Skysports: Brook Turns Down Bradley Fight

Brook has always been overhyped. He is the WW version of Clev, believe.

 

Its "NOT JUST" reacting i said you ****in TIT !!!!!!

Go away and leave me alone im done with you

 

The thing is thewinfella, let me just clear this up, you accused me of the following..

'but you preceeded to tell me that reflexes are all a fighter needs to effectively defend himself'

'Yes the guys reflexes are sharp but he has a small defensive boxing brain, if you cannot see that there is more to defensive boxing than having "sharp reflexes" then i fear you are in the wrong place!'

When did I state that? Blatant lie.

You also said using reflexes isn't a form of defending yourself..simply not true

You have just clearly made a bunch of things up to try and prove me wrong.

 

It's good sensible management. Why make a fight you know your fighter will lose,rather than take the easier option to a another belt

 

How old are you ?

 

22, but thats irrelevant..your whole argument was based on things that I didn't say :rofl

 

Yes i thought as much, were done kid, have a good night

 

Resorting to my age as a way of trying to save face

Your posts were actually very knowledgeable, pitty you had to try and start an argument and make things up :good

 

Thank you , good night x

 

thewinfella, the fact that you put yourself forward in the manner that you do in your posts is more embarrassing, because you're the one who is acting like the 'kid', and you're supposedly older. Oh dear.

I don't expect anything less from you though. Keep it up, son. :thumbsup

 

Pac clearly beat Bradley but at the time I felt it was not the level of robbery people claimed and Pac not only missed a good deal but simply threw too little too. He did not apply the intensity or pressure that he would have done 3 years ago. It was a disappointing performance and at times Bradley made him miss and caught him with clean counters.

Pac still won but it was not a thrashing.

Poor from Brook and his team. I don't think I've ever heard a more laughable explanation than rejecting a world title fight in order to pursue the dream of being a mandatory for a world title fight.

Not only would it be a world title fight but against the man who was seen as one of the best if not the best at 140 and who just beat the man so to speak.

If he lost in a close fight to Bradley his stock rises. If he won then obviously it rockets him to the very top level of the division. I think he'd lose, but Bradley is not the sort who really annihilates anyone, because that's not his style. Brook should be able to be competitive whilst losing rounds.

Brooks record is horrendously padded and up to the point of 15 fights was a total farce.

 

It already happened. Karl David dropped him because of that exact issue. He wasn't hurt, but his feet were too close together, he leant away got tagged and the force meant that with his off balance posture and narrow stance, he went down.

I was never impressed with Brook, but he has improved a lot (at least offensively) and he was winning me over somewhat. The Jones fight was disappointing as it showed all the flaws were there and all the concerns were justified and not even against a top tier opponent. It reminded me a little of watching Barnes getting knocked about by Jimmy Vincent when Barnes was the popular, flashy young hope. The major difference of course being that Barnes was still somewhat of a novice in that fight, whereas Brook has been fighting for years and has had as many fights as David Haye already.

 

Hearn wants to make the dollars off 1 more sold out sheffield show before Brook gets shown up.

 

..

 

Excellent description of the situation. Frankly I find it bizarre. Big American TV date, not a big puncher, strange.