BoxRec

crusader wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:Without throwing a punch, Brook became the best WW.

Because he did marginally better against a common opponent? Eh, I'm not so sure.

I think he's got a good argument, but it's not clear-cut for me.

Let's hope Thurman and Brook go at it later in the year! They've always been pretty respectful towards one another and I'm sure they'd put on a good fight.

The right man won, but I wouldn't mind seeing a rematch, as Porter did enough to warrant one.

It restores my faith in boxing when the best fighters fight each other & put on a decent contest to boot: it doesn't happen often enough these days.

I had it 115-113 Thurman with some close rounds. Thurman landed better, cleaner counters throughout the fight as Porter worked harder but was not as effective. Porter was aggressive but it was not effective aggression as Thurman was able to make him miss and counter with some very strong shots. Thurman hurt Porter more than Porter hurt Thurman, even though Thurman stayed on the ropes too long in certain spots. It was very close, and majors props to both fighters, but Thurman performed slightly better in a really good fight.

I feel Thurman would perform better in a rematch as he is the more versatile fighter. Porter is always going to bull forward and put that pressure on you. Thurman would move more, throw the strong counters, and smother and clinch more on the inside.

It was close but clear.

Porter hasn't improved one inch from the Brook defeat.

Still using the same amateurish (and borderline illegal) greco-roman wrestling style in a boxing ring.

Ans still just as always a sore loser, him and his father.

I saw the fight again and carefully, my final scorecards per round were like this:

Round 1 - Thurman
Round 2 - Porter
Round 3 - Thurman
Round 4 - Thurman
Round 5 - Porter
Round 6 - Porter
Round 7 - Porter
Round 8 - Thurman
Round 9 - Porter
Round 10 - Thurman
Round 11 - Thurman
Round 12 - Porter

114-114 (6-6)

Final Result = DRAW

Nothing more fair I think.

There were some close rounds, no doubt, so I can see why some think it could have been a draw. In my eyes, Thurman was the better boxer, and definitely landed the more significant shots. Credit to Porter for his solid chin and excellent condition. Thurman may have stole a round or two with some big heavy shots at the end of the round that swayed the judges. I thought Porter looked awkward and a bit sloppy at times as he was rushing in. Thurman got on his bike when he needed to, which was smart on his part. Close, but Thurman deserved the win I thought.

Brook grabbed held did everything negative he could to not have to really mix it up with Shawn... 70+ clinches, that was John Ruiz worthy. Certainly less impressive than Thurman out fighting Porter.

115-113 Thurman 3x was perfect.

I thought Porter won 115-113. Robbed is a bit much. Draw would have been ok.

SFW wrote:Brook grabbed held did everything negative he could to not have to really mix it up with Shawn... 70+ clinches, that was John Ruiz worthy. Certainly less impressive than Thurman out fighting Porter.

115-113 Thurman 3x was perfect.

It is close to impossible to not clinch with Porter. He tries to push you to the ropes, lean on you with his body and exchange including rabbit punches which happen when you are so close. Significant part of Porter's actions is illegal, and naturally when Porter is so close and pushes you with his body, you clinch. Thurman tried to avoid contact and clinching, but often he had to clinch too.

Brook held on for dear life many of those times, it was clearly excessive. Thurman did it much less, and exchanged a lot more. Yeah I don't like that mauling stuff porter does its misleading. He doesn't do accurate work at least half the time he looks like he is.

You guys are all misinterpreting the op. Shawn Porter was Rob, as in that was his birth name . Shawn Porter was Rob Porter.

Close fight, but the scorecards were fair.

I also scored it 115-113 for Thurman.

I thought Thurman won clearly and the only way one would think Porter won the fight is if they looked at roughhousing as equal to punching.

I had it 116-113 Thurman.

Just more cleaner, snappy blows that had visible affect on Porter in a majority of the rounds.

Still, Thurman at times looked like a guy who might succumb to intense pressure if he challenged someone who hits harder than Porter.
A few times when he was against the ropes and being pummeled by Porter, Thurman appeared ready to crumble, but sucked it up.

It's 2 straight fights now where a body shot has put him in serious jeopardy. I assume future opponents are really going to target that suspect midsection.

An interesting and very dangerous fight for Thurman would be against a prime Marcos Maidana.
He's someone who would have given Thurman a real gut check with his pressing style and heavy hands.

But it appears Maidana has lapsed into an unannounced retirement, so my latest dream fight will never happen.

Thurman won the fight by two rounds for me. Great fight though and credit to both guys.

Brook v Thurman has to be made early next year. Brook smashes him.

I like Brook in that fight, but I doubt that he 'smashes' Thurman

What suggests such an emphatic win?

crusader wrote:I like Brook in that fight, but I doubt that he 'smashes' Thurman

What suggests such an emphatic win?

What's the usual reason?

Forcefraser probably has a specially affinity for British fighters.

Rationally Brook would be competitive but would be the betting underdog.

Even the Brit bookies only list Brook as even money against Khan-job, even though little Amir is now probably damaged goods after sampling Canelo's Punch from Hell.

crusader wrote:I like Brook in that fight, but I doubt that he 'smashes' Thurman

What suggests such an emphatic win?

Stylistically I think it would be a slowpaced fight with both men paying the other a lot of respect. Lots of fencing.

115-113 Thurman was my score as well. It was a really fun fight, and nothing controversial about the result. In all honesty it was fun enough to warrant a rematch, but not necessary based on the end result alone.

gilgamesh wrote:I agreed with the official judges. When a fight is that close it's not a robbery no matter which way it goes.

I had it a draw myself but I absolutely agree on the second part.
When the fight is that close there is no such thing as a bad decision.
Decision reasonably could have gone either way, it happened to go to Thurman.

I thought porter deserved a draw. Some say he didn't deserve a victory. IMO he didn't deserve a loss.

Perseus wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:I agreed with the official judges. When a fight is that close it's not a robbery no matter which way it goes.

I had it a draw myself but I absolutely agree on the second part.
When the fight is that close there is no such thing as a bad decision.
Decision reasonably could have gone either way, it happened to go to Thurman.

Only way it's a bad decision is if it's that close, and one guy gets it by a ridiculously wide margin.

amwsnw wrote:I thought porter deserved a draw. Some say he didn't deserve a victory. IMO he didn't deserve a loss.

He sure did, and got it. 3x. Glad the judges got it right. If Thurman lost his title to that, now that would have been closer to a robbery than anything.

No way was it a robbery...I had it a draw Porter fought well just wasn't convincing enough to get the nod if he got a knock-down say in the 11th or 12th or any round for that matter [it was close ] he would have deserved the decision close but no cigar.

Is this just a case of people giving too much credit for sloppy work or what.. what about Shawn hitting low all night and getting countered cleanly and constantly.. and how many times did Porter just frustratingly grab Thurman and walk him halfway across the ring to the ropes? More illegal stuff. Let's hope for a rematch, it'll be easier the second time around I bet.