So, um, where are all the BoxRec "geniuses" who predicted that Brook would win?

[jujigatame]

Andrew Kearney is the worst poster on BoxRec, presently. By a pretty wide margin too.

[jezzamundo]

Yep, these boxing "experts" like jezzamundo, SFW, and StrapMeUp either try to deny that it happened in the first place, or they twist their words around to make it seem like something other than it was. Or they simply go AWOL after theyve been proven wrong. It's important that we point these phonies and fraud posters out to the other posters so that we know who we're dealing with here.

Hopefully by doing that it will help to sort this site out, get things really cleaned up around here and sorted out

Andrew, I'm going to give you the benrfit of the doubt and assume that you misremembered my post. Feel free to check my post history if you like, but not once have I claimed to be a boxing expert and not once did I predict Brook would beat GGG. We disagreed over some of the finer details of the fight, but ultimately we both got it right, though I never made a round prediction. I await your apology.

Mate, you're a god damned liar full on! You were clearly supporting Kell Brook from Day 1, you stated in my thread entitled "Kell Brook has no chance..." that you expected Kell to trouble GGG and you stated the same in other threads. You even predicted that Kell Brook would win the fight but you've since edited, deleted, and changed your posts and now are denying that it even happened in the first place. Your trickery might confuse some of the other posters here but you haven't confused me with your denials, and twisting your own words around pretending that you meant to say something else than what I in fact have a record of you saying. You are a god damned phony, con artist masquerading as a poster.

You even bizarrely claimed in the Brook-Golovkin RBR that you had Brook winning the fight 4-0 at the time of stoppage, but you've since edited those posts after other posters called out your phony comments, and you said that Brook was ahead 3-1 at the time of stoppage which is still a thoroughly ridiculous scorecard.

I'm here, making this thread and attempting to really sort things out and clean this site up. I mean, really, like clean it up good and proper. Mate, I don't know what planet you "live on", but your comments are untruthful, phony, and downright fraudulent. The least you can do is admit you were wrong and I was right mate, then we can carry on with the rest of our lives.

Wow, there's so much wrong here I don't know where to start! I don't appreciate being called a liar, but clearly you've somehow convinced yourself that I have made statements that I never have. It's easy to see whether I have edited a post, so I assume you haven't checked. I have never edited a post to change an opinion or make myself look correct, but I often do to fix typos. Perhaps you have me confused with another poster? Either way, I still await your apology.

"You were clearly supporting Kell Brook from Day 1" - false, I have always supported GGG in all of his fights as he is my favourite active fighter, which I have stated several times.

"You expected Kell to trouble GGG" - true, I expected Brook's speed and boxing skills to give GGG some trouble, and given the competitive nature of the fight up until the stoppage, I believe I was correct. We may disagree on that, which is fine.

"You even predicted that Kell Brook would win" - false, I always predicted that GGG would win.

"... I in fact have a record of you saying" - please share it with us (I know you can't as it doesn't exist).

"you had Brook winning the fight 4-0" - false, I had it 2-1-1 for Brook at the time of the stoppage. I've since rewatched the fight and believe that rounds 3 and 4 could fairly be scored for either fighter, so a scorecard of 3-1 either way would be acceptable. Scoring rounds in boxing is very subjective and there are always going to be differing opinions.

"other posters called out your phoney comments" - I didn't make any phoney comments and have no recollection of being 'called out' by anyone except you and as I've said, you've got this dead wrong.

Obviously you were right in predicting the result of the fight - I've already said this. I've been dead wrong about fights on many occasions and have no problem admitting that - this just isn't one of those times. I hope you can see I am being sincere, I just don't appreciate being told I said things I didn't and being called a liar when I've been nothing but truthful.

[SFW]

I would also like to see the evidence where I said Brook was gonna win a God Damn thing, because I've picked against him every chance I've ever got. And enjoyed talking shit in the lead up to this fight. Kell is pretty lucky that fight ended when it did because if he made it to the 8th or 9th he's probably damaged goods.

[Andrew Kearney]

Obviously you were right in predicting the result of the fight - I've been dead wrong about fights on many occasions.

The only thing that matters is that ultimately I'm right and you're wrong. That simple, now that you've admitted that I am right and you are wrong, we can both move forward, ain't that right lads?

[jezzamundo]

Obviously you were right in predicting the result of the fight - I've been dead wrong about fights on many occasions.

The only thing that matters is that ultimately I'm right and you're wrong. That simple, now that you've admitted that I am right and you are wrong, we can both move forward, ain't that right lads?

We've already established that you were right in picking the result of this fight. Well done for correctly picking an overwhelming favourite. Why you keep repeating that I was wrong is beyond me - but clearly you have either mis-remembered my posts, or you are being dishonest. I'll repeat what I said - I have been wrong about fights on many occasions, but this wasn't one of them.

[crusader]

Obviously you were right in predicting the result of the fight - I've been dead wrong about fights on many occasions.

The only thing that matters is that ultimately I'm right and you're wrong. That simple, now that you've admitted that I am right and you are wrong, we can both move forward, ain't that right lads?

We've already established that you were right in picking the result of this fight. Well done for correctly picking an overwhelming favourite. Why you keep repeating that I was wrong is beyond me - but clearly you have either mis-remembered my posts, or you are being dishonest. I'll repeat what I said - I have been wrong about fights on many occasions, but this wasn't one of them.

Quick question since I know you watched both fights....do you think Brook did much better from 2-4 then Munroe did from 3-5? A lot of people are going on like Brook did exceptionally well, but I rewatched the Munroe fight and I honestly felt that after getting dropped Willie did just as well as Brook did, only he didn't get massive cheers and people weren't jumping up and down ringside when he landed. The punch stats were 133-87 GGG against Munroe and 133-85 GGG against Brook, and while they don't prove my point they illustrate the similarity I saw.

Incidentally, I also think Murray had as good of a case for winning the first two as Brook did for any pair of rounds, and in y view Rosado had GGG significantly more marked up than Brook did.

[Andrew Kearney]

We've already established that you were right in picking the result of this fight.

Well thank you, I'm glad we can both agree that I am right.

I'll repeat what I said - I have been wrong about fights

Alright, now hold it right there geezer, are you saying that you're wrong? Well that's good, I'm glad we can agree to the truth which is that you are wrong.

you were right
I have been wrong

Thank you kindly mate, from the horse's mouth as it were, now why don't you take the "road less travelled", you know, do the gentleman thing and just let it go mate? Sometimes you're better off not beating a dead horse any longer lad. You've redeemed yourself by admitting that you were wrong so now we can both move on to better things, right mate?

Feels good to fess up to our mistakes.

[jezzamundo]

The only thing that matters is that ultimately I'm right and you're wrong. That simple, now that you've admitted that I am right and you are wrong, we can both move forward, ain't that right lads?

We've already established that you were right in picking the result of this fight. Well done for correctly picking an overwhelming favourite. Why you keep repeating that I was wrong is beyond me - but clearly you have either mis-remembered my posts, or you are being dishonest. I'll repeat what I said - I have been wrong about fights on many occasions, but this wasn't one of them.

Quick question since I know you watched both fights....do you think Brook did much better from 2-4 then Munroe did from 3-5? A lot of people are going on like Brook did exceptionally well, but I rewatched the Munroe fight and I honestly felt that after getting dropped Willie did just as well as Brook did, only he did get massive cheers and people weren't jumping up and down ringside when he landed. The punch stats were 133-87 GGG against Munroe and 133-85 GGG against Brook, and while they don't prove my point they illustrate the similarity I saw.

Incidentally, I also think Murray had as good of a case for winning the first two as Brook did for any pair of rounds, and in y view Rosado had GGG significantly more marked up than Brook did.

Good post - I think Monroe arguably did a little better from rounds 3-5 than Brook did from rounds 2-4, but I think that's more down to how GGG was fighting them than how talented each fighter is. For me, Brook's performance was more impressive, because GGG was largely letting Monroe hit him and giving the fans a show after knocking him down twice previously. Against Brook, GGG was aggressively trying to end the fight. Neither had enough power to really hurt GGG, though.

Personally, I split the first two rounds of Murray, but wouldn't argue with anyone who scored both rounds for the Brit.

Yes, Rosado definitely marked GGG up more than Brook, which I think was more down to the length of the fight than anything. Rosado was more durable and a fair bit bigger than Brook. I think Rosado is very underrated by many here, largely due to his record.

[jezzamundo]

We've already established that you were right in picking the result of this fight.

Well thank you, I'm glad we can both agree that I am right.

I'll repeat what I said - I have been wrong about fights

Alright, now hold it right there geezer, are you saying that you're wrong? Well that's good, I'm glad we can agree to the truth which is that you are wrong.

you were right
I have been wrong

Thank you kindly mate, from the horse's mouth as it were, now why don't you take the "road less travelled", you know, do the gentleman thing and just let it go mate? Sometimes you're better off not beating a dead horse any longer lad. You've redeemed yourself by admitting that you were wrong so now we can both move on to better things, right mate?

Feels good to fess up to our mistakes.

Clearly you're just trying to annoy me now by twisting my words into something they never meant. I was right regarding this fight and I'm still waiting for your apology - if you check my post history you will realise you were wrong, then I will be waiting for an apology seeing as you have repeatedly accused me of saying things I never did and called me a liar when I've been nothing but truthful. You say you are trying to clean up this site, but you are either very confused, or being a troll yourself.

[vidal]

As ashamed as I am to contribute to such a childish thread, I do have a couple of questions:

1. Does correctly predicting that a heavy favourite will win prove one's boxing knowledge?

What confuses me here is; most casual boxing fans were predicting that GGG would have simply too much power for Brook. This was based on strong evidence and the opinion of published experts, so it's no surprise.

Most of my friends are casual fans and blew with the wind on this one, so you can imagine how foolish I feel, having boxed as a junior and followed boxing for most of my life.... suddenly realising that they know more about boxing than me!!!...... what a knucklehead I feel today!!! <sigh>

Those of us who did dare to delve a little further, considered that Brook certainly had the skill to trouble GGG (which he arguably did), and if he could carry power with him up to the weight, he may even be able to stop GGG in his tracks and change the whole game. So that leads me to my second question:

2. WHAT THE FOOKING, FOOK, IS THE FOOKING POINT IN THIS FOOKING THREAD?

If you need me, I'll be hanging my head in shame.

[jbizzle20]

Isn't this aimed at bnovelist? Anyway, no surprises here. Golovkin proved that Brook is too weak for middleweight. I said it all along that Brook was only an average power at welterweight as demonstrated by his average KO%. Moving up to middle, where the fighters are even bigger and stronger, was a terrible idea and to do it against one of the greatest fighter in the division? SMH. Just an all-around poor decision by the Brook camp. He got hammered like I thought he would.

[Bricks]

Golovkin dominates and stops Brook in 5 rounds, a somewhat embarrassing TKO loss for Brook and his team in front of his own English fans. Brook deserves credit for taking the fight when others avoided GGG, but it was clear he was outgunned and his trainer saved his career and possibly his life by stopping the beating he was taking in round 5.

Before the fight, there were a number of self proclaimed "boxing experts", and "future predictors" on this site who stated that Brook would win the fight, and would pull the upset over GGG. Where are these guys now and what do they have to say for themselves? Where are all these "winners" and "boxing experts" now when we need them eh?

Jezzamundo, SFW, StrapMeUp I'm reaching out to you "boxing experts" on the forum.

I was one of these genius's........ My names Norm and im a pizza delivery boy from wisconsin