Devon wont have the same kinda pop he had back at 140, Kell should be quick enough to make him miss and land often enough to take a clear UD, but then again this is Devon he has a habit of being given decisions
I never rated Devon and I wont start to do now. If he cant make it at 140 how the **** is he gonna compete at 147 with pbf + pac as kingpins. Ortiz would violently stop him too.
Brook, who hasnt beaten anyone, beats a former champion easily? WTF is wrong with you people? Until Brook actually faces and beats someone good he shouldnt be in the argument.
Exactly. For what it's worth, personally I think Kell Brook is potentially better than Devon Alexander but it's hilarious how people completely write him off just because he's lost to a few top class boxers. He might not have won them all but Witter, Urango, Bradley, Kotelnik, Matthysse is a pretty strong list of opposition. And whilst I think he lost to the last 3, he was hardly really outclassed by any of them.
alexander vs matthysse was on eurosport yesterday, and that has got be the biggest robbery of the year. fight wasn't even close, matthysse who isn't even the fastest of fighters was hitting him at will, never missed a punch in 3-4 punch combos and they all landed flush. if it was anywhere else in the world it would have been a clear UD to matthysse, scores around 98-92. kell hasn't been tested yet, but what he has shown so far is has good boxing skills, he knows how to counter punch and hurt his opponent at the same time. now until he steps up we don't know how good he actually is, but devon vs brook is a 50-50 fight.
I think he would beat Alexander pretty comfortably regardless of what Brook has done (or not done). If that kind of logic always worked there would never be any point in stepping up to the next level as the more accomplished fighter always wins.