Broomhall wrote:Malignaggi 33, lot of miles on the clock, stoppage losses to Amir Khan, Ricky Hatton when he was in his prime. I dont think this makes Porter into Sonny Liston. Worn out old pro loses to up and coming young fighter. History of boxing.
What about Mayweather and Pacquaio in terms of age and miles on the clock?
Fighters (and all sports men/women) are all different. Just this weekend Rendall Munroe and John Murray got beat by younger men who I dont think would have beat them 2 or 3 years ago. Both have operated at world level. I dont think these wins mean Crolla or Warrington are world class. It just means in their cases time caught up with them. It caught up with Wilfred Benitez when he was 26. It hasnt caught up with Mayweather, Pacquiao or BHOP-but it will.
I think Malignaggi had too many hard fights and got caught by a bigger, stronger, younger man on the night. I dont think this makes Porter king kong, and I think that if the fight took place in the UK I would make Brook a slight favourite. In the states I would favour Porter to win.
I'd like to like Brook, but I just get the feeling that his camp are holding him back deliberately, much in the same way that Deontay Wilder's camp hold him back - happy earning easy money scoring KO victories against limited opposition, whilst knowing their fighters will get exposed at the top level.
I'd love to be proved wrong about this, but that's definitely the way I currently see it & would fancy Porter to do a big job on Brook, who we'd likely never hear from again.
I think that Brook will take the fight with Porter; if he doesn't and goes a different route or tries for a Khan bout then people will surmise he is shy of the challenge. I think Brook would be better boxing more regularly - Porter seems more active and it keeps him sharp and in shape - he is progressing and seems to have urgency. For all his bad luck with injuries Brook doesn't seem to have the same urgency.
G0mez wrote:An American fighter, on an American promoter's show, live on American TV defending an American-based world title...
... It would not surprise me at all if the IBF allowed him to fight some sort of unification involving the WBA title that will surely become immediately vacant after Mayweather whups Maidana.
Just like in the case of Froch vs Kessler II which saw mandatory Adonis Stevenson pushed out the picture - I can sense Kell's shot going the same way because he is not familiar or tangible to American audiences right now.
Only Sky PPV money can bank-roll their argument to convince Porter to come here. Unless Sky can do what they did for Froch v Bute and swallow the hit to get record viewing numbers ?
Broomhall wrote:Malignaggi 33, lot of miles on the clock, stoppage losses to Amir Khan, Ricky Hatton when he was in his prime. I dont think this makes Porter into Sonny Liston. Worn out old pro loses to up and coming young fighter. History of boxing.
What about Mayweather and Pacquaio in terms of age and miles on the clock?
Fighters (and all sports men/women) are all different. Just this weekend Rendall Munroe and John Murray got beat by younger men who I dont think would have beat them 2 or 3 years ago. Both have operated at world level. I dont think these wins mean Crolla or Warrington are world class. It just means in their cases time caught up with them. It caught up with Wilfred Benitez when he was 26. It hasnt caught up with Mayweather, Pacquiao or BHOP-but it will.
I think Malignaggi had too many hard fights and got caught by a bigger, stronger, younger man on the night. I dont think this makes Porter king kong, and I think that if the fight took place in the UK I would make Brook a slight favourite. In the states I would favour Porter to win.
Do you think Paulie showed signs of decline in his fights leading up to the Porter bout? I thought he looked himself against Judah and Broner.
Porter also won a surprisingly one-sided fight against Alexander when he was the underdog. Perhaps he's just better than most people thought.
Porter has looked very impressive in his last couple of bouts but I do think people get a little too het up on the interweb after such a showing.
I'd have him a favourite over Brook but not a massive one.
I'll also be very disappointed if he doesn't go through with his mandatory (unless he's offered a Mayweather bout).
I'm sure he'll be offered a very good deal to go to Yorkshire to fight. If he's as good as many on this thread seem to think then it's easy money for him.
Broomhall wrote:
Fighters (and all sports men/women) are all different. Just this weekend Rendall Munroe and John Murray got beat by younger men who I dont think would have beat them 2 or 3 years ago. Both have operated at world level. I dont think these wins mean Crolla or Warrington are world class. It just means in their cases time caught up with them. It caught up with Wilfred Benitez when he was 26. It hasnt caught up with Mayweather, Pacquiao or BHOP-but it will.
I think Malignaggi had too many hard fights and got caught by a bigger, stronger, younger man on the night. I dont think this makes Porter king kong, and I think that if the fight took place in the UK I would make Brook a slight favourite. In the states I would favour Porter to win.
Do you think Paulie showed signs of decline in his fights leading up to the Porter bout? I thought he looked himself against Judah and Broner.
Porter also won a surprisingly one-sided fight against Alexander when he was the underdog. Perhaps he's just better than most people thought.
I thought Paulie looked himself aswell. The foot and handspeed was still there. The problem is that on the whole Paulie never really does deal that well with very aggressive mauling type fighters. Porter is quite clever in the way he does it aswell. He doesnt just maraud forward constantly. He'll stand off for periods boxing from the outside and then when he sees an opening he'll cover distance very quickly with his quick feet and let off a lot of shots. A lot of people seem to think Thurman would destroy him aswell and I dont feel that way. I dont think Thurman's boxing ability is that great (actually i'd say Brook is a better boxer) and he leaves a fair amount of openings himself.
Taansend wrote:Porter has looked very impressive in his last couple of bouts but I do think people get a little too het up on the interweb after such a showing.
I'd have him a favourite over Brook but not a massive one.
I'll also be very disappointed if he doesn't go through with his mandatory (unless he's offered a Mayweather bout).
I'm sure he'll be offered a very good deal to go to Yorkshire to fight. If he's as good as many on this thread seem to think then it's easy money for him.
Broomhall wrote:
Fighters (and all sports men/women) are all different. Just this weekend Rendall Munroe and John Murray got beat by younger men who I dont think would have beat them 2 or 3 years ago. Both have operated at world level. I dont think these wins mean Crolla or Warrington are world class. It just means in their cases time caught up with them. It caught up with Wilfred Benitez when he was 26. It hasnt caught up with Mayweather, Pacquiao or BHOP-but it will.
I think Malignaggi had too many hard fights and got caught by a bigger, stronger, younger man on the night. I dont think this makes Porter king kong, and I think that if the fight took place in the UK I would make Brook a slight favourite. In the states I would favour Porter to win.
Do you think Paulie showed signs of decline in his fights leading up to the Porter bout? I thought he looked himself against Judah and Broner.
Porter also won a surprisingly one-sided fight against Alexander when he was the underdog. Perhaps he's just better than most people thought.
I thought Paulie looked himself aswell. The foot and handspeed was still there. The problem is that on the whole Paulie never really does deal that well with very aggressive mauling type fighters. Porter is quite clever in the way he does it aswell. He doesnt just maraud forward constantly. He'll stand off for periods boxing from the outside and then when he sees an opening he'll cover distance very quickly with his quick feet and let off a lot of shots. A lot of people seem to think Thurman would destroy him aswell and I dont feel that way. I dont think Thurman's boxing ability is that great (actually i'd say Brook is a better boxer) and he leaves a fair amount of openings himself.
My fighter was paid to spar Brook a few times for his big fights and Brook is fast and powerful and a very good fighter, but my fighter sparred Thurman in the states over a 3 month period and he said Thurman was better, more skilled and a bigger puncher, he also said after sparring both that Thurman would beat Brook, he also watched Thurman spar tough Mexicans and take them apart, I think in his fights he relies on his power too much, but he very good technically as well.
jtourettes wrote:I hope Porter faces Brook and knocks him out. Have about as much interest in Brook's career as Brook's team have in putting him with a live opponent.
crusader wrote:
Do you think Paulie showed signs of decline in his fights leading up to the Porter bout? I thought he looked himself against Judah and Broner.
Porter also won a surprisingly one-sided fight against Alexander when he was the underdog. Perhaps he's just better than most people thought.
I thought Paulie looked himself aswell. The foot and handspeed was still there. The problem is that on the whole Paulie never really does deal that well with very aggressive mauling type fighters. Porter is quite clever in the way he does it aswell. He doesnt just maraud forward constantly. He'll stand off for periods boxing from the outside and then when he sees an opening he'll cover distance very quickly with his quick feet and let off a lot of shots. A lot of people seem to think Thurman would destroy him aswell and I dont feel that way. I dont think Thurman's boxing ability is that great (actually i'd say Brook is a better boxer) and he leaves a fair amount of openings himself.
My fighter was paid to spar Brook a few times for his big fights and Brook is fast and powerful and a very good fighter, but my fighter sparred Thurman in the states over a 3 month period and he said Thurman was better, more skilled and a bigger puncher, he also said after sparring both that Thurman would beat Brook, he also watched Thurman spar tough Mexicans and take them apart, I think in his fights he relies on his power too much, but he very good technically as well.
You could be right there! I just think that Brook is a little bit more of a thinker in the ring than Thurman is. Just going on what i've seen though.
I wouldn’t be right Brook off completely, Kell will hit back and with thudding punches, obviously Porter will be favorite although Kell will find the target in-between Porters swinging shoulder punches.
The other factor is how tight Brook is at the weight-hanging round at welter for a long time now. Porter looks ominously strong. I still think Brook can win it, but the odds do move seriously into Porters favour if the fight takes place in the states.
The Paulie fight was a classic example of the old adage that 'styles make fights'! Porter matched up very very well stylistically against Maliggnaggi & it has made him look & absolute beast, he is a very good fighter but I'd be surprised if he tears thru Brook the same way as he did Paulie. Alexander not the biggest puncher either!!
Brook is a better fighter than Porter. I'd expect him to win 8 out of 12 rounds. But in those 4 rounds he loses he needs to do more than just try to survive. Porter will have his moments, big moments. And Kell needs to remain in control even when things are against him.
frankgreaves wrote:The Paulie fight was a classic example of the old adage that 'styles make fights'! Porter matched up very very well stylistically against Maliggnaggi & it has made him look & absolute beast, he is a very good fighter but I'd be surprised if he tears thru Brook the same way as he did Paulie. Alexander not the biggest puncher either!!
