TheDarkDestroyer wrote:
I hope they buy the PPV, they'll make millions!
I was in Atlanta for the Olympics in 1996 when the terrorist bomb went off. After the initial shock wore off it actually boosted attendance at Centennial Park, where the actual explosion took place. The security check slowed entrance lines to a crawl but there was a sense of defiance among the fans who flocked to the Park from the day after until the Games ended several weeks later.
Hopefully the same sense of defiance will be evident among folks there whose lives would be affected by the Manchester bombing, whether that be for attending local soccer matches or just whatever people would do to continue to lead their lives as normally as possible. No sense in handing the terrorists a 2nd victory by allowing their cowardly attack to disrupt our lives any more than absolutely necessary.
I'm going to a show in Manchester tonight (Wednesday night) myself.
Hope there is a sense of defiance there that will add to the enjoyment!!
IT wrote:
To be fair, in what way is he particularly wrong about that?
Depends on how you define the subjective term "credible." If we're talking about fighters with a 100+ rating on boxrec, Brook has 11 wins of that caliber, whereas Spence has only 3. If we're talking about fighters with a 400+ rating on boxrec, Brook has 1 win of that caliber, whereas Spence has only 0. Also, while Brook has just one scalp of Porter's caliber, that win wasn't 13 years ago, it was 3 years ago. Going back to 2004 is just misleading. It's like... Wilder has only beaten 1 opponent of borderline top 10 caliber in the past 7,000 years. Well okay, but the fight wasn't 7,000 years ago either.
I think it's fair to say that if Brook has only 1 "credible" win, then Spence most certainly has 0.
Who was Brook fighting in his 22 pro fight?
If you can find an arguement from anyone that brook was rushed along quicker than spence I'd like to see it
I'm torn on this one. I'd love for Spence to be as good as people are saying and i think that it would be great for boxing to have another top P4P fighter emerge but my heart is with Brook. I love the guy. He has balls and will fight anyone anywhere. I'm going to be rooting for Brook.
If Brook wins then in the UK we are likely to get more top fights...more top fighters come over...and it's likely to inspire more potentially great sportsmen from taking up the sport.
I'm hoping for a cracking competitive fight and that spence is not a hype job or the next p4p king as match-ups between these 2, Garcia, Thurman, porter and Crawford would be entertaining and good competitive fights.
As per the original question...brook
IT wrote:
To be fair, in what way is he particularly wrong about that?
Depends on how you define the subjective term "credible." If we're talking about fighters with a 100+ rating on boxrec, Brook has 11 wins of that caliber, whereas Spence has only 3. If we're talking about fighters with a 400+ rating on boxrec, Brook has 1 win of that caliber, whereas Spence has only 0. Also, while Brook has just one scalp of Porter's caliber, that win wasn't 13 years ago, it was 3 years ago. Going back to 2004 is just misleading. It's like... Wilder has only beaten 1 opponent of borderline top 10 caliber in the past 7,000 years. Well okay, but the fight wasn't 7,000 years ago either.
I think it's fair to say that if Brook has only 1 "credible" win, then Spence most certainly has 0.
Who was Brook fighting in his 22 pro fight?
When Brook was Spence's age, he had been fighting guys like Vyacheslav Senchenko, Carson Jones x2, Hector Saldivia, and Matthew Hatton; which is roughly on-par with the opposition Spence has been fighting. When Brook was a year older than Spence is now, he didn't just fight Porter, he beat him. Spence may be matched against Brook, but he hasn't beaten him yet, or anybody else on Porter's level.
That reminds me of one more thing. If Porter is the only credible scalp on Brook's resume, then by age 27, Spence has neither fought nor beaten any credible opponents.
Lackeos wrote:
Depends on how you define the subjective term "credible." If we're talking about fighters with a 100+ rating on boxrec, Brook has 11 wins of that caliber, whereas Spence has only 3. If we're talking about fighters with a 400+ rating on boxrec, Brook has 1 win of that caliber, whereas Spence has only 0. Also, while Brook has just one scalp of Porter's caliber, that win wasn't 13 years ago, it was 3 years ago. Going back to 2004 is just misleading. It's like... Wilder has only beaten 1 opponent of borderline top 10 caliber in the past 7,000 years. Well okay, but the fight wasn't 7,000 years ago either.
I think it's fair to say that if Brook has only 1 "credible" win, then Spence most certainly has 0.
Who was Brook fighting in his 22 pro fight?
When Brook was Spence's age, he had been fighting guys like Vyacheslav Senchenko, Carson Jones x2, Hector Saldivia, and Matthew Hatton; which is roughly on-par with the opposition Spence has been fighting. When Brook was a year older than Spence is now, he didn't just fight Porter, he beat him. Spence may be matched against Brook, but he hasn't beaten him yet, or anybody else on Porter's level.
That reminds me of one more thing. If Porter is the only credible scalp on Brook's resume, then by age 27, Spence has neither fought nor beaten any credible opponents.
Yes, Porter is the only Brook's "credible scalp". If he is capable to beat (without judges/ref's help) Spence, it will change my opinion, definitely.
IT wrote:
Who was Brook fighting in his 22 pro fight?
When Brook was Spence's age, he had been fighting guys like Vyacheslav Senchenko, Carson Jones x2, Hector Saldivia, and Matthew Hatton; which is roughly on-par with the opposition Spence has been fighting. When Brook was a year older than Spence is now, he didn't just fight Porter, he beat him. Spence may be matched against Brook, but he hasn't beaten him yet, or anybody else on Porter's level.
That reminds me of one more thing. If Porter is the only credible scalp on Brook's resume, then by age 27, Spence has neither fought nor beaten any credible opponents.
Yes, Porter is the only Brook's "credible scalp". If he is capable to beat (without judges/ref's help) Spence, it will change my opinion, definitely.
Have you rewatched brook vs Porter yet as you said you were going to?
If so you'll see that the win was without ref and judges help as that is bollocks.
The judges, scored it fairly, well 2 of them. Brook won a clear decision. Better than Thurman imo
The ref was fair. He split up clinches and Porter was so clumsy barrelling in and smothering any work of his own, he did himself no favours inside.
Brook won the fight.
And no " needed around the word credible for Porter. He's a top world level welter
Lackeos wrote:
When Brook was Spence's age, he had been fighting guys like Vyacheslav Senchenko, Carson Jones x2, Hector Saldivia, and Matthew Hatton; which is roughly on-par with the opposition Spence has been fighting. When Brook was a year older than Spence is now, he didn't just fight Porter, he beat him. Spence may be matched against Brook, but he hasn't beaten him yet, or anybody else on Porter's level.
That reminds me of one more thing. If Porter is the only credible scalp on Brook's resume, then by age 27, Spence has neither fought nor beaten any credible opponents.
Yes, Porter is the only Brook's "credible scalp". If he is capable to beat (without judges/ref's help) Spence, it will change my opinion, definitely.
Have you rewatched brook vs Porter yet as you said you were going to?
If so you'll see that the win was without ref and judges help as that is bollocks.
The judges, scored it fairly, well 2 of them. Brook won a clear decision. Better than Thurman imo
The ref was fair. He split up clinches and Porter was so clumsy barrelling in and smothering any work of his own, he did himself no favours inside.
Brook won the fight.
And no " needed around the word credible for Porter. He's a top world level welter
Unfortunately, I was very busy, and I have not rewatched the match. Right now, I am too tired, but I want to rewatch before Saturday....I promise..
ValMar wrote:
Yes, Porter is the only Brook's "credible scalp". If he is capable to beat (without judges/ref's help) Spence, it will change my opinion, definitely.
Have you rewatched brook vs Porter yet as you said you were going to?
If so you'll see that the win was without ref and judges help as that is bollocks.
The judges, scored it fairly, well 2 of them. Brook won a clear decision. Better than Thurman imo
The ref was fair. He split up clinches and Porter was so clumsy barrelling in and smothering any work of his own, he did himself no favours inside.
Brook won the fight.
And no " needed around the word credible for Porter. He's a top world level welter
Unfortunately, I was very busy, and I have not rewatched the match. Right now, I am too tired, but I want to rewatch before Saturday....I promise..
Fuc.ing you tube ! I can not find the match Brook-Porter............
Btw, pretty entertaining fight. It's really rough and frustrating, but these guys were moving at a lightning pace after they got past the feeling out period. They both have great speed and Brook especially has great reaction speed.
ValMar wrote:
Unfortunately, I was very busy, and I have not rewatched the match. Right now, I am too tired, but I want to rewatch before Saturday....I promise..
Fuc.ing you tube ! I can not find the match Brook-Porter............
Btw, pretty entertaining fight. It's really rough and frustrating, but these guys were moving at a lightning pace after they got past the feeling out period. They both have great speed and Brook especially has great reaction speed.
Thank you, but it is not available in my country. Bad luck.
Impractical Poster wrote:I frequently read about fans not having a personal preference on a favorite during certain bouts. This is an impossible task for me. Even if I turn on a broadcast midfight and I know nothing of either fighter, I will end up rooting for one of them for one reason or another.
Just me?
You always pick out the guy whose style and skills you like best... If neither of them can fight I can't watch... If it's a mismatch, I don't want to watch.
But if it's a mismatch that was supposed to be a mismatch in the other direction – such as Tyson-Douglas, then it's intriguing to see a boxer confound popular and “expert” opinion, box the favorite’s ass off, and score a dramatic upset. Those are some of the most entertaining fights.
Impractical Poster wrote:I frequently read about fans not having a personal preference on a favorite during certain bouts. This is an impossible task for me. Even if I turn on a broadcast midfight and I know nothing of either fighter, I will end up rooting for one of them for one reason or another.
Just me?
You always pick out the guy whose style and skills you like best... If neither of them can fight I can't watch... If it's a mismatch, I don't want to watch.
But if it's a mismatch that was supposed to be a mismatch in the other direction – such as Tyson-Douglas, then it's intriguing to see a boxer confound popular and “expert” opinion, box the favorite’s ass off, and score a dramatic upset. Those are some of the most entertaining fights.
