You could educate yourself by reading le forge's quote :gobbles wrote:What an arrogant tool Brook is.twenty six wrote:What an arrogant ignorant tool Khan is.
Whilst it won't happen, a la Keegan I'd love it just love it if Kel smashed him to bits.
End of rant.
And who has he ever beaten? Jennings. Wow!
Smell the hype
Yep, there's no real response to this argument until Kell wins a title and has a couple of top level wins...gobbles wrote:What an arrogant tool Brook is.twenty six wrote:What an arrogant ignorant tool Khan is.
Whilst it won't happen, a la Keegan I'd love it just love it if Kel smashed him to bits.
End of rant.
And who has he ever beaten? Jennings. Wow!
Smell the hype
Very sad circumstances, however one looks at it.gobbles wrote:G0mez wrote:Nope, your constant defence of him does confirms it.observer1 wrote:
Your post suggests that i care whether Khan wins or not.
You even claimed that a man who was killed by Khan in his 4x4, wasn't actually killed by Khan, but the result of his injuries. You leapt to the defence of his criticism through the red top press of Rob Mckracken. In another thread your defending and justifying him going to the sanctioning bodies to upturn a legit loss.
Even in this thread, the mere mention of the likely outcome of Khan vs Brook had you leaping in to attack someone who dared say Khan gets walloped.
The guy wasn't killed by him. He also didn't die as a result of his injuries. That is totally untrue and libelous. He broke his leg. You just spread lies.
He beat the no 6 ranked fighter by the ring, he now no 6 himself. So he hardly hype. I like to see him fight Zaveck no8 next. Then go for world title.dondada wrote:Yep, there's no real response to this argument until Kell wins a title and has a couple of top level wins...gobbles wrote:What an arrogant tool Brook is.twenty six wrote:What an arrogant ignorant tool Khan is.
Whilst it won't happen, a la Keegan I'd love it just love it if Kel smashed him to bits.
End of rant.
And who has he ever beaten? Jennings. Wow!
Smell the hype
What I'm saying is - and I like Kell both personally and as a fighter - is that there's no point in going on about Khan at the moment as their respective CVs are currently miles apart, ranking or no ranking.leforge wrote:He beat the no 6 ranked fighter by the ring, he now no 6 himself. So he hardly hype. I like to see him fight Zaveck no8 next. Then go for world title.dondada wrote:Yep, there's no real response to this argument until Kell wins a title and has a couple of top level wins...gobbles wrote: What an arrogant tool Brook is.
And who has he ever beaten? Jennings. Wow!
Smell the hype
Give it a year and it be a big UK fight build the needle now will be good. When Khan glaoted how he handled him in sparring will build for a big fight,dondada wrote:What I'm saying is - and I like Kell both personally and as a fighter - is that there's no point in going on about Khan at the moment as their respective CVs are currently miles apart, ranking or no ranking.leforge wrote:He beat the no 6 ranked fighter by the ring, he now no 6 himself. So he hardly hype. I like to see him fight Zaveck no8 next. Then go for world title.dondada wrote: Yep, there's no real response to this argument until Kell wins a title and has a couple of top level wins...
dondada wrote:Very sad circumstances, however one looks at it.gobbles wrote:G0mez wrote: Nope, your constant defence of him does confirms it.
You even claimed that a man who was killed by Khan in his 4x4, wasn't actually killed by Khan, but the result of his injuries. You leapt to the defence of his criticism through the red top press of Rob Mckracken. In another thread your defending and justifying him going to the sanctioning bodies to upturn a legit loss.
Even in this thread, the mere mention of the likely outcome of Khan vs Brook had you leaping in to attack someone who dared say Khan gets walloped.
The guy wasn't killed by him. He also didn't die as a result of his injuries. That is totally untrue and libelous. He broke his leg. You just spread lies.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... s-car.html
How the f*** did Jackiewicz ever get rated No 6 by the Ring? According to Brook, that guy from Tennessee who could hardly stand up was some tough as nails Puerto Rican. Maybe so, but he couldn't box. The bookies had him as a 1-250 favourite. N'dou had won 3 of his previous 7 going in with Brook.leforge wrote:He beat the no 6 ranked fighter by the ring, he now no 6 himself. So he hardly hype. I like to see him fight Zaveck no8 next. Then go for world title.dondada wrote:Yep, there's no real response to this argument until Kell wins a title and has a couple of top level wins...gobbles wrote: What an arrogant tool Brook is.
And who has he ever beaten? Jennings. Wow!
Smell the hype
Gobbles, you seem very anti-Kell whenever you post.gobbles wrote:How the f*** did Jackiewicz ever get rated No 6 by the Ring? According to Brook, that guy from Tennessee who could hardly stand up was some tough as nails Puerto Rican. Maybe so, but he couldn't box. The bookies had him as a 1-250 favourite. N'dou had won 3 of his previous 7 going in with Brook.leforge wrote:He beat the no 6 ranked fighter by the ring, he now no 6 himself. So he hardly hype. I like to see him fight Zaveck no8 next. Then go for world title.dondada wrote: Yep, there's no real response to this argument until Kell wins a title and has a couple of top level wins...
He's been well matched, but is yet to have a fight where he has not been a huge overwhelming favourite.
If Gomez considers that what he has posted is fact - as you say he does - then he is not lying as lying requires dishonesty. He might be wrong but he isn't lying.gobbles wrote:dondada wrote:Very sad circumstances, however one looks at it.gobbles wrote:
The guy wasn't killed by him. He also didn't die as a result of his injuries. That is totally untrue and libelous. He broke his leg. You just spread lies.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... s-car.html
So that says he drank himself to death while pursuing a civil claim against Khan. Gomez writes as what in his strange mind he considers fact that he was killed by Khan or from his injuries. So Gomez is lying. Let's just get to the facts here, rather that Gomez's normal hate-stirring.
i think you answered it already, put slightly differently, Kell's more obvious physical/athletic talent makes people think he has a greater upside potential. wise after the fact I am not, as I've been saying it since Al-Hamidi, Murray's leaden feet, stiff back and so-so punching power were 'always' going to mean he had struggles at the top-ish levelKing Geedorah wrote:I think Kell will win a world title and I’d also pick him over Berto to be honest. My only problem is with his current standing is that John Murray worked his way into The Ring rankings, picked up the EBU and was still roundly dismissed as overhyped on this forum. I know people will say that Kell has greater natural ability but why is he seen as a shoe in whilst Murray was getting stick as recently as the turn of this year?
.
That would be the case if it hadn't been pointed out to him before, but it hasdanfoster wrote:If Gomez considers that what he has posted is fact - as you say he does - then he is not lying as lying requires dishonesty. He might be wrong but he isn't lying.gobbles wrote:dondada wrote: Very sad circumstances, however one looks at it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... s-car.html
So that says he drank himself to death while pursuing a civil claim against Khan. Gomez writes as what in his strange mind he considers fact that he was killed by Khan or from his injuries. So Gomez is lying. Let's just get to the facts here, rather that Gomez's normal hate-stirring.
Word.King Geedorah wrote:I think Kell will win a world title and I’d also pick him over Berto to be honest. My only problem is with his current standing is that John Murray worked his way into The Ring rankings, picked up the EBU and was still roundly dismissed as overhyped on this forum. I know people will say that Kell has greater natural ability but why is he seen as a shoe in whilst Murray was getting stick as recently as the turn of this year?
The toughest thing for Kell is that he’s now at the point where it is hard to challenge him as no one wants a bar of him so he is on that contender treadmill waiting for something to happen.
It is really tough for these guys, we shower people like Marquez and Manny with respect but when you think about it the top, top guys sit on titles, lower guys such as Berto get endless cracks at them and where does this leave people like Brook? Sitting in an endless queue going stale whilst waiting for their crack. It is a disgrace, similar to the way soap stars just bounce from one show to the next no matter how old and crap they become.
Brook could be a huge star but he needs that marquee name or opportunity, I hope he gets it in 2012 as I really like him as a fighter.
danfoster wrote:Gobbles, you seem very anti-Kell whenever you post.gobbles wrote:How the f*** did Jackiewicz ever get rated No 6 by the Ring? According to Brook, that guy from Tennessee who could hardly stand up was some tough as nails Puerto Rican. Maybe so, but he couldn't box. The bookies had him as a 1-250 favourite. N'dou had won 3 of his previous 7 going in with Brook.leforge wrote: He beat the no 6 ranked fighter by the ring, he now no 6 himself. So he hardly hype. I like to see him fight Zaveck no8 next. Then go for world title.
He's been well matched, but is yet to have a fight where he has not been a huge overwhelming favourite.
And very pro allegedly, i might say.
Did you like Kell when he was still under contract in Hertfordshire or did your scepticism and emnity arise when Kell exercised his freedom of contract (as he was fully entitled to do) and moved elsewhere?
i think the first bolded bit is a large part of it- and a key word being 'perception'- but the higher you go in level the more a pure lack of athletic talent can hold you back, unless you have some serious skills and/ or intangibles to make up for itKing Geedorah wrote:Fair point but where’s Kell’s top-level power? His footwork isn’t as flashy as other Sheffield lads and he has been clipped a few times. Is the difference in perception solely down to the fact that Kell’s billed as having world class skills whereas John was billed as a tough man? Kell chinned a few good guys in his British title days but has he stopped anyone as tough and solid as Gark Buckland? I don’t want to nick Auto’s line but people do tend to be a lot more forgiving if a guy is billed as a boxer yet Murray’s still widely written off despite doing well in the early rounds against Mitchell and Rios, both of whom are of a better class than Kell’s opponents.Counter-puncher wrote:i think you answered it already, put slightly differently, Kell's more obvious physical/athletic talent makes people think he has a greater upside potential. wise after the fact I am not, as I've been saying it since Al-Hamidi, Murray's leaden feet, stiff back and so-so punching power were 'always' going to mean he had struggles at the top-ish levelKing Geedorah wrote:I think Kell will win a world title and I’d also pick him over Berto to be honest. My only problem is with his current standing is that John Murray worked his way into The Ring rankings, picked up the EBU and was still roundly dismissed as overhyped on this forum. I know people will say that Kell has greater natural ability but why is he seen as a shoe in whilst Murray was getting stick as recently as the turn of this year?
.
You've come into contact with Southerners then have you? I always say whats the point of having a North-South divide if you aren't going to Police it!twenty six wrote:That's whaT I love abart Southerners.
Have a pop at Northerners then bite when we have a go back.
It's all light hearted banter !!
I'm in my fifties and can still sing "We're walking in the air" in the highest key.
I don't want to do Murray another disservice but his stoppage of Buckland is a little flattering, in retrospect.King Geedorah wrote:
Fair point but where’s Kell’s top-level power? His footwork isn’t as flashy as other Sheffield lads and he has been clipped a few times. Is the difference in perception solely down to the fact that Kell’s billed as having world class skills whereas John was billed as a tough man? Kell chinned a few good guys in his British title days but has he stopped anyone as tough and solid as Gark Buckland? I don’t want to nick Auto’s line but people do tend to be a lot more forgiving if a guy is billed as a boxer yet Murray’s still widely written off despite doing well in the early rounds against Mitchell and Rios, both of whom are of a better class than Kell’s opponents.
You can't go from the level of opponent he was boxing under his previous promoter and be thrown to the lions. Two of his last three fights have been against significantly better opposition and the last chap was a 'showcase' job and nobody said anything differently. I think he's been moved along fine in the last year.gobbles wrote:danfoster wrote:Gobbles, you seem very anti-Kell whenever you post.gobbles wrote: How the f*** did Jackiewicz ever get rated No 6 by the Ring? According to Brook, that guy from Tennessee who could hardly stand up was some tough as nails Puerto Rican. Maybe so, but he couldn't box. The bookies had him as a 1-250 favourite. N'dou had won 3 of his previous 7 going in with Brook.
He's been well matched, but is yet to have a fight where he has not been a huge overwhelming favourite.
And very pro allegedly, i might say.
Did you like Kell when he was still under contract in Hertfordshire or did your scepticism and emnity arise when Kell exercised his freedom of contract (as he was fully entitled to do) and moved elsewhere?
I'm not anti-Kell. I want him to have a real fight.
If he was still with Warren and had had exactly the same fights as he has had this year, he would be totally dismissed. But because he is not, so many buy into the hype.
His US debut was as testing as Nathan Cleverly's US debut. The difference was that Cleverly was an 8-round fighter at the time, while Brook is marked down as a would-be superstar.
It annoys me that Khan fights world-class guys and gets written off a a hype case, Brook is very carefully matched and there is some love-in.
I want him to be a big success. But he has had 26 fights and is yet to be tested.
Aye, you're probably right there. I was more talking about his admission that he had to drop a lot of weight and therefore was obviously weakened. He's one tough hombre, I'm telling you.Counter-puncher wrote:i don't think there is a hope in hell that Buckland would have been doubling uppercuts and pivoting sweetly off them, displaying quick hands and lithe feet all night long. he's a decent fighter but he ain't that.
indeed, but as we've said partly there is a slight perception problem with Murray, and by inverse Brook's potential may be slightly over-rated as he hasn't shown (or been forced to the point where it becomes obvious) where the glass ceiling of his talents lies, just yet. and of course Murray has to fight at a fast pace to be successful, he'd open himself to being outboxed by just about everyone if he tried to play cat'n'mouse. Brook on the other hand almost certainly needs a lower pace as he likes to pick shots, their styles/pacing of fights is quite directly linked to their athletic talents/ lack thereof, there, I think.King Geedorah wrote:Murray’s perceived lack of athleticism aside, he fought at a higher pace during his 12 rounders than Kell and I was at the N’dou fight and got the sense that he was happy with the rounds but only after he’d tried to take Lovemore out a few times. The pace definitely wasn’t as hot as the one Murray set against Buckland or even Whoisgary. Jermain Taylor looked every inch the athlete and couldn’t maintain over 12. I get what your saying but there’s no proof that Kell can do the 12 better than Murray thus far in his career.Counter-puncher wrote:i think the first bolded bit is a large part of it- and a key word being 'perception'- but the higher you go in level the more a pure lack of athletic talent can hold you back, unless you have some serious skills and/ or intangibles to make up for itKing Geedorah wrote: Fair point but where’s Kell’s top-level power? His footwork isn’t as flashy as other Sheffield lads and he has been clipped a few times. Is the difference in perception solely down to the fact that Kell’s billed as having world class skills whereas John was billed as a tough man? Kell chinned a few good guys in his British title days but has he stopped anyone as tough and solid as Gark Buckland? I don’t want to nick Auto’s line but people do tend to be a lot more forgiving if a guy is billed as a boxer yet Murray’s still widely written off despite doing well in the early rounds against Mitchell and Rios, both of whom are of a better class than Kell’s opponents.
if i was acting the Brook apologist, i might venture that in recent fights it has almost seemed that he has deliberately been trying to get a few rounds under his belt a la that Haye 12 rounder once, N'Dou certainly and he didn't go all out against the Polish fella.
But he WAS with Wazza and never got tested. You say he has been carefully matched for 26 fights but the great majority of those took place when he was with Warren and the boys. Since he has left, Ndou and Jackieqicz are much better than anyone he ever faced before with . Surely you must see that? His last fight with Frank was v Philip Kotey, FFs ... and that had a lot to do with him moving on.gobbles wrote:danfoster wrote:Gobbles, you seem very anti-Kell whenever you post.gobbles wrote: How the f*** did Jackiewicz ever get rated No 6 by the Ring? According to Brook, that guy from Tennessee who could hardly stand up was some tough as nails Puerto Rican. Maybe so, but he couldn't box. The bookies had him as a 1-250 favourite. N'dou had won 3 of his previous 7 going in with Brook.
He's been well matched, but is yet to have a fight where he has not been a huge overwhelming favourite.
And very pro allegedly, i might say.
Did you like Kell when he was still under contract in Hertfordshire or did your scepticism and emnity arise when Kell exercised his freedom of contract (as he was fully entitled to do) and moved elsewhere?
I'm not anti-Kell. I want him to have a real fight.
If he was still with Warren and had had exactly the same fights as he has had this year, he would be totally dismissed. But because he is not, so many buy into the hype.
His US debut was as testing as Nathan Cleverly's US debut. The difference was that Cleverly was an 8-round fighter at the time, while Brook is marked down as a would-be superstar.
It annoys me that Khan fights world-class guys and gets written off a a hype case, Brook is very carefully matched and there is some love-in.
I want him to be a big success. But he has had 26 fights and is yet to be tested.
Both good shoutsgasman wrote:We will know more about Brook when he fights a top 10 fighter, but I like his development so far. Khan v Brook at the MEN would be nice at the end of next year.
Murray v Buckland 2 would be a great fight in 2012
King Geedorah wrote:Fair enough, I do get your point. I just find it odd that Murray's slated for losing at a higher level and winning at a similar, arguably highter level, only to be completely written off for years, he never received the praise that others routinely get. I also thin he's shown better engineCounter-puncher wrote:indeed, but as we've said partly there is a slight perception problem with Murray, and by inverse Brook's potential may be slightly over-rated as he hasn't shown (or been forced to the point where it becomes obvious) where the glass ceiling of his talents lies, just yet. and of course Murray has to fight at a fast pace to be successful, he'd open himself to being outboxed by just about everyone if he tried to play cat'n'mouse. Brook on the other hand almost certainly needs a lower pace as he likes to pick shots, their styles/pacing of fights is quite directly linked to their athletic talents/ lack thereof, there, I think.King Geedorah wrote: Murray’s perceived lack of athleticism aside, he fought at a higher pace during his 12 rounders than Kell and I was at the N’dou fight and got the sense that he was happy with the rounds but only after he’d tried to take Lovemore out a few times. The pace definitely wasn’t as hot as the one Murray set against Buckland or even Whoisgary. Jermain Taylor looked every inch the athlete and couldn’t maintain over 12. I get what your saying but there’s no proof that Kell can do the 12 better than Murray thus far in his career.
I think Kell should fight Matthew Hatton and it may be closer to being made than we think.
