Watched Brook with the sound off

Which is wierd because i watched it last night with the Showcase commentary and they was very much praising Brook. They liked his composure, his IQ and how he was nullifying Porter

My post from another thread

It was a brilliant performance IMO and was a lot clearer for Kell when watching it the 2nd time

 

Why did you have it close? Brook won wide.

You said it yourself Porter just bull-rushed Kell all night. Most of the rounds were following a similar pattern. If you gave Kell ANY rounds you have to give him LOTS of rounds, no?

 

You have to give any benefit of doubt to the champion though...

Still who cares, Kell won. :happy

 

Watt had it in his head before the fight that Brook would be overwhelmed under pressure and so that's what he saw and called on the night. That's how he operates.

 

Hmmm this is a very interesting quandry.

As a rule I much prefer watching any sport with the commentary on.
However, for the BBC's rugby coverage, for example, you can choose between the TV commentary or the Radio 5L commentary or just listening to the referree or just listening to the crowd. Usually I'll go Radio 5L commentary any day.

Without that range of options for boxing I'd miss the atmosphere that does usually come through on the TV.

I watched the fight "as live" on sky+ with the commentary on and believe I was being swaying by the pundits but I could clearly see how one dimensional Porter is/was.

However, before the results were announced, they did the round-by-round highlights, with no commentary really to speak of and I saw how good Brook actually was and in slowmo helped too.

I never usually sit with a piece of paper scoring figthts myself and just go with an overall "feel" for who's work I've liked over the 12 rounds.

 

I've only watched it with some Polish (I think) commentary that I couldn't understand. Porter only seemed to win 2 or 3 rounds clearly. Some rounds were close and hard to score. I thought Brook won most of those close rounds because he landed the cleaner, more effective punches. He didn't land a huge number of punches but neither did Porter from what I could see. Difficult to give Porter many rounds imo.

 

Watt's commentary is getting worse and worse.

His commentary & scoring of the Froch v Groves rematch was garbage as well. Very pro Froch during the fight, and yes Froch was the man who delivered the knockout blow and had his hand raised, but Groves had a lot of success himself.

It's as if he decides before the fight start who he's going to get behind, then just comments on every positive they do during the fight.

 

He missed Groves outboxing Froch (for 8 rounds) and he missed Brook outboxing Porter. It wasn't even hard to see these things happening at the time.

 

You don't have to block sound.. there's led forward and pushing forward.. so it's the same as being pushed back and leading him backwards.

Forwards good and forwards bad.. backwards good and backwards bad.

Draw is the hybrid.


Of the win lose scenario... so you have 3 options win lose draw.


No thing is nothing.. so all you have is win and not win and the combination of the 2.


There's infinite combinations so that's why you have rank and 10-9.

 

You might say well what's so good about forwards and backwards.. why not the other directions of the dice platform or "squared circle" (remember a cube with 0 depth would just disappear).

Like leading him sideways etc.

It's just hit and not hit... jabs are usually straight.

 

A square is a cube with a 0.00001 depth measurement.

So it's actually the cubed sphere... or the octagon etc.

 

[yt]wGpW0VUdmno[/yt]

 

Most rounds were close, Brooks cleaner work versus the rough house bustling from Porter.

Jim Watt had a hard job on Saturday night.

I doubt he wasn't the only one who thought Porter was winning.

He's getting old ffs, give him a break.