BoxRec

Parson Cross wrote: What I do know about Brook supporters is that they will stay loyal whatever the outcome. That's like it is from the Sheff lads.

Will they stay loyal if he pulls out again ?

TJ77 wrote:@columbo have you read the interview I posted the link for?
I hope it would put your "worries" to bed I've grown to like you fella.
But I would really prefer if you just spat it out sometimes.
I will endeavour to help.
Q1 Do you honestly think Kell is a shitout ?Yes /No
End of questioning.
Your a good poster who brings lots to the board but please your with us or you ain't.

Na this is the gods honest truth. I really do think Kell has good skills and Im interested to see how he does against Porter who he's clearly a superior boxer to but has a rough house style. My issue with Kell is purely the competition up to now which ive repeated nine million times and have stopped mentioning. In regards to whether im team Brook or not, to be fair im not really team anyone as I just want to see the best man win and the loser isnt disgraced either if it's against a top opponent. The only boxer i probably have a bit of a soft spot for and would put myself on their team if you will is Froch as ive loved that he's been willing to fight the top names over the years. Also that will probably explain to you why I havent always been that keen on Kell because of that. Anyway, I hope that clears that up. Il read the article aswell and post a comment accordingly

Hope I'm wrong but I can see brook gettin a good hidin

tear up wrote:Hope I'm wrong but I can see brook gettin a good hidin

Have to agree with this.

If the Porter that fought Malinaggi turns up against Brook I can see a painful beating on the cards.

People talk about Brook being a better boxer skill wise, but Porter is no slouch and is much more than just a brawler.

Aleksander is seen as a quality boxer/technician and Porter dealt with him quite easily.

The quality opposition is the key for me here. Brook has not fought at top level, whilst Porter has on several occasions.

I have changed my opinion on Porter. He is a solid geezer.

Parson Cross wrote:The Brook debate has become tedious with repetition after repetition. Think it's time to move on. People have tied their colours to the mast - and those trying to move the goalposts like Ali need to grow some.
Let's see what happens in the fight.
The haters will either gloat or disappear into their shells.
The supporters will either dwell in the afterglow - or take their licks on here.
What I do know about Brook supporters is that they will stay loyal whatever the outcome. That's like it is from the Sheff lads.

Those who are stating that Brook will get hammered, will claim Porter is not really that good if Kell beats him.

Pugilist-specialist wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:The Brook debate has become tedious with repetition after repetition. Think it's time to move on. People have tied their colours to the mast - and those trying to move the goalposts like Ali need to grow some.
Let's see what happens in the fight.
The haters will either gloat or disappear into their shells.
The supporters will either dwell in the afterglow - or take their licks on here.
What I do know about Brook supporters is that they will stay loyal whatever the outcome. That's like it is from the Sheff lads.

Those who are stating that Brook will get hammered, will claim Porter is not really that good if Kell beats him.

Based on what? Kell is going to get hammered, but if Brook does win I will definitely praise him.

Pugilist-specialist wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:The Brook debate has become tedious with repetition after repetition. Think it's time to move on. People have tied their colours to the mast - and those trying to move the goalposts like Ali need to grow some.
Let's see what happens in the fight.
The haters will either gloat or disappear into their shells.
The supporters will either dwell in the afterglow - or take their licks on here.
What I do know about Brook supporters is that they will stay loyal whatever the outcome. That's like it is from the Sheff lads.

Those who are stating that Brook will get hammered, will claim Porter is not really that good if Kell beats him.

I don't doubt they will say Porter isn't at the level they thought he was. But it'll be hard for them to say he isn't good after his recent results.

im going to give Brook massive credit win lose or draw

my only 'issue' with him is him not fighting anyone decent

I hadn't seen Porter, so I watched a few clips to see what was what. He seems to move exclusively in straight lines, wing loads of punches, and not have much of a defence. That seems to play perfectly into the hands of someone who has good movement, can give angles and counterpunch, so are people thinking he'll just be too strong and walk through Brook? I probably need to watch the Malignaggi fight.

Ok, I watched the Malignaggi fight, and sure, he did walk straight through Paulie, BUT: Paulie can't hurt anyone, and he never has been able to. Paulie is 100 years old and ring worn from having been pressured a few times. Paulie just went backwards in straight lines sticking out the jab.

Surely if Brook doesn't freeze, and approach like Porter took with Malignaggi is going to make it an easy night for Kell? If he comes leaping in with no defence like he did against Paulie, surely rather than standing there and tapping him with a jab as the huge left hook comes, Kell will be moving off at an angle and throwing hard counters? I'm seeing a Benn/Watson type fight here.

Where is this long list of great opponents Porter has faced?

He beat Alexander convincingly - great win.

But Malignaggi has a lot of miles on the clock, is a lot slower of hand and foot these days, he's a small welterweight and can' t punch a lick.

Great performance by Porter but let's not go overboard here. Who else? Draw and a win with blown up lightweight Juan Diaz? Laboured points win over Alfonso Gomez?

I make Kell the underdog but I give him a great chance. I actually think he is the harder puncher of the two and for my money will be the hardest puncher Porter has ever faced.

Can't wait for the fight!

There you go.
Sweetscience - infers he's gonna pull out at 23.20 last night.
Has a sleep there starts giving him "massive credit" at 10.10.
Fuckin make your mind up.
Over and out. This place bores me stiff of late.

Parson Cross wrote:There you go.
Sweetscience - infers he's gonna pull out at 23.20 last night.
Has a sleep there starts giving him "massive credit" at 10.10.
Fuckin make your mind up.
Over and out. This place bores me stiff of late.

you read what you want to hear you daft arse licker

i asked last night 'will they all support him if he pulls out' when you said some other drivell

& i will give massive credit if he fights him !!!!!

i get frustrated with him cause he has talent... if he didnt have any i wouldnt give two sh-its

sweetscience wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:There you go.
Sweetscience - infers he's gonna pull out at 23.20 last night.
Has a sleep there starts giving him "massive credit" at 10.10.
Fuckin make your mind up.
Over and out. This place bores me stiff of late.

you read what you want to hear you daft arse licker

i asked last night 'will they all support him if he pulls out' when you said some other drivell

& i will give massive credit if he fights him !!!!!

i get frustrated with him cause he has talent... if he didnt have any i wouldnt give two sh-its

I don't think he's an arse licker. Close friend, more like.

Does anyone know what the testing policy will be for this fight? Malignaggi definitely seemed to be hinting Porter was on something after they fought. Obviously he didn't say anything specific & accuse Porter outright of PEDs, but the implication seemed pretty clear to me.

On IFL Eddie said they had insisted that VADA testing was written into the contract.

Pugilist-specialist wrote:On IFL Eddie said they had insisted that VADA testing was written into the contract.

Good, hope they stick to that, should be the standard for all major fights.

No offense but how can a mandatory challenger insist that Vada does testing for this fight? This isnt a super fight. You cant just insist of a certain type of testing happening when you're the challenger.

columbo wrote:No offense but how can a mandatory challenger insist that Vada does testing for this fight? This isnt a super fight. You cant just insist of a certain type of testing happening when you're the challenger.

Why not? Keep in mind Hearn probably had a decent amount of leverage with the IBF ruling about when the fight should take place.

DMA1987 wrote:

columbo wrote:No offense but how can a mandatory challenger insist that Vada does testing for this fight? This isnt a super fight. You cant just insist of a certain type of testing happening when you're the challenger.

Why not? Keep in mind Hearn probably had a decent amount of leverage with the IBF ruling about when the fight should take place.

I've never heard of it before. Not saying it's not a good thing for the sport but never heard of a challengers camp demanding testing and getting it. That's what the commissions are for.

columbo wrote:No offense but how can a mandatory challenger insist that Vada does testing for this fight? This isnt a super fight. You cant just insist of a certain type of testing happening when you're the challenger.

In a contract negotiation, you can ask for anything you like. You shouldn't need massive leverage to ask for something as reasonable as drug testing.

SamWise72 wrote:

columbo wrote:No offense but how can a mandatory challenger insist that Vada does testing for this fight? This isnt a super fight. You cant just insist of a certain type of testing happening when you're the challenger.

In a contract negotiation, you can ask for anything you like. You shouldn't need massive leverage to ask for something as reasonable as drug testing.

Yeah but Porter's team hold the majority of the cards currently.

columbo wrote:

SamWise72 wrote:

columbo wrote:No offense but how can a mandatory challenger insist that Vada does testing for this fight? This isnt a super fight. You cant just insist of a certain type of testing happening when you're the challenger.

In a contract negotiation, you can ask for anything you like. You shouldn't need massive leverage to ask for something as reasonable as drug testing.

Yeah but Porter's team hold the majority of the cards currently.

Not really when you think about it.

DMA1987 wrote:

columbo wrote:

SamWise72 wrote:
In a contract negotiation, you can ask for anything you like. You shouldn't need massive leverage to ask for something as reasonable as drug testing.

Yeah but Porter's team hold the majority of the cards currently.

Not really when you think about it.

They have the title and the money, all Brook has is that he's mandatory, easy for them to let it go to purse bids so all he gets is a straight up 75-25 split, on the road, with little else in the contract.

Was the IBF mandate about the date it had to take place still in effect? Because if it was then like I say, Matchroom had some pretty good leverage as there is no way Golden boy were honouring that date.

So for Hearn to agree to a revised date, they would have had to make concessions I'm sure.

If it wasn't then I tend to agree.