Kell Brook v Errol Spence Jr

IBF Welterweight Championship
May 27th
Bramall Lane, Sheffield

´The Special One' vs 'The Truth': its on.



Thoughts, views, rants, etc

 

Great. More Carl Froch bullshit.

 

Definitely looking forward to this one. Will it be on network TV like Thurman/Garcia was?

 

Obviously, Spence is favored to win. But Brook's size alone will no doubt present a challenge for him.

 

You´ll have to educate me on this.
Spence is taller and has a longer reach....and as they´ll be weighing in at 147lb. :scratcher: :dunno:

 

So you're saying weigh-ins (weight classes) mean there are no size disparities between opponents? Ever? So all the hundreds of cases I've seen of fighters enjoying a size advantage? My imagination?

 

Give me some examples.
I watched Jacobs fight the other night and everyone was going ´oh he´s a light-heavyweight´

I can see how a guy would weight more at fight-time, but in Jacobs case, he didn´t look that ´big´ to me.
Not like if Kovalev was in there :dunno:

 

I see where you're coming from but Dark Magus is right: there is no size advantage for a shorter person with a shorter reach, if they both weigh the same on the scale.

 

It's gonna be on Showtime. And I like that better.

Fuck a CBS/NBC.

 

Spence by stoppage.

 

So if that's true, why do fighters get props for competing in multiple weight classes? You're saying Duran's victory over Moore is no bigger achievement than his win over Ray Lampkin?

 

Who was bigger when they fought the first time: Oscar De La Hoya or Julio Cesar Chavez?

 

What's your point? I didn't say all fighters moving up in weight have a size disadvantage. I'm merely pointing out that in many cases, they do - despite weighing in at the same limit. You can carry on if you like, but I have to think about now you have to be rethinking your position here. ::

 

So....Brook's Back / Shoulders / Chest / Arms / Legs will get 'bigger' at fight-time?
If not then it's irrelevant.

 

No...I hear you...I'm just saying that in the case where one fighter is taller and has the longer reach and they weigh in at the same weight....is he really at a size disadvantage regardless of the other circumstances?

Me no tink so (Jar Jar voice)

 

Physical advantages like reach and height would certainly help a fighter overcome a weight disadvantage. I agree with that.

 

So you're basically saying there is no such thing as a size advantage for fighters below heavyweight? Provided they both weigh in at the same weight? Is that your official position? The IBF apparently disagrees with you.

 

An actual picture of Keith Thurman once Spence stops Brook then calls him out:

 

How does one determine a size advantage for a shorter guy with less reach if they weigh the same on the scale at the weigh in?

If James Toney magically shrank down to 160lbs and faced Kelly Pavlik....would you consider Toney the "bigger" guy just because he's campaigned at heavyweight? I certainly wouldn't.

 

Thurman would probably move out of Clearwater and leave the country to avoid Spence.

 

I don't think it is fair to prejudge thurman like that. He just got done facing a guy many thought would beat him, and before that he faced a stiff challenge in Porter. He deserves the benefit of the doubt at this point.

 

Word. But you know xplosive...that's his thing. Every guy that has a fighting style that he doesn't like is suddenly a ducking coward

 

It's beyond idiotic to claim that THurman is a ducker and a coward

 

Maybe in the time when same day weigh-ins was how it was done.

 

Yeah but even with the ability to re hydrate oiver a 24hour period and some guy enters the ring with an advantage of 15lbs water weight...if they weighed in at the same amount and that guy is shorter with a shorter reach he has no "functional" size advantage. He's just a fat gluttonous waterlogged bloated bastard.

 

Again, you keep conflating these two things for some reason. The debate was strictly whether or not a fighter who weighed in at the same weight as his opponent can ultimately enjoy a functional weight advantage. And yes. He can. Of course other things like reach and height are still factors. Who would claim otherwise?

 

Solid matchup. Really can't wait for it.

 

Brook's right hand is very dangerous and EJ can be nailed with right hands. That alone makes this a dangerous fight for Spence.

But he's a better technician than Brook, and I can't see Brook avoiding many of Spence's left hands.

 

1 - None whatsoever
2 - Yes
3 - Yes
4 - And?

This bullshit about ´´Fighter X at 160lb being BIGGER than Fighter Y at 160lb - that could make a difference!!´´... is fucking bullshit.
Just something for modern-day boring boxing ´Einsteins´ to blurb on about...

 

Well, sorry. I think most would disagree with you.