The "Brook never got a shot", argument

I think you're just still mad that Porter lost to Brook.

 

:yep

 

Lol okay

Hearn and Brook actually make a fair point. Stick to the mandatory root so that they'll get more money and won't be cheated out of their chance in the contract by being a non mandatory. It makes sense really.

 

Pennywise, but pound foolish. They then cannot complain that they arent getting big fights, and the biggest fights, if they don't put themselves in the running for them and make themselves an attractive option.

 

He does have a mediocre resume apart from Porter, Rios will be a decent win nothing more or less.

 

i would have thought being the only belt holder other than mayweather would make him this

 

To be fair if Brook took the fight and lost it, all his hard work would be ruined and hed be back to square one. By refusing it and instead focusing on becoming IBF mandatory, he at least had that milestone that would keep him around the top of the rankings regardless if he lost the fight. In boxing you normally get one re shot at the big time and Brook and Hearn ensured their best chance of that by going the safe root to secure a mandatory. Too often fighters jump at getting a title shot even though their ranking doesn't merit it, they lose the title fight and the vast majority of them fade into mediocrity.

 

I didn't know the details abot this one but as much as I understand from the article; if Brook fought Bradley, he'd have given up on his shot at the IBF title as the Saldivia fight was an eliminator. Hearn thought they could win the bid and bring the Devon Alexander fight (champ at the time) to the UK.

It's not a difficult choice when you have 2 options to win a major belt:

a) fighting Tim Bradley in the US as a voluntary.
b) fighting Devon Alexander in the UK as a mandatory.

 

:yep

[YT]H1Yt0xJKDY8[/YT]