He hasn't fought a real welterweight, definitely not. But he has fought top notch jww, and although he should have a lost a few, he finds a way to win. He'd lose, but he wouldn't get demolished.
I'm not sure you are an expert on all things Special One Remember the conversation pre Porter schooling, we had on this thread? [url]http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=495535[/url] :think
A conversation almost 2 years ago. What's the point? That Brook eked out a win vs Porter? Ok, good win. The dude still has 1 good win. I'm still willing to honor the ban bet. You?
Nonsense. Cleaners? Neither guy fought a great fight, but Brook managed to stymie Porter's rush, and thwart his mauling tactics with a lot of holding. Brook didn't look great in that fight. He did enough to win. Stop with revisionist history.
Every round was contested. 116-112(which is what I think I scored it) is 2 rounds from a draw. It certainly wasn't a schooling. 1 of the judges may have even scored it a draw. Brook did enough to win, but was that an impressive performance to you? It was was sloppy, ragged affair with a lot of mauling on Porter's side, and holding on Brook's. He won fair and square, but hardly the domination that some would lead you to believe.
I get the impression you are butthurt because you can't sperate the hype-jobs (llike Broner) from the genuine articles (like Brook), like I can. Brook won easily, while not bothering to get out of 1st gear. 10 rounds to 2 on any fair scorecard.
You're contradicting yourself right now. You just said he won fair and square, and then call is eked. Maybe I just don't think of eked in the same light as you do.
i'd pick brook, and i hated on that guy a lot over the years and picked porter so it aint nationalism.
Eked means it was a close fight. Winning fair and square means he deserved to win. No funny business, no tomfoolery. They aren't mutually exclusive terms. There's no contradiction.