Where would you rate the first 3 rounds Brook v GGG
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 45238
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
Re: Where would you rate the first 3 rounds Brook v GGG
I thought that Brook actually looked every bit as big as GGG, however, he just doesn't have the same authority of punch, GGG said after the fight that Kell's power never bothered him in the slightest. Kell landed some meaty looking combinations on GGG, but they just couldn't keep him honest as he was prepared to walk through those shots.
-
forcefraser
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 5462
- Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 06:15
Re: Where would you rate the first 3 rounds Brook v GGG
Hearns busted his hand in the first roundcrusader wrote:Hearns had some notable success at the very start, but then he already starts getting ragged and bullied around the ring. I was really surprised by how quickly his legs seemed to desert him, and for the most part he was busted by a much sturdier opponent who was better-suited to that type of fight.magwitch wrote:One sided my a**.crusader wrote:I thought it was good action, but it didn't stand out to me as being great.
Incidentally, I think Hagler-Hearns is one of the most overrated fights there is. I had heard so much about a great, back and forth war, but when I finally watched it I saw Hagler deliver a fairly one-sided beatdown to Hearns.
Re: Where would you rate the first 3 rounds Brook v GGG
GGG started slow looked a bit cumbersome and allowed Bfrooks to look good ,, he then warmed up , loosened up and started to destroy Brooks , at some stage hit him in the eye and gave him an excuse to look to his corner with a look of Get me out of here ,, and they obliged ,, went to the after fight party , had a few beers and slapped each other on the back for money well earnt , and started talking about the next fight with Canelo ,,
Re: Where would you rate the first 3 rounds Brook v GGG
Christ almighty it’s people like you that are responsible for words like “Eubanks”. It’s fcking Brook for f*ck’s sake: Brook! Not really all that hardconeye wrote:GGG started slow looked a bit cumbersome and allowed Bfrooks to look good ,, he then warmed up , loosened up and started to destroy Brooks ,,
Don’t be upset, I am just kidding mate
Do you think Saunders can do any better against Golovkins then?
Re: Where would you rate the first 3 rounds Brook v GGG
magwitch wrote:Christ almighty it’s people like you that are responsible for words like “Eubanks”. It’s fcking Brook for f*ck’s sake: Brook! Not really all that hardconeye wrote:GGG started slow looked a bit cumbersome and allowed Bfrooks to look good ,, he then warmed up , loosened up and started to destroy Brooks ,,![]()
Don’t be upset, I am just kidding mate![]()
Do you think Saunders can do any better against Golovkins then?
Who is Golovkins?
-
TheLeprechaun
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 5172
- Joined: 27 Jun 2013, 20:42
Re: Where would you rate the first 3 rounds Brook v GGG
I'm not sure whether you're clueless or just a biased Brook fan.bbjc wrote:That was nothing to do with not respecting brooks power. Golvokins a great fighter but people are kidding themselves on a bit. Brook would have outboxed him if he sat back although people rave on about golvokins boxings...its his offensive boxing that takes all the plaudits its not his defensive fighting. Brooks is a good boxer. A bigger brooks would have outboxed golvokin if he was sitting back off him. Golvokin took the best approach to the fight...stick it on him. Dont give him time to box knowing he was the bigger man. A middleweight brooks would have took them shots better. Could have tied him up etc. Leaned on him. Your on to a loser doing that with the bigger man. More power behind his own shots. Golvokin busted him up but he threw too many full bloodied shots doing it. Brooks was good at taking the sting out of a lot of them punches with the ingle movement. Left golvokin struggling for breath. I ll go as far to say a bigger stronger brook takes him apart as early as the 7th or 8th round.crusader wrote:If he was a career-MW maybe GGG would've paid him more respect and given more mind to defense, as he has against better punchers. I'm also not sure if being a career MW would've prevented his eye from busting.
GGG just keeping that belt warm until Eubank batters him!
Either way, you've earned a spot on my ignore list with your posts over the last few days, this one above being the final straw.
Re: Where would you rate the first 3 rounds Brook v GGG
Just jog on then...you dont need to come on and tell me i m on your ignore list. Find that quite amusing you would bother on a boxing forum where people come on to talk boxing.
Not an overly massive brook fan. Couldnt actually support against either of them on saturday nite with brooks being british...and i actually respect golovkins ability that much i couldnt really root against him fyi. Doesnt mean he doesnt have weaknesses that cant be exposed tho. I ll tip that within the next 2 years that golovkin gets backed up and beaten in a fight.
Not an overly massive brook fan. Couldnt actually support against either of them on saturday nite with brooks being british...and i actually respect golovkins ability that much i couldnt really root against him fyi. Doesnt mean he doesnt have weaknesses that cant be exposed tho. I ll tip that within the next 2 years that golovkin gets backed up and beaten in a fight.
Re: Where would you rate the first 3 rounds Brook v GGG
magwitch wrote:Christ almighty it’s people like you that are responsible for words like “Eubanks”. It’s fcking Brook for f*ck’s sake: Brook! Not really all that hardconeye wrote:GGG started slow looked a bit cumbersome and allowed Bfrooks to look good ,, he then warmed up , loosened up and started to destroy Brooks ,,![]()
Don’t be upset, I am just kidding mate![]()
Do you think Saunders can do any better against Golovkins then?
Mate i ll apologise in advance. Think i do all three of them wrong. Eubanks. Brooks and worse still i somehow go from calling golovkin both golovkin and golvokin sometimes even in the same post. Probably be billy joe saunder next.
Re: Where would you rate the first 3 rounds Brook v GGG
LOL Takes more than a internet post go upset me ,, If you think my grammer and spelling is bad now , you should of seen it a few years ago before i went on forums , I'm learning has i gobbjc wrote:magwitch wrote:Christ almighty it’s people like you that are responsible for words like “Eubanks”. It’s fcking Brook for f*ck’s sake: Brook! Not really all that hardconeye wrote:GGG started slow looked a bit cumbersome and allowed Bfrooks to look good ,, he then warmed up , loosened up and started to destroy Brooks ,,![]()
Don’t be upset, I am just kidding mate![]()
Do you think Saunders can do any better against Golovkins then?
Mate i ll apologise in advance. Think i do all three of them wrong. Eubanks. Brooks and worse still i somehow go from calling golovkin both golovkin and golvokin sometimes even in the same post. Probably be billy joe saunder next.
Regards BJS v GGG i think he probably would do better because he's a naturally bigger man , how much better i don't know ,,Like everyone else i look at GGG and see flaws , he is easy to hit , but does'nt seem to get hurt , but once he warms up his punching, just flows and he seems to hurt with every punch ,,, Would BJS win i seriously doubt it he just does'nt have the stamina, to move and punch with a guy like GGG , i think its going to take someone who's very very fit and physicly strong with a solid chin to beat him
Basicly a fighter like Kell who is fast and good enough to land punches , but big and strong enough to take the mid round hits and strong enough to tie GGG up , there i think lies the key to beating him , punch first and tie him up force the fight at a quick pace , and he will tire because he does'nt know how to fight any other way than load up ,
I think his camp know this and thats why they insist on fighting in his own weight division , they are not going to get in the ring with a physicly stronger opponent than he is , The Ward fight will not happen simply because Ward is fast enough to beat him to the punch and strong enough to tie him up ..Billy Joe would do OK for 4-5 rnds then i think the same would happen has the Brook fight with Billys trainer being very cautious and having the towel in his hand throughout the fight
Re: Where would you rate the first 3 rounds Brook v GGG
coneye wrote:LOL Takes more than a internet post go upset me ,, If you think my grammer and spelling is bad now , you should of seen it a few years ago before i went on forums , I'm learning has i gobbjc wrote:magwitch wrote:
Christ almighty it’s people like you that are responsible for words like “Eubanks”. It’s fcking Brook for f*ck’s sake: Brook! Not really all that hard![]()
Don’t be upset, I am just kidding mate![]()
Do you think Saunders can do any better against Golovkins then?
Mate i ll apologise in advance. Think i do all three of them wrong. Eubanks. Brooks and worse still i somehow go from calling golovkin both golovkin and golvokin sometimes even in the same post. Probably be billy joe saunder next.![]()
Regards BJS v GGG i think he probably would do better because he's a naturally bigger man , how much better i don't know ,,Like everyone else i look at GGG and see flaws , he is easy to hit , but does'nt seem to get hurt , but once he warms up his punching, just flows and he seems to hurt with every punch ,,, Would BJS win i seriously doubt it he just does'nt have the stamina, to move and punch with a guy like GGG , i think its going to take someone who's very very fit and physicly strong with a solid chin to beat him
Basicly a fighter like Kell who is fast and good enough to land punches , but big and strong enough to take the mid round hits and strong enough to tie GGG up , there i think lies the key to beating him , punch first and tie him up force the fight at a quick pace , and he will tire because he does'nt know how to fight any other way than load up ,
I think his camp know this and thats why they insist on fighting in his own weight division , they are not going to get in the ring with a physicly stronger opponent than he is , The Ward fight will not happen simply because Ward is fast enough to beat him to the punch and strong enough to tie him up ..Billy Joe would do OK for 4-5 rnds then i think the same would happen has the Brook fight with Billys trainer being very cautious and having the towel in his hand throughout the fight
Great post.
-
Grilling Machine
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 3166
- Joined: 16 Sep 2005, 02:28
Re: Where would you rate the first 3 rounds Brook v GGG
Eubank was born Eubanks. It took McGuigans about ten years to stop calling him that.
Re: Where would you rate the first 3 rounds Brook v GGG
It's a good point you make.crusader wrote:Hearns had some notable success at the very start, but then he already starts getting ragged and bullied around the ring. I was really surprised by how quickly his legs seemed to desert him, and for the most part he was busted by a much sturdier opponent who was better-suited to that type of fight.magwitch wrote:One sided my a**.crusader wrote:I thought it was good action, but it didn't stand out to me as being great.
Incidentally, I think Hagler-Hearns is one of the most overrated fights there is. I had heard so much about a great, back and forth war, but when I finally watched it I saw Hagler deliver a fairly one-sided beatdown to Hearns.
It was tremendous raw slugging but Hearns' early fold is disappointing to me also, when you look at fights likeEvander Holyfield v Dwight Muhammad Qawi which had an insane pace for 15 rounds and big punches all the way, big guys slugging through the exhaustion
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 45238
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
Re: Where would you rate the first 3 rounds Brook v GGG
I do suspect there was some truth to the story told by Manny about the pre-fight leg massage, even at the end of the 1st round his legs started looking like wet noodles. I never used to believe it, but rewatching the fight, there's something not right about Hearns' legs.Autobarn wrote:It's a good point you make.crusader wrote:Hearns had some notable success at the very start, but then he already starts getting ragged and bullied around the ring. I was really surprised by how quickly his legs seemed to desert him, and for the most part he was busted by a much sturdier opponent who was better-suited to that type of fight.magwitch wrote:
One sided my a**.
It was tremendous raw slugging but Hearns' early fold is disappointing to me also, when you look at fights likeEvander Holyfield v Dwight Muhammad Qawi which had an insane pace for 15 rounds and big punches all the way, big guys slugging through the exhaustion
Re: Where would you rate the first 3 rounds Brook v GGG
Yeah I remember Steward's excuse. The legs did look funny.
Ultimately though it was Hearns' insane gamble to actually try and stop Hagler in a round that sealed his early doom.
Hearns shouldn't have traded with middleweights - the Barkley 1 fight as well - but it did guarantee short drama and quick excitement.
Ultimately though it was Hearns' insane gamble to actually try and stop Hagler in a round that sealed his early doom.
Hearns shouldn't have traded with middleweights - the Barkley 1 fight as well - but it did guarantee short drama and quick excitement.
Re: Where would you rate the first 3 rounds Brook v GGG
dont think Benn has ever stopped calling him Eubanks !Grilling Machine wrote:Eubank was born Eubanks. It took McGuigans about ten years to stop calling him that.
Re: Where would you rate the first 3 rounds Brook v GGG
I always thought it was Bruno that started it. I’ve no waying of knowing that...just heard it from Frank a lot.littlepug wrote:dont think Benn has ever stopped calling him Eubanks !Grilling Machine wrote:Eubank was born Eubanks. It took McGuigans about ten years to stop calling him that.
Re: Where would you rate the first 3 rounds Brook v GGG
I remember Benn doing it on purpose in the run up to their first fight just to piss him offmagwitch wrote:I always thought it was Bruno that started it. I’ve no waying of knowing that...just heard it from Frank a lot.littlepug wrote:dont think Benn has ever stopped calling him Eubanks !Grilling Machine wrote:Eubank was born Eubanks. It took McGuigans about ten years to stop calling him that.