PORTER vs BROOK 50/50?

65/35 for porter, its in the states and also brooks hasn't been fighting top fighters really.

 

Just because a fighter isn't world class does't make them a tomato can/bum. Brook could have went straight from fighting bums in 2009/10 to fighting world class fighters but chose to fight guys on a level below them to learn the craft and improve against decent level boxers, at least by constantly beating boxers who are a step down from world level he's proven to be at that level or better and earns a shot at the title. Porter only fought a couple of decent boxers before he got a shot at the title, Alfonso Gomez and Diaz twice, he might regret over the next couple of years if he sticks to fighting top 20 guys. He might come up against guys with styles he hasn't fought yet or styles he's only come up against at a much lower level. Brook is 28 and boxers usually don't have their best years until they're about 30-33 when they peak, so stepping up to world level at his age isn't exactly old. No one is more prepared for world level than Brook, he'll probably never be on the same level as Floyd and Pac but he won't be far off.:smoke

 

Kell brook is going nowhere Khan would knock him out

Brook is just another Calzaghe :hi: :deal

Joe Calzaghe is overrated and has a padded record. All boxing fans with an ounce of knowledge know that Calzaghe is a mediocre fighter with a padded record. Being undefeated is not impressive when you fight in your backyard vs bums for 95% of your career. He wasn't trash, but he wasn't exactly good either. Let's look at his "noteworthy" career.

1) Chris Eubank - this is not a notable win. Eubank was in the end of his career and a shell of his former self. And on top of that, a prime Eubank didn't beat anyone other than Benn - a decent but not great boxer. And he ducked James Toney cuz he knew Toney would crush him.

2) Jeff Lacy - A washed up version of Roy Jones finished this guy. That shows how unimpressive this win is.

3) Sakio Bika - a belt holder with no notable wins.

4) Manfredo Jr - another easy win. Not impressive

5) Kessler - he beat Froch. Whoop de doo who has Froch beaten outside of a washed up Glen Johnson, and padded record Abraham and Bute? (who have never beaten anyone notable) Froch also got a gift from the ref vs Groves and the judges vs Dirrell. Froch's win over Pascal is not impressive because Pascal was green and is nowhere near the same fighter anymore. And Jermain Taylor was a blind squirrel who stumbled across an acorn vs Bernard Hopkins, and did nothing since then. After his 15 minutes of fame Taylor disappeared quickly. So now that we established that Froch is overrated like his countryman Calzaghe, there are no notable wins on Kessler's resume either. Even if someone does consider Kessler top level, having this as your best and only win is not mind-blowing by any stretch of the imagination.

6) Roy Jones - of course when Calzaghe fights Roy Jones, Jones is a shell of his former self. Roy already got viciously KOd twice before this, and he was not anything close to resembling a world class fighter. And he still knocked down the overrated pillow-punching/slapping bum Calzaghe.

7) Bernard Hopkins - Calzaghe did not win that fight. He got gifted a decision. His father was screaming at him in the corner before the last round - telling him he needed a knockout. From the look on Calzaghe's face before the judges' announcement he knew he didn't deserve to win the fight. Then Calzaghe was extremely surprised and excited when he found out he got gifted the win he didn't earn. Calzaghe got whipped and knocked down by a 43 year old man. So much for Calzaghe being an all time great fighter. Is it coincidence that when a man with a padded record finally faced real competition that he had such a difficult time? No. It proves Calzaghe's incompetence as a wannabe top-level boxer.

I know certain sheep that are following the herd have prepared pitiful arguments to defend the mediocrity that is Calzaghe's career, and I will dismantle them here.

1) Calzaghe beat Hopkins legitimately - NO he didn't. Just like Oscar DLH in his fights vs Pernell and Floyd (in which Oscar clearly lost both times despite what the judges said), Calzaghe was the ineffective aggressor while his opponent was the more effective counterpuncher. Calzaghe threw pitter-patter slaps on Bernard's arms and shoulders, and complained about Hopkins faking a low blow (which he probably did) - while forgetting all the times he hit Bernard in the back of the head without being penalized. On no planet did Calzaghe win more than 6 rounds, and because of the knockdown from Bernard there is no way he legitimately won the fight.

2) Well on compubox Calzaghe outstruck Bernard - Compubox stats almost always are innacurate - even glancing blows or blows that completely miss can be counted on the punch stats as an effective shot, so if the compubox stats are your reasoning for Calzaghe's legitimacy then you are a fool. On top of that, matches are scored round by round - not based on who landed more overall shots. If fighter a breathes on fighter b that counts as 10 landed shots.

3) Calzaghe is undefeated - Calzaghe fought 44 nobodies (including Eubank). The other 2 were a washed up past-prime RJJ and a 43 year old man that he lost to, but received a gift. It's not about the number of fights you win. It's about who you win against and how you win. Brian Nielsen was 49-0 at one point. Would you take Brian Nielsen over Muhammad Ali (56-5), Evander (44-10-2), etc? I would hope not. Undefeated doesn't necessarily mean good.

What has been written is IRREFUTABLE, UNDENIABLE, UNCONTESTABLE, INDISPUTABLE, UNQUESTIONABLE, flawless FACT. Not opinion or conjecture. Not even the fact that Bernard Hopkins legitimately won (but got robbed by the judges) is an opinion. Nor is it an opinion that Calzaghe is nothing close to an all time great fighter by any stretch of the imagination. I challenge any human being to try and disprove the mastery of wisdom that has been displayed. Unfortunately for delusional Calzaghe fans, no one can refute the irrefutable.

:hi::hi:

 

Khan has THE WORST CHIN in Boxing what is it with Brook fans if he does something better then Khan it's ok? Khans chin is awful of course Kell has a better chin having a better chin then Khan isn't an achievement.

 

Anyone at even world level is a nightmare for Brook never mind Porter. Brook has padded his record fighting nobodies.

 

75-35 to Porter. Brook has talent but so question marks over him that it's really staggering that a guy can have more than 30 bouts and still leave us wondering what he'd be like at the world level.

 

Bums? Oh you mean the guy who had Khan on his arse? Brook struggled with Jones just as much as Porter struggled with Diaz.

 

...care to explain why you think I'm Japanese? Is it because I know something about Japanese boxing? Surely the same logic would dictate me as being American now I've spoken about Porter and Carson Jones...oh and I mentioned Usyk recently so I must be Ukrainian too...

 

I guess I must be a Thai for knowing about the Thai scene, I must be Swedish for having posted about Oscar Ahlin and Belorussian for knowing about Kiril Relihk before he made it to Hattons stable...

I'll accept being strange, though I think it's strange that any boxing fan doesn't seem to care what happens outside of the UK and the US. I'd like to know about and watch the best fighters on the planet, be it Roman Gonzalez, Juan Francisco Estrada or Lucas Matthysse

 

Thai boxers are crap though. I know about the british, american, mexican, russian, german, ukranian, cubans fighters and some of the japanese.. cause they are the best nations in boxing. caring/ following about Thai, mongolian and domestic japanese fighters is very weird.

 

Srisaket is damned fun! Can't wait to see his fight with Cuadras
Mongolian boxing, in the pros, is pretty dead