Kell Brook v Errol Spence Jr

Current Pac is obviously an underdog against Thurman, but he's a live dog. If he beat Thurman now, it wouldn't be much of a shock.

I know that current Pac sure as FUCCCKKKK ain't gonna fight Spence. Roach would never allow it.

If there's any top fighter left that Pac can still beat... it's Garcia's mediocre ass.

 

You guys react like if Brook was this unbeatable champ who got defeated by a terminator-like Spence. Styles makes fights. I wasn't impressed at all with Spence's crowning performance. Thurman beats him convincingly IMO.

 

I don't see why some claims Brook is a better fighter than Thurman. He has a much weaker resume and at the at the very least, their performance against Porter was equivalent.

I guess some were really impressed by his destructions of no hoppers Bizier and Dan

 

I felt Brook outboxed Porter with less difficulty than Thurman.

Thurman-Porter was much more exciting, but that's because Shawn was able to get more done against Keith.

 

Considering that it was a fight where a lot of people think it could have gone either way, I think you are in the minority.

And Thurman-Porter was more exciting cause Thurman decided to fight fire with fire, and not hold constantly a la Brook

 

w/Out Question, Spence's Style will AGE Better than Thurman's...Just as BHop and Toney's Style AGED Better than Roy's...

REED Honestly Thinks Thurman's STACKING his Paper Until he Inevitably Has to Face Spence...Similar to Canelo's Treatment of Triple G, Only Time ISN'T on Thurman's Side in this Case, as You've Noted...






REED

 

REED Can Already Tell You What'll Happen...

Thurman Will Sit Out the Rest of 2017...His Comeback Will Be Against his WBA Mandatory, then Porter (the WBC Mandatory)...If When he Faces Spence, it'll Be LATE 2018...





REED

 

Triple G and Spence are Better than Anyone Thurman's Been in w/, and Brook Beat Porter More DECISIVELY than Thurman...

REED Didn't Get Around to Seeing Brook-Porter Until the Spence Fight was Signed...The Bout WASN'T Nearly as Close as REED Heard, NOR Did Brook Hold as Much as Advertised...The Holding was More MUTUAL than Anything and Brook Landed the CLEANER Shots by Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar....

He's BETTER than Keith Thurman...And REED Said as Much PRIOR to the Spence Fight...





REED

 

IMO, you're not including losses in a resume, especially when you quit in these losses. It is not even discutable that Thurman has beaten much better fighter then Brook, and looked more impressive doing so (Thurman never needed some frienly judges to get the nod against some midwest bum)
I also strongly disagree with the statement that Brook beat Porter more decisively than Thurman did.

 

Thurman didn't beat Porter impressively. He had a lot of trouble in that fight. More trouble than Brook had with him.

 

Brook was also far from impressive against porter. The Brook-Porter fight is quickly turning into one of fightbeat biggest myth (alongside the supposedly dominating performace Calz had against Bhop, despite the press row favoring the latter)

 

GGG's No Worse than a Top 5 Guy, Pound for Pound, and w/the Exception of Daniel Jacobs, NO Fighter has Looked BETTER Against Him than Kell Brook has...Not By Miiiiiiiles...If Anybody "Cracked the Code" on HOW to Successfully Fight Triple G, it was Kell Brook...

Rest Assured, After You SEE How Spence Disposes of Thurman, Comparatively Speaking, You'll AGREE Brook was the BETTER Fighter All Along...

Carson Jones was NEVER a World Class Fighter, but was a LOT More than "Some Midwest Bum", for Certain...Just Ask Olympic Silver Medalist, Ricardo Williams...

Brook Never Even STRUGGLED w/Porter and Beat him Convincingly, in REED's Opinion...The Majority Decision was a JOKE, as Brook Won UNANIMOUSLY...Thurman Had a MUCH Rougher Route to Victory, w/the Same Man...





REED

 

In COMPARISON to Thurman-Porter, Brook's Performance was MORE Impressive...

The Level of Brook's Holding has Been EXAGGERATED and he Landed the CLEANER Shots by Faaaaaaaaaaaar...






REED

 

Brook using his speed against a bigger opponent to win 2 rounds is not what a call an impressive feat. As I said before, the only reason to rate Brook as a better fighter than Thurman is based on him blowing out some no hoppers. Thurman has beaten a lot more top fighters than Brook, and he generally looked much better than him.

 

Brook clearly outboxed Porter. It was always a myth that he "struggled" in that fight. He landed the cleaner shots, hurt Porter a couple of times, and neutralized him throughout.

Thurman beat Porter in a very competitive fight. Porter hurt him TWICE to the body and Thurman looked very vulnerable and shaky.

 

20% of the presse row had Porter winning against Brook. And IIRC no more than 20% had Brook by more than 2 rounds. Clear win my ass

 

You DO Realize Porter was the HOUSE Fighter and was SUPPOSED to Win that Fight, Right???...80% of Press Row Scoring the Fight for Brook Shows Just How DECISIVE it Was...

Brook was just "Some Guy from England" Coming into that Fight...As Such, Porter Likely Got the BENEFIT of Every Close Round...

If You Re-watch the Fight, REED Can GUARANfuckingTEE You'll Find it Much More of a CLEAR Win than You Remembered...




REED

 

I expect journalist to have a certain degree of integrity and knowledge that most fans lack. so I don't think it is reasonnable to assume they were biaised, especially considering that Porter was far from a star and that they probably was quite a few british journalists among them.

as for rewatching the fight, I'll abstain. Was a fucking bore

 

I was at that fight. Brook won convincingly. Zero controversy. I didn't hear anyone in attendance claiming otherwise

 

Let's say that I don't put much stock into what you say since you're not exactly known for your cognitive capacities

 

Porter won 4 rounds TOPS against Brook. I had it 9-3 Brook. It was a VERY clear victory.

Thurman-Porter I had 8-4 for Keith, but you could make a cas that Porter won 5 rounds.

Brook won more convincingly than Keith. He neutralized Porter more effectively than Keith, and he hurt Porter more than Keith did.

 

If he only won 4 rounds top, then why did 20% of the press row had Porter winning?

That's why it's useless to discuss with some of you, you think that your opinion is the only one that's valid.

Anyway even if you were right (and I don't think you are) and Brook won 1 round more against Porter than Thurman did, it's far from being enough to offset the tremendous advantage that Thurman has resume wise over Brook.

There's pretty much nothing to suggest that Brook is objectively a better fighter than Thurman

 

If there's one thing I've learned... A LOT of the boxing media are idiots. There's members of this forum that know at least AS MUCH boxing as many of them. I don't mean truly knowledgeable guys like Jake, but a lot of these guys are hacks.

ANYBODY who scored that fight for Porter should never score a fight again.

There's no logical and objective view of that fight that should have Porter as the winner.

Brook outboxed him clear as day.

Granted, it was no Benitez-Duran like beautiful boxing exhibition. It was a boring fight, but Kell controlled it.

 

There's no way to actually PROVE as of now that Brook is better than Thurman. But once Spence dispatches of Thurman easier than Brook, you might change your mind.

Brook will probably never be the same again. The guy now has TWO fucked eyes.

I hope he KOs that joke Khan, then retires.

 

bullshit. jesus of mongrel M.D. has let us all know that fractured orbital bones are minor injuries in the boxing game.

 

All I know is Brook never once appeared to look vulnerable or in trouble against Porter. He was easily in control throughout.

Porter rough up Thurman a lot throughout their fight, landed more clean shots against Thurman than he did Brook, and hurt him twice to the body. Never once did he hurt Brook.

I can't believe the decision in that fight with Brook and Porter is disputed. Was not close.

 

Call me crazy but if Brook decides to move up to 154, is that not asking for trouble? You got guys like Johnny Nelson saying he should stay away from 147. I'm thinking WTF! You have guys in that weight class who are bigger, stronger and punch harder. Brook was broken down at 147 vs Spence, so against guys at 154, he'll surely be in deeper struggle, against the top dogs of the division. Only move up if matched well, but even then, it's still a dangerous move.

 

There's Not Really Any "Break You Down" Type of Fighters @ '54, Currently...

Most of the Elite Super Welters are "Cuteys", Stylistically...






REED

 

Ultimately, Brook Needs Another CLEAN Bill of Health, than a Gimme or 2, Prior to Facing a Live '54 Pounder...

For His Sake, Hopefully he's Been "Exposed" Enough that Khan will Finally Fight Him...EASY Work for Brook, if Healthy...




REED

 

Brook will never be the same. Every time someone hits one of those eyes he'll panic.