-
Tomasino
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 7876
- Joined: 24 Apr 2010, 16:39
Post
by Tomasino »
Pugilist-specialist wrote:G0mez wrote:I prefer Craig Watson over Kell Brook myself.
He's got the better record too.
Especially if you ignore his 3 losses.
yes because unbeaten fighters are always better than those with losses, no matter the quality of opposition.
-
danfoster
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 651
- Joined: 02 Feb 2009, 05:07
Post
by danfoster »
are people seriously saying that craig watson would beat kell brook?
-
Pugilist-specialist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: 11 Jul 2008, 04:37
Post
by Pugilist-specialist »
DaveBoyMorrison wrote:Pugilist-specialist wrote:G0mez wrote:I prefer Craig Watson over Kell Brook myself.
He's got the better record too.
Especially if you ignore his 3 losses.
yes because unbeaten fighters are always better than those with losses, no matter the quality of opposition.
I'm not saying that DaveBoy. But if you're comparing records Watson has been stopped and also lost to Fewkes and O'Donnell.
-
Tomasino
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 7876
- Joined: 24 Apr 2010, 16:39
Post
by Tomasino »
Pugilist-specialist wrote:DaveBoyMorrison wrote:Pugilist-specialist wrote:
Especially if you ignore his 3 losses.
yes because unbeaten fighters are always better than those with losses, no matter the quality of opposition.
I'm not saying that DaveBoy. But if you're comparing records Watson has been stopped and also lost to Fewkes and O'Donnell.
True, I picked a bad example to make my wee point mate.
-
Pugilist-specialist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: 11 Jul 2008, 04:37
Post
by Pugilist-specialist »
G0mez wrote:I prefer Craig Watson over Kell Brook myself.
He's got the better record too.
Especially if you ignore his 4 losses.
-
Hotspurx
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 16
- Joined: 17 Jan 2008, 14:39
Post
by Hotspurx »
Pugilist-specialist wrote:G0mez wrote:I prefer Craig Watson over Kell Brook myself.
He's got the better record too.
Especially if you ignore his 4 losses.
Word
-
TheCobra
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: 01 Jan 2009, 15:11
Post
by TheCobra »
Hotspurx wrote:Pugilist-specialist wrote:G0mez wrote:I prefer Craig Watson over Kell Brook myself.
He's got the better record too.
Especially if you ignore his 4 losses.
Word
LMAO!!!
-
whiskey
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 11956
- Joined: 27 Mar 2007, 14:52
Post
by whiskey »
cnuts !
true, it was a big shock last night though to be fair wasn't it.
-
Cas
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 338
- Joined: 27 Jan 2011, 10:42
Post
by Cas »
brook has a field day with watson.. a perfect shot purdy landed, watson should of had it covered!
-
SexySouthPaw
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 195
- Joined: 27 May 2008, 15:46
Post
by SexySouthPaw »
DaveBoyMorrison wrote:Pugilist-specialist wrote:DaveBoyMorrison wrote:
yes because unbeaten fighters are always better than those with losses, no matter the quality of opposition.
I'm not saying that DaveBoy. But if you're comparing records Watson has been stopped and also lost to Fewkes and O'Donnell.
True, I picked a bad example to make my wee point mate.
Hmmmmmmm Lee Purdey how long would he last with Kell Brook ?
-
hoot
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 192
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 16:58
Post
by hoot »
SexySouthPaw wrote:DaveBoyMorrison wrote:Pugilist-specialist wrote:
I'm not saying that DaveBoy. But if you're comparing records Watson has been stopped and also lost to Fewkes and O'Donnell.
True, I picked a bad example to make my wee point mate.
Hmmmmmmm Lee Purdey how long would he last with Kell Brook ?
I recon 3 rounds' unless kell chose to take him out in the first' different class.
-
Pugilist-specialist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: 11 Jul 2008, 04:37
Post
by Pugilist-specialist »
G0mez wrote:I prefer Craig Watson over Kell Brook myself.
He's got the better record too.
Especially if you ignore his 5 losses.