BoxRec

Posted: **20 Sep 2010, 11:35**

stujones wrote:I was a little dissapointed in Brook I must say. I do agree with David in that Naz would have demolished a Featherweight version of Michael Jennings, and beat the equivalent (solid EBU level) fighters quickly and early. The fighter I have in mind is Billy Hardy.

What I was a little bit dissapointed in, was the power. I think I bought the hype a little bit, with the Elwell, Lomax and McIntyre performances - he seemed as strong as an ox that night... flooring them with jabs etc.

I know I'm doing Michael a big disservice but I expected Brook to be hurting Michael far more easily than he did. I really couldn't see anything Michael's game to worry Kell. I didn't think he carried the fire power or the punch resistance to worry Kell. Michael is excellent at what he does, and usually has the workrate and speed to outwork domestic level opponents. However, there has been a few times where he has been badly hurt in fights and it's a little alarming for the future that it seemed like Kell couldn't hurt him.

He's still very strong for the weight, but he needs to be matched carefully before going into PROPER world class. Maybe a couple of fights against domestic level Light Middles, to see what he is going to be like when he cannot bully his opponent. If he cannot really stun Jennings, then what is someone like Berto going to be like.

fair point but i think kell didnt really let his shots off he was looking for a clean cut ko..and jennings did well to move his head and move around kell has the power hel just stays patient and waits for the openings rather than force it he walks u down and thats how he always is and only when he see u hurt he may come in aggresively..

Posted: **20 Sep 2010, 11:44**

He was looking for a clean-cut KO? Against a man known to constantly be on the move, who has a good chin and terrific stamina? Not a great advert for him.......

What happens when he meets a guy - an elite fighter and not a domestic operator - who has a chin that won't fold?

Is he a pure headhunter then? I've only seen him 3/4 times, those who know better may have the answers.

All you talk about is Brook's power, there must be more to him than that?

PS I shouldn't think Pacquiao will have too many sleepless nights

Posted: **20 Sep 2010, 11:46**

Captain Hook wrote:He was looking for a clean-cut KO? Against a man known to constantly be on the move, who has a good chin and terrific stamina? Not a great advert for him.......

it looked like that to me hooky, yes.

Posted: **20 Sep 2010, 11:49**

Blackburn1 wrote:
stujones wrote:I was a little dissapointed in Brook I must say. I do agree with David in that Naz would have demolished a Featherweight version of Michael Jennings, and beat the equivalent (solid EBU level) fighters quickly and early. The fighter I have in mind is Billy Hardy.

What I was a little bit dissapointed in, was the power. I think I bought the hype a little bit, with the Elwell, Lomax and McIntyre performances - he seemed as strong as an ox that night... flooring them with jabs etc.

I know I'm doing Michael a big disservice but I expected Brook to be hurting Michael far more easily than he did. I really couldn't see anything Michael's game to worry Kell. I didn't think he carried the fire power or the punch resistance to worry Kell. Michael is excellent at what he does, and usually has the workrate and speed to outwork domestic level opponents. However, there has been a few times where he has been badly hurt in fights and it's a little alarming for the future that it seemed like Kell couldn't hurt him.

He's still very strong for the weight, but he needs to be matched carefully before going into PROPER world class. Maybe a couple of fights against domestic level Light Middles, to see what he is going to be like when he cannot bully his opponent. If he cannot really stun Jennings, then what is someone like Berto going to be like.

fair point but i think kell didnt really let his shots off he was looking for a clean cut ko..and jennings did well to move his head and move around kell has the power hel just stays patient and waits for the openings rather than force it he walks u down and thats how he always is and only when he see u hurt he may come in aggresively..

I know what your saying, and I am a fan generally. Just the comparison was made with Naz. Naz would have found opening that nobody would have seen there, exploited it and KO'd the Featherweight equivalent of Jennings early.

I think it was Bunce's boxing show in Manchester did a section with Jennings a while after the Cotto fight - and he said Miguel caught him with shots he thought were impossible to catch him with. He actually said something like "I thought I was protecting myself well, covering my head and body well, but Cotto was still finding me clean where I thought I was protecting". Naz was wild and unothordox (Kell's defence is something I am more impressed with than Naz's) but at times he was deadly accurate and could hit you with shots you thought you would avoid.

That's not trying to do Kell a disservice, but if people want to make the comparison's with Naz or the comparison's with elite fighters like Cotto - then got to be hyper critical. Yes, Kell could have found the answer or the shots - he was winning the fight handily - Jennings was way to negative to be edging any rounds.... but the fact it was in the 5th round and Kell still hadn't properly figured Jennings out, or found the shots is already different to Naz or Cotto.

Posted: **20 Sep 2010, 11:52**

Captain Hook wrote:
HomeOfBritishBoxing wrote:
tsmithy50 wrote:I think if you'd never seen Kell Brook box before the magnificent 7 show you'd wonder what all the fuss was about because during the Jennings fight he looked average at best. Jennings was getting more and more into the fight shame about the cut.
jennings is cagey and makes fighters look bad, but brook won the rounds and showed a great jab and good defence, then hurt jennings in the 5th. you will see his class in december when somebody actually comes to fight him ;;-)
You are kidding? He did eff all in that fight to prove he is the best young fighter in Britain.

The guy is so overhyped and I was disgusted with his comments about being sorry he didn't lay him out "unconscious"

He is disrespectful. Naz could be as well, but Brook does not have 50% of what Hamed had...

yet you think cleverly is the best thing since sliced bread, brook is just as talented IMO

Posted: **20 Sep 2010, 11:53**

On the performances over the weekend its a no-contest.

Posted: **20 Sep 2010, 11:57**

HomeOfBritishBoxing wrote:
Captain Hook wrote:
HomeOfBritishBoxing wrote: jennings is cagey and makes fighters look bad, but brook won the rounds and showed a great jab and good defence, then hurt jennings in the 5th. you will see his class in december when somebody actually comes to fight him ;;-)
You are kidding? He did eff all in that fight to prove he is the best young fighter in Britain.

The guy is so overhyped and I was disgusted with his comments about being sorry he didn't lay him out "unconscious"

He is disrespectful. Naz could be as well, but Brook does not have 50% of what Hamed had...
yet you think cleverly is the best thing since sliced bread, brook is just as talented IMO

Brook and Cleverly are worlds apart.

Brook did not beat his man fair and square, Brook did get where he is while gaining a degree, Brook did not show class, and Brook's was not a world title eliminator, Brook is not the British, Commonwealth and Euro champ at 23, Brook wanted his opponent "unconscious"...

Shall I carry on?

He's a good fighter, I'm not denying that.....but after the weekend I have little respect for him. I don't expect you to agree with me, but that's my opinion.

Posted: **20 Sep 2010, 11:58**

Counter-puncher wrote:
Captain Hook wrote:He was looking for a clean-cut KO? Against a man known to constantly be on the move, who has a good chin and terrific stamina? Not a great advert for him.......

it looked like that to me hooky, yes.

Yes I agree mate, but what would his plan B have been if not for the cut? I still think Jennings would have taken it on points but I guess we'll never know.

Posted: **20 Sep 2010, 12:21**

i don't think he had *much* of a plan b

i assume he was thinking exactly what i was thinking, and that the first time he really caught Jennings, either (a) jennings would be stopped or (b) Jennings would be so cautious after getting caught as to not make a fight of it thereafter.

i don't think Jennings would have taken it on points, myself. his eyes got VERY wide when he got hit. i think had the fight gone and he'd have taken a few more he would have gone so far into a shell as to be a potential stoppage any time brook got him on the ropes and unleashed a barrage- certainly, with the reffing going the way it was towards certain marquee FW fighters that night

FWIW i wasn't that impressed by Brook, first time in the flesh and as i think someone else has said, he didn't do that great a job of cutting the ring off, seemed to want to set his feet and Jennings wasn't going to allow him to do that early

for me i think brook should have concentrated on cutting the ring up and just touching Jennings up until he lost energy and couldn't move as much.

Posted: **20 Sep 2010, 12:23**

im not saying his performance was the best but he won fairly he failed to finish him off in the way he would have liked to and failed to please the fans true..but kell is all round a good fighter in my opinion jennings was never going to beat him no disrespect to jenning.. kell cant really fight on the back foot likes to walk oppnents down and can be flat footed. when jennings moved to the side and used his movement that was good and i know kell doesnt like that.. his past oppnents move in straightlines jennings showed abit of versatility in moving his head more and moving which is why kell couldnt land clean.. and i understand where u guys say ppl like pacqaio an elite fighter would be to much in a way i agree because pacqaio certainly aint going to be moving in straight lines and will move to the side and throw punches n bunches...so yh i understand all the comments i aint a brook fan i just think from a boxing point of view he is talented and in time we will see how he copes with the elite i myself have seen brook in sparring and train what ive seen i wont go out and say but im sure all ure comments are valid and quite right..

Posted: **20 Sep 2010, 12:24**

Jennings did a decent job of frustrating Brook but it came at the expense of doing any, umm, effective punching, it seemed to me.

if he'd opened up more i think he'd have got clouted and i don't think he'd ever have done enough to win the fight the way it was going.

Posted: **20 Sep 2010, 12:45**

Captain Hook wrote:
HomeOfBritishBoxing wrote:
Captain Hook wrote: You are kidding? He did eff all in that fight to prove he is the best young fighter in Britain.

The guy is so overhyped and I was disgusted with his comments about being sorry he didn't lay him out "unconscious"

He is disrespectful. Naz could be as well, but Brook does not have 50% of what Hamed had...
yet you think cleverly is the best thing since sliced bread, brook is just as talented IMO
Brook and Cleverly are worlds apart.

Brook did not beat his man fair and square, Brook did get where he is while gaining a degree, Brook did not show class, and Brook's was not a world title eliminator, Brook is not the British, Commonwealth and Euro champ at 23, Brook wanted his opponent "unconscious"...

Shall I carry on?

He's a good fighter, I'm not denying that.....but after the weekend I have little respect for him. I don't expect you to agree with me, but that's my opinion.

brooks fight WAS a world title eliminator...the european champion mattehw hatton wants nothing to do with brook! brook was british champion at 22.....yes so what if he wanted him unconcious? knocking your opponent spark out gets more publicity then getting premature stoppages imo.

Posted: **20 Sep 2010, 13:00**

I personally thought Brook looked a bit tense, there seemed a tension in his shoulders and a slight hesitancy before throwing the right hand, like he was thinking a bit too much?

Posted: **20 Sep 2010, 15:51**

Counter-puncher wrote:
tsmithy50 wrote: Jennings was getting more and more into the fight shame about the cut.
did you see the expression on his face when he got hit?

Exactly,the first time Jennings felt Brooks power he was off,it was always going to be a matter of time,I fail to see Jennings even sharing a round in this fight.
Admitedly the ending was an anti climax,Jennings and his team were glad to be out of there Brian Hughes used his experience to enable his fighter to fight another day,(although I will be suprised if he is allowed to contest the vacant British Title against O'Donnell) unlike Enzo Macs corner who allowed him to get slaughtered .They should have halted the fight after the first knockdown.
I dont think we have seen the best of Brook yet,I personally feel Jennings gave Cotto a better fight than Brook.I may be wrong but Brooks jab destroyed every ounce of confidence Jennings had and thats why he ran.

Posted: **20 Sep 2010, 16:01**

Counter-puncher wrote:
Captain Hook wrote:He was looking for a clean-cut KO? Against a man known to constantly be on the move, who has a good chin and terrific stamina? Not a great advert for him.......

it looked like that to me hooky, yes.

Not to me it didn't.

Posted: **20 Sep 2010, 16:03**

Captain Hook wrote:Brook did not beat his man fair and square

Oh dear.

You obviously don't like the lad but what exactly did you want him to do when the ref waved it off?

You've seen him three or four times, you say. I've seen him plenty. He's good but needs testing. Had it gone on, and had Brook wanted to, he would have broken Jennings up.

Posted: **20 Sep 2010, 16:19**

Captain Hook wrote:Well said, it made me cringe.

He sounds like a effing Wakefield hairdresser and has absolutely no class.

He has a lot of talent but is NOWHERE NEAR as good as he, and some of the posters on here, think he is.

We're all used to the gutter talk but this kid just oozes petulance and disrespect.

I was also pissed off the commentators were talking about Jennings as if he was some journeyman there to give Brook a workout. He lost to Muttley, which was a huge shock, and then to Miguel Cotto, and he didn't disgrace himself in that one. His record is solid and he's beaten some very good boxers.

So what makes people think he's worth nothing more than cannon fodder for Brook?

Jennings has class in and out of the ring, he deserved better....

From someone who has been saying for months that Brook would lose, how sour are those grapes ?

Posted: **20 Sep 2010, 16:21**

stujones wrote:I was a little dissapointed in Brook I must say. I do agree with David in that Naz would have demolished a Featherweight version of Michael Jennings, and beat the equivalent (solid EBU level) fighters quickly and early. The fighter I have in mind is Billy Hardy.

What I was a little bit dissapointed in, was the power. I think I bought the hype a little bit, with the Elwell, Lomax and McIntyre performances - he seemed as strong as an ox that night... flooring them with jabs etc.

I know I'm doing Michael a big disservice but I expected Brook to be hurting Michael far more easily than he did. I really couldn't see anything Michael's game to worry Kell. I didn't think he carried the fire power or the punch resistance to worry Kell. Michael is excellent at what he does, and usually has the workrate and speed to outwork domestic level opponents. However, there has been a few times where he has been badly hurt in fights and it's a little alarming for the future that it seemed like Kell couldn't hurt him.

He's still very strong for the weight, but he needs to be matched carefully before going into PROPER world class. Maybe a couple of fights against domestic level Light Middles, to see what he is going to be like when he cannot bully his opponent. If he cannot really stun Jennings, then what is someone like Berto going to be like.

Disappointed in Brook ?
Why ? You tipped him to lose.

Posted: **20 Sep 2010, 16:24**

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:
Captain Hook wrote:Brook did not beat his man fair and square
Oh dear.

You obviously don't like the lad but what exactly did you want him to do when the ref waved it off?

You've seen him three or four times, you say. I've seen him plenty. He's good but needs testing. Had it gone on, and had Brook wanted to, he would have broken Jennings up.

it wasnt the ref it was brian hughes who called the stoppage and i didnt see the cut but it didnt look career threatening and i think imo jennings knew if he would of carried on brook would of got to him in the end,i didnt want brook to win but fair play he done the job he needed to do

Posted: **20 Sep 2010, 17:07**

seems the unbiased consensus is that Jennings would have been stopped if he'd took any chances, or gone the distance if he hadn't taking any chances. I don't really think a rematch
is warranted as it was very plain to see that Brook was very dominant, even without moving into second gear.

Posted: **20 Sep 2010, 17:19**

Counter-puncher wrote:Jennings did a decent job of frustrating Brook but it came at the expense of doing any, umm, effective punching, it seemed to me.

if he'd opened up more i think he'd have got clouted and i don't think he'd ever have done enough to win the fight the way it was going.

agree 100%. an elusive experienced guy like jennings is not going to be easy to look good against, especially when he is in survival mode with little intent on aggression.
it looked as though Jennings plan was to frustrate Brook and hope he gassed in the latter stages.

Posted: **20 Sep 2010, 17:28**

fasteddie wrote:
it wasnt the ref it was brian hughes who called the stoppage and i didnt see the cut but it didnt look career threatening and i think imo jennings knew if he would of carried on brook would of got to him in the end,i didnt want brook to win but fair play he done the job he needed to do

I thought it was Hughes too. I took another look and it looked like Big Terry, he say no, and Brian was content with that. Perhaps Brian just told Terry that was that and the big man waved if off.

Regardless, you're right re their logic.

Posted: **21 Sep 2010, 04:01**

Pugilist-specialist wrote:
stujones wrote:I was a little dissapointed in Brook I must say. I do agree with David in that Naz would have demolished a Featherweight version of Michael Jennings, and beat the equivalent (solid EBU level) fighters quickly and early. The fighter I have in mind is Billy Hardy.

What I was a little bit dissapointed in, was the power. I think I bought the hype a little bit, with the Elwell, Lomax and McIntyre performances - he seemed as strong as an ox that night... flooring them with jabs etc.

I know I'm doing Michael a big disservice but I expected Brook to be hurting Michael far more easily than he did. I really couldn't see anything Michael's game to worry Kell. I didn't think he carried the fire power or the punch resistance to worry Kell. Michael is excellent at what he does, and usually has the workrate and speed to outwork domestic level opponents. However, there has been a few times where he has been badly hurt in fights and it's a little alarming for the future that it seemed like Kell couldn't hurt him.

He's still very strong for the weight, but he needs to be matched carefully before going into PROPER world class. Maybe a couple of fights against domestic level Light Middles, to see what he is going to be like when he cannot bully his opponent. If he cannot really stun Jennings, then what is someone like Berto going to be like.
Disappointed in Brook ?
Why ? You tipped him to lose.

No I didn't - I was one of those ones who thought it would be a relative blow out for Brook. I expected him to smash Jennings.

Posted: **21 Sep 2010, 05:05**

My thoughts are, He Brooks, was trying to get a few rounds in. There was no rush.

BoxRec

Kell Brook V Jennings Question

Re: Kell Brook V Jennings Question

Re: Kell Brook V Jennings Question

Re: Kell Brook V Jennings Question

Re: Kell Brook V Jennings Question

Re: Kell Brook V Jennings Question

Re: Kell Brook V Jennings Question

Re: Kell Brook V Jennings Question

Re: Kell Brook V Jennings Question

Re: Kell Brook V Jennings Question

Re: Kell Brook V Jennings Question

Re: Kell Brook V Jennings Question

Re: Kell Brook V Jennings Question

Re: Kell Brook V Jennings Question

Re: Kell Brook V Jennings Question

Re: Kell Brook V Jennings Question

Re: Kell Brook V Jennings Question

Re: Kell Brook V Jennings Question

Re: Kell Brook V Jennings Question

Re: Kell Brook V Jennings Question

Re: Kell Brook V Jennings Question

Re: Kell Brook V Jennings Question

Re: Kell Brook V Jennings Question

Re: Kell Brook V Jennings Question

Re: Kell Brook V Jennings Question

Re: Kell Brook V Jennings Question