If Paulie had resorted to the shameless and illegal tactics which brought Brook to victory , would he too have won a decision over Porter?
Brook is a legitimate welterweight with more power and speed than Paulie. Paulie, at the time he fought Cotto, was a really good fighter that had tonnes of balls and grit and nous. But he's old now and undersized and has a history of injuries and hard fights. So he could hold onto his mommas skirt and probably still lose to Porter.
I guess it was Brook's clinching that busted Porter's face up, and stunned him several times, huh? And Porter got sooooooooo much work done, that the only mark of Brook's face came from that fucking ram's head.
I have no horse in this race. Neither fighter is anything special. I'd be one of the FIRST to cry stink, but I didn't see Brook's holding as excessive. It was effective, and it blunted Porter's attack inside. It's PORTER's job to adjust to that. What I did CLEARLY see is Brook busting Porter in the mouth with one two's all night and Porter landing NOTHING substantial upstairs. Ugly fight, but Brook won clear as day. There's no case to be made for Porter.
Porter's "skills" are more disgraceful. Brook outboxed him. Deal with it. Nobody is claiming it's some all time great masterclass performance, but Brook clearly proved to be the better man.
Brook didn't clearly prove anything other than that he is able to win a close decision over a fellow scrub by cheating the entire time
