BoxRec

palooka wrote: It is realistic and only seems cynical to the nieve; Brook should not box Khan if the opportunity arose for a million pounds and hold out for a title shot first; yeah, what world do you live in where securing your families future comes after winning one of 60 odd world titles?

cynical
ˈsɪnɪk(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
believing that people are motivated purely by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity.

2.
concerned only with one's own interests and typically disregarding accepted standards in order to achieve them.

I never said it wasn't realistic, I said this is what I thought would happen weeks ago. Just because it's realistic doesn't mean it's any less cynical. Khan is a fight that offers Brook nothing at this stage of his career except cash, will they come out and say that? No, they'd build the fight off the back of Khan's one shite performance at the weight and tell us how great a fight it is when it's anything but.

columbo wrote:

palooka wrote:So that's the definition of cynical then, eh?

It is realistic and only seems cynical to the nieve; Brook should not box Khan if the opportunity arose for a million pounds and hold out for a title shot first; yeah, what world do you live in where securing your families future comes after winning one of 60 odd world titles?

More fools the people who will pay for that shite.[/quote]

I'd always watch a Khan fight; though he is an arse sometimes he is always entertaining, win or lose. I'd watch it and I reckon it'd be a good scrap; I'd like Brook to box Devon first though the time frame is looking bad as I imagine Floyd will bash Amir and then he's nowhere to go (exept live a life of paradise).

SNG wrote:

palooka wrote: It is realistic and only seems cynical to the nieve; Brook should not box Khan if the opportunity arose for a million pounds and hold out for a title shot first; yeah, what world do you live in where securing your families future comes after winning one of 60 odd world titles?

cynical
ˈsɪnɪk(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
believing that people are motivated purely by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity.

2.
concerned only with one's own interests and typically disregarding accepted standards in order to achieve them.

I never said it wasn't realistic, I said this is what I thought would happen weeks ago. Just because it's realistic doesn't mean it's any less cynical. Khan is a fight that offers Brook nothing at this stage of his career except cash, will they come out and say that? No, they'd build the fight off the back of Khan's one shite performance at the weight and tell us how great a fight it is when it's anything but.

I suppose this is fair enough.

palooka wrote:

columbo wrote:

palooka wrote:So that's the definition of cynical then, eh?

It is realistic and only seems cynical to the nieve; Brook should not box Khan if the opportunity arose for a million pounds and hold out for a title shot first; yeah, what world do you live in where securing your families future comes after winning one of 60 odd world titles?

More fools the people who will pay for that shite.

I'd always watch a Khan fight; though he is an arse sometimes he is always entertaining, win or lose. I'd watch it and I reckon it'd be a good scrap; I'd like Brook to box Devon first though the time frame is looking bad as I imagine Floyd will bash Amir and then he's nowhere to go (exept live a life of paradise).[/quote]
Kell would be better off fighting Alexander though for a world title because win or lose it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that Khan will lose to Mayweather so they could fight each other then and it will still sell.

palooka wrote:

columbo wrote:

palooka wrote:So that's the definition of cynical then, eh?

It is realistic and only seems cynical to the nieve; Brook should not box Khan if the opportunity arose for a million pounds and hold out for a title shot first; yeah, what world do you live in where securing your families future comes after winning one of 60 odd world titles?

More fools the people who will pay for that shite.

I'd always watch a Khan fight; though he is an arse sometimes he is always entertaining, win or lose. I'd watch it and I reckon it'd be a good scrap; I'd like Brook to box Devon first though the time frame is looking bad as I imagine Floyd will bash Amir and then he's nowhere to go (exept live a life of paradise).[/quote]

Can't disagree with that. Khan's next big fight is his last as it will end in a KO loss, again.

clopixolacuphase wrote:

SNG wrote:

palooka wrote: It is realistic and only seems cynical to the nieve; Brook should not box Khan if the opportunity arose for a million pounds and hold out for a title shot first; yeah, what world do you live in where securing your families future comes after winning one of 60 odd world titles?

cynical
ˈsɪnɪk(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
believing that people are motivated purely by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity.

2.
concerned only with one's own interests and typically disregarding accepted standards in order to achieve them.

I never said it wasn't realistic, I said this is what I thought would happen weeks ago. Just because it's realistic doesn't mean it's any less cynical. Khan is a fight that offers Brook nothing at this stage of his career except cash, will they come out and say that? No, they'd build the fight off the back of Khan's one shite performance at the weight and tell us how great a fight it is when it's anything but.

I suppose this is fair enough.

That is probably 70% of the general population and 90% of the professional sporting population or any profession.

dont understand the hate on here for brook. hes a good guy ,unbeaten, not reached his peak yet, and won his last three by ko. all this shite about broner beating him makes me laugh. who has broner beaten at lww or welterweight? brook has just destroyed a decent fighter, not the worlds best, but a decent big welterweight. i wouldnt fancy his chances against bradley or pac , but the rest would be winnable for him now. and he obviously has power, so that gives him more reason to be feared. khan wouldnt go near him, despite all the talk,
well done kell brook.

jimcook wrote:dont understand the hate on here for brook. hes a good guy ,unbeaten, not reached his peak yet, and won his last three by ko. all this shite about broner beating him makes me laugh. who has broner beaten at lww or welterweight? brook has just destroyed a decent fighter, not the worlds best, but a decent big welterweight. i wouldnt fancy his chances against bradley or pac , but the rest would be winnable for him now. and he obviously has power, so that gives him more reason to be feared. khan wouldnt go near him, despite all the talk,
well done kell brook.

Welcome to Boxrec! You've been here long enough...

jimcook wrote:dont understand the hate on here for brook.

He's boring.

jimcook wrote:hes a good guy ,unbeaten, not reached his peak yet, and won his last three by ko. all this shite about broner beating him makes me laugh. who has broner beaten at lww or welterweight?

Broner has beaten the man that dominated Senchenko to take his title. A far better win than Brook has.

jimcook wrote:brook has just destroyed a decent fighter, not the worlds best, but a decent big welterweight. i wouldnt fancy his chances against bradley or pac , but the rest would be winnable for him now. and he obviously has power, so that gives him more reason to be feared. khan wouldnt go near him, despite all the talk,
well done kell brook.

Khan would fight Brook and he'd probably beat him.

Horse wrote:

jimcook wrote:dont understand the hate on here for brook.

He's boring.

jimcook wrote:hes a good guy ,unbeaten, not reached his peak yet, and won his last three by ko. all this shite about broner beating him makes me laugh. who has broner beaten at lww or welterweight?

Broner has beaten the man that dominated Senchenko to take his title. A far better win than Brook has.

jimcook wrote:brook has just destroyed a decent fighter, not the worlds best, but a decent big welterweight. i wouldnt fancy his chances against bradley or pac , but the rest would be winnable for him now. and he obviously has power, so that gives him more reason to be feared. khan wouldnt go near him, despite all the talk,
well done kell brook.

Khan would fight Brook and he'd probably beat him.

You are on fire Horse.

Did Paulie dominate Senchenko? I though he was 2 rounds up when it went to scorecards over the bust eye.

Why was Senchenko wearing those big white gloves? They looked like pillows. I wish both boxers had to wear the same gloves.

Horse wrote:

citybluechris wrote:senchenko only lost once and is a former world champ for 3 years, brook hasn't been at this level so no he wasn't expected to beat him, he did on merit, brook deserves credit for a change

Brook was a big favourite to win this.

Gavin would beat Senchenko.

well i probably haven't posted for two yrs but that takes the biscuit!

Gavin would not beat Senchenko.

Horse wrote:

jimcook wrote:dont understand the hate on here for brook.

He's boring.

jimcook wrote:hes a good guy ,unbeaten, not reached his peak yet, and won his last three by ko. all this shite about broner beating him makes me laugh. who has broner beaten at lww or welterweight?

Broner has beaten the man that dominated Senchenko to take his title. A far better win than Brook has.

jimcook wrote:brook has just destroyed a decent fighter, not the worlds best, but a decent big welterweight. i wouldnt fancy his chances against bradley or pac , but the rest would be winnable for him now. and he obviously has power, so that gives him more reason to be feared. khan wouldnt go near him, despite all the talk,
well done kell brook.

Khan would fight Brook and he'd probably beat him.

No he wouldn't. Let's not be silly about it now.

clopixolacuphase wrote:

jimcook wrote:dont understand the hate on here for brook. hes a good guy ,unbeaten, not reached his peak yet, and won his last three by ko. all this shite about broner beating him makes me laugh. who has broner beaten at lww or welterweight? brook has just destroyed a decent fighter, not the worlds best, but a decent big welterweight. i wouldnt fancy his chances against bradley or pac , but the rest would be winnable for him now. and he obviously has power, so that gives him more reason to be feared. khan wouldnt go near him, despite all the talk,
well done kell brook.

Welcome to Boxrec! You've been here long enough...

he has been fighting for 9 years now and still not reached his peak, who were his last 3, none were world class, he would have problems with all the top 15

danfoster wrote:

Horse wrote:

citybluechris wrote:senchenko only lost once and is a former world champ for 3 years, brook hasn't been at this level so no he wasn't expected to beat him, he did on merit, brook deserves credit for a change

Brook was a big favourite to win this.

Gavin would beat Senchenko.

well i probably haven't posted for two yrs but that takes the biscuit!

Gavin would not beat Senchenko.

I'd give him a realistic chance of beating Senchenko, but he would never win like Brook did.

lordswood wrote:

clopixolacuphase wrote:

jimcook wrote:dont understand the hate on here for brook. hes a good guy ,unbeaten, not reached his peak yet, and won his last three by ko. all this shite about broner beating him makes me laugh. who has broner beaten at lww or welterweight? brook has just destroyed a decent fighter, not the worlds best, but a decent big welterweight. i wouldnt fancy his chances against bradley or pac , but the rest would be winnable for him now. and he obviously has power, so that gives him more reason to be feared. khan wouldnt go near him, despite all the talk,
well done kell brook.

Welcome to Boxrec! You've been here long enough...

he has been fighting for 9 years now and still not reached his peak, who were his last 3, none were world class, he would have problems with all the top 15

There is no one outside of Mayweather who wouldn't have some problem with a boxer in the top 15; they are all very skilled and capable boxers. Brook is showing he belongs up near the top men; he needs to box a bone fide top 10 man or get a shot at a champ, he won't be out of his depth and shown up who he boxes and will put a good show if he loses. He has a good punch and needs to keep active, I hope he does the business away from home to prove his temperament.

palooka wrote:Did Paulie dominate Senchenko? I though he was 2 rounds up when it went to scorecards over the bust eye.

Why was Senchenko wearing those big white gloves? They looked like pillows. I wish both boxers had to wear the same gloves.

Paulie won every round on my card and I couldn't see more than 1 or 2 for Senchenko.

palooka wrote:Did Paulie dominate Senchenko? I though he was 2 rounds up when it went to scorecards over the bust eye.

Why was Senchenko wearing those big white gloves? They looked like pillows. I wish both boxers had to wear the same gloves.

I remember Malignaggi winning very easily.

crusader wrote:

palooka wrote:Did Paulie dominate Senchenko? I though he was 2 rounds up when it went to scorecards over the bust eye.

Why was Senchenko wearing those big white gloves? They looked like pillows. I wish both boxers had to wear the same gloves.

Paulie won every round on my card and I couldn't see more than 1 or 2 for Senchenko.

Cheers, I didn't see it and just glanced at the boxrec scorecard, I reckon Judah is in for a tough night.

The official cards were very poor. Malignaggi ranted about them after the fight and I thought he was justified in doing so.

he has to fight a topten in his next fight, eddie has been saying he will step up for the last 10 fights and still has not fought anyone of world class yet, he really needs to step up, eddie was saying last time out that he had a big fight and he come up with this

Then it's good for us; he dealt with Senchenko well and will go into the next bout with confidence, he looked better v the best man he's faced than against some others; complacency can be deadly to a sportsman and if he faces someone he's afraid of he may do really well' I imagine the very top men are a step too far but he will be firing hard shots so anything is possible.

im still not a 100% sure that Senchenko would beat Jones.

columbo wrote:im still not a 100% sure that Senchenko would beat Jones.

Me neither, they'd be very well matched but not sure who'd put the fight on and for what.

columbo wrote:im still not a 100% sure that Senchenko would beat Jones.

I'm not sure he'd beat Matthew Hatton.