Kell Brook vs Devon Alexander

That makes no sense. That’s WHY fighters need to step up. Brook has done nothing to even suggest he’ll be competitive at world-level. Alexander, for his flaws, has beaten guys who were proven better than Brook is.

 

Of course it makes sense. What you're saying makes absolutely no sense. Nobody has ever done anything to suggest they'd beat certain fighters until they actually go and do it. That doesn't mean we can't pick them based on our analysis. By your logic we could pick fights with a 100% success ratio based on what it says on Boxrec.

 

You've missed my point. My objection is the easily/comfortably attachment. Brook hasn't faced anyone like Alexander or anyone even at world-class level. If your analysis doesn't factor that in, then it's pretty shabby analysis.

 

Of course. But its a lot easier to just fall back on that rather than the actual qualities of the fighter. Anyone can just talk about whos done more, a chimp could do that. The fact is Alexander has very little substance and is the smaller man, theres nothing to be getting overly excited about in his chances here.

 

Alexander is average, but I don’t think Brook is miles off. Fast hands, but uncoordinated and lacking fundamentals. Even if he wins it won’t be easy or comfortable.

 

At least Brook has a proper jab though. Alexander's is genuinely pathetic and achieves nothing. It's not a range finder because not much comes behind it and it doesn't dominate a fight either. I think Brook's punching is a lot more imposing, I think he's a harder puncher, he's the bigger man, pretty much everything is in his favor except inexperience. Plus Alexander in reality has like one really good win, beating Witter was fairly meaningless at that point. Alongside what should be 3 comfortable losses. It's not as if we're measuring Brook against a top notch fighter here, Alexander is very very mediocre.

 

Sure would be a good fight for Kell and a step to the big time at last.
As Devons never fought at 147 and KB hasnt fought any high level opponents it would be a pure guess for me to say who'd win. As im allways biased and optimistic about UK fighters ill say Kell close points win/late stoppage.

 

http://ringtv.craveonline.com/blog/...s-as-wbcs-no-2-welterweight-behind-mayweather

on this its mentioned he could fight magic matt, bad move magic matt wins easily on points

 

Exactly!

 

Brook is unproven but has looked good so far. Alexander has proved his level: contender, and that was at LWW.

I think Brook is better. He's bigger, stronger, faster and has a better boxing brain from what I have seen.

Brook TKO 10, maybe earlier.

 

You have very polarized opinions & I dont agree with that reasoning.

Kell hasnt been fully tested yet because he has been so much better than all his opponents thus far.

:good
Brook hits him too hard & too often on his way to a stoppage.

 

My opinions aren't polarised at all. But that's ******ed - that's the Floyd reasoning. "He's never needed to show greatness because he's too good!"

He's looked good because he's been banging out no-marks!

Disagree with my reasoning, bigging Brook up as something special is just premature when his best win is N'dou.

 

He doesn't need to be special to beat Alexander. Merely good. Even less so because he's bigger than Alexander anyway so its even more in his favor.

 

I judge him more on his performances than his opponents & I like what I see.

Fair enough you dont & are critical of the level of his opponents & how easily he has won

No-marks isnt an accurate assessment but hey, love em or hate em. Same for the Floyd reasoning.

 

When it comes to it i always look more at a boxers skills and Brook has a better jab and right hand than Alexander aswell as a bigger punch due to size.Alexander does more barking in the ring than anything. Alexander has decent foot movement but uses it too negatively.