy, cover your ears ), but I think Hearn could build Khan v Brook into a very big UK clash.

I'd love to see Khan in with Mayweather or Manny but it's time to shelve that for 12 months ( May v Manny and Ramadan see to that ), he needs to focus on making something significant happen for his career in 2015. He has played the waiting game before and it didn't pay off. If he sits and waits now he's making a mistake.

In fairness though, Hammersmith, that 'draw' on Bradley's record against Chaves was a howler of a verdict. Has anyone come across a single observer yet who agreed with what the judges cobbled together in that one? Not one of Bradley's best showings but he clearly won the fight by 3 rounds or so at the very least, for me (I had it wider).

2014 was a renaissance of sorts for Khan, whereas it was a year to forget for Bradley, but based on their overall exploits I think Bradley's record is more reassuring than Khan's in terms of being able to churn out the results against the really top names without having those slip ups that Khan has been prone to. As of right now I've got no issue with Khan being ahead of Bradley in these kind of listings (which as others have said, are never an exact science in any case) due to his very good recent form, but I'm not really convinced he's a better fighter than Bradley per se.

Khan hit much lower depths than where Bradley's at now with his dubious loss to Peterson, stoppage defeat to Garcia and then unconvincing showing against Diaz all in the space of sixteen months, and it only took a couple of good showings against Collazo and Alexander for him to get right back in the mix again. Bradley should be more than capable of doing the same as soon as those eye and jaw injuries have healed. He'd probably still start as favourite ahead of any Welter out there aside from the two biggest guns.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Of course he's world class; whether he would beat Pacquiao and Mayweather or not, he's that. You don't need to be the apex predator of your division to be regarded as world-class; there have been hundreds of fighters throughout the ages who never sniffed a title who would merit the description.

In the case of Khan, if you can go through the fire against Maidana and dismiss someone like Alexander (both also world-class, by the way) then you're obviously entitled to the epithet. No, he's not an all-time great, or a likely candidate for my Hall of Fame. Once again, it has nothing to do with his standing as a world-class fighter. Colin Jones, to give one example of a fighter from these islands who achieved less than Khan has, was undoubtedly a world-class fighter - the fact that he fell short of the ultimate goal against better men in no way detracts from that judgement.

Anyone who thinks otherwise has problems understanding what the term "world-class" actually means.

The vast majority of the SKY team?

I think Bradley is massively over rated, would back both Khan and Brook to beat him, he's a solid boxer but ive never been that impressed by him. 

I acknowledge the dodgy draw against Chavez but it was a performance that would lead to more criticism were it Khan for instance.

To be honest HH, he did get robbed blind in that fight. Was miles ahead of most cards, so not sure what else he could've done barring knock the guy out. And the form the judges were on that night he'd have still probably scraped a SD out of it in any case.

I'm not Bradleys biggest fan, think the rough and tumble nature of how he boxes is wrong for Khan in that he wouldn't let him settle in to a rhythm. For me, if Khan comes out of those pretty flashy combos and gets sucked into a fight is when he's vulnerable. Bradley wouldn't just stand off him like Devon did for instance.

If Khan were to outbox him then I'd hold my hands up and say fair enough.. Then 2 weeks later Timbo would be another hype job thus we need to discount the win

Don't really see how Bradley can be massively overrated, especially when you're comparing him directly to Khan and Brook of all people. Out of those guys, it hasn't been Bradley losing to guys like Prescott, Peterson (admittedly that one comes with a couple of question marks) or Garcia, or going life and death with Diaz or Carson Jones.

Both Khan and Bradley did a nice job on Alexander, with Khan's being a bit more one-sided. Outside of that, though, I'd say their best wins (Marquez, Provodnikov, Witter and Peterson for Bradley, against Maidana, Judah, Malignaggi and Kotelnik for Khan) arguably favour Bradley, and though in hindsight people are downplaying it, he managed something that Pacquiao hasn't done in four attempts against Marquez - basically getting a decision against him almost universally accepted as being a fair one. I'd say he's certainly shown himself to be a more multi-dimensional fighter than Brook has so far, given his different approaches to fights (rough and tough on the inside against Alexander and Provodnikov, more measured on the outside and using his feet and upper body movement more against Witter and Marquez etc). I think an argument can be made that he's the most adaptable of the three in question and he's been the most consistent at title / world level.

Bradley and Khan both have had that air of vulnerability about them and have flitted between brilliance and relative mediocrity, but there are less damaging defeats or alarming performances on Bradley's record than there are on Khan's. I'm not arguing that Bradley is in a different league to him by any means, but based on what each man has actually shown so far, there's no way Khan should be considered a class above either, as far as I can see.

Bradley's win over Junior Witter is underrated too........

Good technician was Witter........

88Chris05 wrote:Don't really see how Bradley can be massively overrated, especially when you're comparing him directly to Khan and Brook of all people. Out of those guys, it hasn't been Bradley losing to guys like Prescott, Peterson (admittedly that one comes with a couple of question marks) or Garcia, or going life and death with Diaz or Carson Jones.

Both Khan and Bradley did a nice job on Alexander, with Khan's being a bit more one-sided. Outside of that, though, I'd say their best wins (Marquez, Provodnikov, Witter and Peterson for Bradley, against Maidana, Judah, Malignaggi and Kotelnik for Khan) arguably favour Bradley, and though in hindsight people are downplaying it, he managed something that Pacquiao hasn't done in four attempts against Marquez - basically getting a decision against him almost universally accepted as being a fair one. I'd say he's certainly shown himself to be a more multi-dimensional fighter than Brook has so far, given his different approaches to fights (rough and tough on the inside against Alexander and Provodnikov, more measured on the outside and using his feet and upper body movement more against Witter and Marquez etc). I think an argument can be made that he's the most adaptable of the three in question and he's been the most consistent at title / world level.

Bradley and Khan both have had that air of vulnerability about them and have flitted between brilliance and relative mediocrity, but there are less damaging defeats or alarming performances on Bradley's record than there are on Khan's. I'm not arguing that Bradley is in a different league to him by any means, but based on what each man has actually shown so far, there's no way Khan should be considered a class above either, as far as I can see.

I would discount Provodnikov as a win of note instantly, for me one of the worst boxers of recent times to be able to call himself a 'world champion', Bradley struggling with him is worse than Jones for Brook whom he did a real number on in the rematch.

It's hard to question his achievements but when I watch him I don't think; 'this guy is among the best in the world'. He's very uninspiring and for much of his career is someone to avoid watching, just does not excite me in the slightest, had Pacquiao got the deserved decision first time around I doubt we'd be having this discussion. The Marquez win is up for debate (not the actual decision which was correct), how good was he at 147lbs and for me the answer is probably not that great but still being Pacmans bogeyman elevates him.

As for the judges, I think we can all agree that Bradley has had more preferential treatment than Khan; getting the 'win' over Pacquiao while Khan has the 'loss' to Peterson, if you were to right those two wrongs this debate would have a very different outlook.

At the end of the day I think it boils down to the fact i'd rather watch Khan or Brook and rate their actual skillset far higher than the jack of all trades Bradley.

As yet, Brook's CV doesn't quite entitle him to mention in the same breath as Khan or Bradley; he may belong there, but we can't say so for sure on this February day in 2015. That's part of what would make a fight between any two of the three such a very interesting proposition - is Brook one of the real ones? Now dare I say it, but going to the US and beating Porter assures us that Brook is at the very least world-class; what it doesn't tell us is whether that is indicative that he belongs in the pack that is yapping at the heels of the big 2 or in the tier below that.

Personally, I'm unsure about the answer. I imagine that Brook would give a decent account of himself against either Bradley or Khan. Whether that would be enough to win is debatable but it would at least be nice to have the chance to find out one way or another. As for which of the three I'd rather watch in action, then Khan every day, but handsome is as handsome does, as they say, and I don't see why Bradley should be docked points for having a boxing modus operandi that is less than easy on the eye.

Think you're being unreasonable, Hammersmith. Provodnikov worse than Carson Jones? He's no great shakes but that's a stretch too far. Provodnikov's defeats have come via a disputed loss to Herrera, who himself should have usurped Garcia as the man who beat the man at 140 last year in my and many other people's eyes, Bradley and Algieri, who despite the chasing off Pacquiao is still obviously a talented, neat boxer.

Jones hasn't even contested, never mind competed well, at world title level yet like Provodnikov has. After giving Brook a tough night he got held to a draw by Dean Byrne. Dean came across as a lovely lad on the podcast, but watching him not long after getting outclassed by Belaev puts his (and Jones') level in to perspective. Provodnikov is a divisional top tenner, Jones is a journeyman and while Corley and Alvarado are hardly stellar wins on Provodnikov's part, I can't think of any win Jones has achieved that would displace them.

I don't particularly think that Khan getting the split decision against Peterson would change all that much either, given that Peterson was shut out by Bradley and that Khan's losses / issues with Prescott, Garcia and Diaz are still in the memory to varying degrees. With regards to his win over Pacquiao, I didn't even list it amongst Bradley's achievements for the simple reason that virtually nobody regards it as such, so a bit of a red herring, for me.

Can't argue with you on the last paragraph as that's obviously a subjective, personal thing. Bradley's not at the forefront of fighters that I'd always be willing to shell out for either, don't get me wrong. But I think he gets a bit of a raw deal with regards to his actual results and achievements.

Sorry but I agree with Hammer..........

Provo is awful.................He's just a walking target.........

Put him in Maussa's league..

You think he's at the same level as Carson Jones, Truss?

I should have quantified that statement by saying Bradley was a defending world champion rather than Brook not having fought at that level, at the respective times in their career it's worse.

For me Garcia and Diaz are relevant for Khan but not Prescott or Peterson, it's like using Firemen Flynn against Dempsey.

If the three were to fight a round robin I would not be expecting Bradley to win against either, he's slower than both, possesses less power than both, less punch variety and dare I say is the inferior body puncher of the three.