Brook vs Spence, who wins?

Brook and it's not close

 

Wouldn't describe either as bangers unless you're describing the things Brook does in his spare time

 

Both beat nobody of note.
Hard to tell.

 

Brain fart alert

 

Brook as of right now, I think Spence in a few years if he continues to mature as a fighter.

I like that Spence seems to be a dedicated body puncher, really tries to leverage those shots.

 

delete

 

Spence wins even right now I think he sonned mayweather completely and mayweather is scared of spence at that says a lot.
Spence is a boxer puncher with pinpoint accuracy.

 

My eyes must decieve me, I still don't see what some people see in Spence. I just don't. He has good power, but he isn't overly fast, he has defensive deficiencies which someone with quick hands can exploit, he neglects defense of his head when he goes to the body. I'm not sold on his chin or recovery (neither has been remotely tested).

Brook, Thurman, and even Porter have all been thoroughly tested. They all have shown the ability to win in different ways. This is the difference.

 

brook pulls out with an injury so he wins by default

 

The chocolate brownie is laced with sleeping pills and would put Spence to sleep.

 

I feel Brook will avoid Spence and move up at 154.

 

Exactly what iv thought watching him, he's done well and looked good but his best win is against a guy who's lost 3/5 previous fights and even then his win against provoddy is disputed... People go way over the top at times, he looks a good solid fighter, puts his combinations together but he hasn't been tested enough to say this is the guy to dominate the welterweight division. If kell does fight him next march as a mandatory I think kell wins on points. (I can't see haymon letting this happen especially since the split is in kells favour and would be in the UK)

 

This. I have no idea how good either of them are as theyve fought no one. Brook fought Porter but it was a boring fight with Brook holding most of the fight.

 

I agree. Its like how i feel about Floyd. I know hes good but when people start saying hes one of the greatest if not the greatest i cant agree because ive got nothing to measure his greatness. Is he the greatest because he beat a bunch of flat footed mexicans? A past prime injured Manny? Old Mosely and Oscar? Undersized Marquez? Undersized,overrated and alchoholic Hatton? A good but not great Corrales?
If Floyd had dominated and beaten a prime manny 6 years ago now id have something to gauge his greatness. But as it stands i can only consider Floyd a really good fighter in a down era of boxing.