Nothing that happened in the fight needs any kind of extra explanation. Brook faded because he was forced to work against a strong pressuring fighter, his face busted up when he couldn't avoid the heavy punches anymore and he gave up when he couldn't avoid the heavy punches and that we're busting up his face.
Yep. About the best you could say is he eeked out a really ugly win. Makes me laugh to hear someone claim he "out-classed" Porter in that fight.
You could theorize that Brook's surrender was related to his GGG loss. But it is not like his demise was sudden or even surprising. The fight easily could've played out the same way even if the GGG fight had never happened. There was more than sufficient punishment sustained to explain fully Brook's defeat.
A Poster that LEGITIMATELY Saw "Subtle Science" in Antonio Margarita LAUGHS at the Notion of Kell Brook "Out Classing" Shawn Porter??? REED
What I saw was one guy trying to push the fight and the other guy resorting to holding to try to slow it down. Brook landed the occasional one and done, often holding Porter immediately after landing. Have always hated guys who fight like that. "Let me hit you and then hold you so you cannot hit me back and I can take a rest." That shit is awful to watch. And I'm always surprised at the number of fans who fall for that shit, like it is good boxing. If refs did their jobs, tactics like that would disappear.
With margarito it turns out there really was something special to his game - loaded gloves. Regardless, "outclass" is the last term I would use to describe what Brook did to Porter
All REED Can Attribute this Characterization of the Bout to is BIAS, Bruh... Somehow you MISSED the Littany of 1-2's, Lead Rights and Left Hooks Brook Caught Porter w/Leaping In...And if You're HONEST w/Yourself, Brook DIDN'T Hold Anymore than Porter Did... Brook Beat Porter MORE Convincingly than Keith Thurman Did, and it's NOT Even Close... REED
True words. Unlike Thurman, never did Brook look vulnerable against Porter. We can honestly argue a 9-3 score for Brook in that fight. Thurman-Porter was actually pretty close by comparison. Brook consistently beat Porter to the punch. He used the jab, landed the one-two, and while he did some holding inside, as has been pointed out Porter initiated a lot of it. I wasn't impressed by Thurman in that fight. I don't think he showed a lot. He just ran whenever Porter got aggressive and looked downright VULNERABLE at times when Porter had him on the ropes and was landing shots. Why this is even a debate is beyond me.
I don't think that it's a coincidence that the ones who praise Brook performance against Porter are the same who've been overhyping Spence for the last few years (and this is coming from someone who thinks that Spence is the real deal). I can't see no other reason, except crass ignorance, why anyone would think Brook looked more impressive against Porter than Thurman did. I guess that by doing so, they think that they can pretend that Spence beat the best WW in the world in brook (which wasn't the case)
Can't Speak for Others, but REED is Basing his Opinion On the FALSE Narrative Presented by Doub (& Probably You as Well) and Others... 1nce REED Got Around to Actually WATCHING Brook-Porter, in its Entirety, NONE of What REED had Previously Heard was Applicable... Funny that YOU'RE Now Accusing Others of an Agenda, or "Crass Ignorance" when REED Loosely Challenged You to Re-Watch the Fight, and You Flat Out Refused...You're Categorically WRONG in this Instance, Bruh... The Fact Is, If You Can OBJECTIVELY Score a Boxing Match, it's Hard NOT to Score Brook-Porter 8-4 for Brook, or Even Possibly 9-3, as Puerto Rock Stated...Not Only Did Brook Win CONVINCINGLY, but his Performance was MORE Impressive than Thurman's, Period... Either REWATCH the Fight, or Let the Shit Go... REED
Brook wasn't that impressive against Porter considering Porter's not that good but he won clearly and looked like he'd win 9 times out of 10 if those same versions fought 10 times.
If Spence could go back in time and fight any fighter it'd be Terry Norris. Very interesting. Perhaps cause he's a fellow Texan?
EJ's Always Been a Fan of Norris' Style... Norris' Career was Over by the Time EJ Started Watching Footage of Him, But he's ALWAYS Been on the Short List of EJ's Favorite Fignters to Watch, Along with Sweet Pea, Roy and Lennox Lewis.... REED's Never Asked Him to Elaborate on his Norris Fandom, But it's Probably Because He was an Aggressive, Athletic Boxer-Puncher, and EJ Fancies Himself as Such... Abel Sanchez, Who Trained Norris, Said Spence Reminded Him of Terry, Stylistically... More than Anything, it Shows EJ's a TRUE Student of the Game...Norris is a Fairly OBSCURE Reference Point, These Days.... REED
Hopefully spence has a better chin than norris. Both were/are mean in the ring. To me norris was a bit sharper puncher with better handspeed
I think it's safe to say that if Spence had a Norris chin, Brook would have exposed it. Terry was more physically talented though, and I'd pick Terry to beat EJ.
Charles Hatley DROPPED Thurman a Time or 2 as Ammy's But Didn't KO him, if REED's Not Mistaken... They Had Some of THE Most Fan Friendly Ammy Bouts You'll EVER See.... REED
Reed please,.. the Hate-ly 'high-guard' is a very outdated maneuver, real embarrassing 'fighting-irish' type of shit. When he couldn't bring 'blanky' the ammy turban into the pro's, he felt compelled to give himself 'horns' --> and thus became arm-less, .........therefore harm-less.