The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post Reply
blanca
Middleweight
Posts: 1868
Joined: 21 May 2014, 13:15

Re: The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post by blanca »

Counter-puncher wrote:
dhb-raging bull wrote:
blanca wrote:These mcdonnell lads are ugly fuckers, yet theyve both got decent lookin lasses..shows what a bit of money and fame does for the fickle ladies!
Gavin was with his other half long before he turned pro
go on blanca get in there with the 'must be hung like a horse' line next, its the obvious next step for you
Well if its a big as his ears then yep,bet its like an anteater
Andrew
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 6108
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 09:31

Re: The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post by Andrew »

Left hook works best for Khomitsky
Boxing Prospect
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 6592
Joined: 25 Jun 2012, 14:35

Re: The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post by Boxing Prospect »

LancashireLoyal wrote:Dans only been dropped by Aydin? And at the time I'd call him a bigger puncher than Kell brook.I don't know I think it might go the distance.
Not sure if Aydin really is a bigger puncher. He's probably heavier with single shots but you can often see them coming around the houses. Brook is certainly a sharper more hurtful punches and better combinations.
Boxing Prospect
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 6592
Joined: 25 Jun 2012, 14:35

Re: The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post by Boxing Prospect »

...the hell did that come from? O_o
jameswilson
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 13497
Joined: 08 Jan 2004, 18:01

Re: The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post by jameswilson »

Oooof.
crusader
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 16875
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 20:14

Re: The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post by crusader »

:o :o :o :o :o :o :o

Khomitsky :salut:
Counter-puncher
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 39141
Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41

Re: The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post by Counter-puncher »

crusader wrote:
jameswilson wrote:All the pecker heads saying this was a god awful fight seem to have gone quiet.
That type of judgment shouldn't be based on what happens. Someone can intentionally try to create a mismatch and it can look as such based on available info even if it doesn't end up being one-sided.
you're normally very coherent mate but that reads like gibberish
Neil Gee
Super Middleweight
Posts: 4257
Joined: 06 Jul 2013, 15:37

Re: The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post by Neil Gee »

Oh boy. Khomitsky does it again. Buglioni last year now Etches.
Counter-puncher
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 39141
Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41

Re: The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post by Counter-puncher »

blanca wrote: Well if its a big as his ears then yep,bet its like an anteater

:lol:
jameswilson
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 13497
Joined: 08 Jan 2004, 18:01

Re: The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post by jameswilson »

Broke his nose I think.
hitman_hatton1
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6150
Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 20:57

Re: The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post by hitman_hatton1 »

safe to say etches back to domestic tryer status.
Andrew
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 6108
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 09:31

Re: The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post by Andrew »

Glad Adam is ok thought that would have been bad then.

Tough tough man Khomitsky put Ryder in with him.

In fact Khomitsky has fought at super middle put Callum Smith in with him.
digzee
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1582
Joined: 11 Nov 2008, 13:49

Re: The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post by digzee »

Foster at it again.. Twas but a scratch
jameswilson
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 13497
Joined: 08 Jan 2004, 18:01

Re: The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post by jameswilson »

Counter-puncher wrote:
crusader wrote:
jameswilson wrote:All the pecker heads saying this was a god awful fight seem to have gone quiet.
That type of judgment shouldn't be based on what happens. Someone can intentionally try to create a mismatch and it can look as such based on available info even if it doesn't end up being one-sided.
you're normally very coherent mate but that reads like gibberish
:lol:

Bit harsh, I think I know what crusader is getting at. But I'd argue by saying that it was a case the EBU said this is the guy you have to fight if you want the European belt, rather than being a guy chosen for a defence of a belt.

On the Etches fight, I don't think that came out of nowhere at all. He took plenty of punches before then, hardly a defensive master class leading up to it.
chiggsy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1387
Joined: 12 Feb 2010, 03:09

Re: The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post by chiggsy »

Howard foster needs to quit boxing and go and look after animals or help somalians or something he clearly can not handle seeing human beings in any kind of distress.

Yes etches got chinned BUT FOR FUCKS SAKE GIVE THE LAD A CHANCE TO GET UP?!?!?
crusader
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 16875
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 20:14

Re: The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post by crusader »

Counter-puncher wrote:
crusader wrote:
jameswilson wrote:All the pecker heads saying this was a god awful fight seem to have gone quiet.
That type of judgment shouldn't be based on what happens. Someone can intentionally try to create a mismatch and it can look as such based on available info even if it doesn't end up being one-sided.
you're normally very coherent mate but that reads like gibberish
Why? People can't tell the future and can go only by available information. If someone should be criticized for calling that match-up dross because it turned out to be good, should people be criticized for thinking Matt-Provo will be a good fight if that goes the other way and is fairly mediocre?
chiggsy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1387
Joined: 12 Feb 2010, 03:09

Re: The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post by chiggsy »

He may not of been able to continue but you wont know that unless you give him a chance.
Counter-puncher
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 39141
Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41

Re: The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post by Counter-puncher »

I just don't follow your logic and didn't find it your most clearly-argued point mate. @crusader.
Tarkus
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2859
Joined: 04 Jul 2010, 08:50

Re: The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post by Tarkus »

chiggsy wrote:Howard foster needs to quit boxing and go and look after animals or help somalians or something he clearly can not handle seeing human beings in any kind of distress.
I actually think he is a sadist who gets his kicks from making fans mad. You saw how he was giggling when people booed him.
jameswilson
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 13497
Joined: 08 Jan 2004, 18:01

Re: The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post by jameswilson »

crusader wrote:
Why? People can't tell the future and can go only by available information. If someone should be criticized for calling that match-up dross because it turned out to be good, should people be criticized for thinking Matt-Provo will be a good fight if that goes the other way and is fairly mediocre?
Plenty of people slag off fights after the event when they turn out to be boring unexpectedly as long as it suits their agenda. It suited some peoples arguments to do so with Bellew v Cleverly II. I'm not defending the fact it was PPV, but you have idiots making out like it was a boring fight between two domestic fighters. How in gods name could anyone tell that it was going to be that boring when it was made.
brilo33
Middleweight
Posts: 7865
Joined: 07 Mar 2014, 16:05

Re: The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post by brilo33 »

does anyone like kell brook, i know he comes across like a flash naseem wanna be. sky had a good documentary on him, came across as good, hard working, big family lad. i am fan want him to do well
mrbishi
Super Middleweight
Posts: 177
Joined: 06 Oct 2012, 19:13

Re: The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post by mrbishi »

How in gods name could anyone tell that it was going to be that boring when it was made.
We seen the first one
reggaereggae
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4723
Joined: 21 Dec 2009, 17:01

Re: The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post by reggaereggae »

i was walking the dog. WHat round did Khomitsky win?

I had a small bet on him....
crusader
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 16875
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 20:14

Re: The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post by crusader »

Counter-puncher wrote:I just don't follow your logic and didn't find it your most clearly-argued point mate. @crusader.
I essentially mean that people shouldn't be called out for certain judgments as a result of things that hadn't happened when they made those judgments. If Rod Salka gave Danny Garcia quite a good fight would that mean the earlier criticism of the bout wasn't justified at the time it was expressed? If LMM-Provo turns out to be mediocre was the pre-fight excitement unreasonable?
Plenty of people slag off fights after the event when they turn out to be boring unexpectedly as long as it suits their agenda. It suited some peoples arguments to do so with Bellew v Cleverly II. I'm not defending the fact it was PPV, but you have idiots making out like it was a boring fight between two domestic fighters. How in gods name could anyone tell that it was going to be that boring when it was made.
Yes, it certainly goes both ways.
handsofstone
Cruiserweight
Posts: 23241
Joined: 11 Jan 2011, 17:28

Re: The official Brook v Dan fight night discussion thread

Post by handsofstone »

Gotta hand it to Khomitsky,reputations mean nothing,that right hand was good enough to win any fight

I feel for Etches but I seen that right hand was gonna tag him flush at some point, he'll come again though
Post Reply