Brook's eye sockets

It certainly does take boxing knowledge to watch tape and predict the winner with little else to go by.

There aren't many big fights though, statistically the uncertainty is much higher, and it's harder to be objective when you care a lot about a fight's outcome.

 

I've seen GGG fight twice (Brook and Jacobs) and was unimpressed with him in both.....especially as i scored the Jacobs bought a draw.

Calzaghe beats GGG comfortably with the quantity of punches not allowing GGG to settle and tee off......Pretty sure that's not the view of a GGG fan.

 

So you had 5-5 going into the 11th? No just no.

 

Okay. What's your point?

 

lol

 

No offence, but I think you are slightly over-emphasizing picking "big fights" correctly as a measure of boxing knowledge.

 

And Spence's chin is the mofo TRUTH. He took the same uppercuts that rocked GGG's head back and never went down. Spence is going to bring the TRUTH and the PAIN to everyone at 147.....Call the FEDS as this is about to be a 187 on Thurman and whoever else steps in with Spence.....

 

Sounds like I was better off listening to it then on the radio as between the three commentators they seemed pretty fair and even when the crowd went wild a few times they said Spence got hit on the gloves ect,they all had it close before the Knock down but conceded that if the judges thought Spence won the rounds you couldn't argue as so many rounds were like that.

 

Where did I say it was solely predicated on picking fights correctly?

 

I gave brook 2 or 3 rounds in this fight he was basically dominated.

 

Find a new sport to watch because boxing obviously isn't for you.

 

I like this site for the personalities on it, including yours. However, I think I already spend too much time on here and don't want to spend any more. Any way, a broke clock is right twice a day so there's hope for you. Lol

 

why?

Very little boxing skill from both. Less power and speed than I was told there would be.

Just very disappointed.

I think some get caught up in the tension of the fight rather than the actual action.

I preferred watching Groves v Chudinov.

 

You didn't say "solely", and I never suggested that you thought so. That would be a classic straw-man argument. Let me recap the discussion.

1a. You said that you didn't see CST as a knowledgeable poster.

1b. I proposed CST's ability in the league as an example of boxing knowledge.

2a. You said that, regardless, he gets the big fights wrong.

2b. I said that picking big fights correctly should not be overemphasized as a measure of boxing knowledge.

Hope that makes sense. Perhaps we should agree to disagree - the only reason I came into this thread was that I felt you were making a harsh assessment of CST, and I'm guessing we understand each other's points now.