Page 3 of 4

Re: Kell Brook vs. Timothy Bradley: who would win?

Posted: 09 Nov 2015, 13:27
by SFW
digzee wrote:
caldo2025 wrote:
Let's not get crazy, Digzee. I'm just saying that if you put all of my predictions together, those would have been some of my better ones. lol.
I actually thought that Rios was going to give Bradley a run for his money Saturday. So that should show you the level of my knowledge. It's pretty pathetic.
.
Haha ok fair enough, just give Brook a year and I promise you by the end of next year he will have 3 more top 10 welterweights on his record hopefully 2 top 5, if not I'll feel the same as you.

SFW- Its easier to be proven when your promoted by the same company with the big names, you can get the big fights without having to get into a mandatory position and get paid peanuts like Kell did. Don't you understand this?
lol that's your excuse for that pathetic resume? Are you a direct family member or just one of those invisible cousins? Peanuts is definitely right , that's all he's ever made or deserved for the shit he chose to fight.. If he actually fought the dozen times he pulled out of fights there wouldn't be any debate. Yet, as it stands, nobody can truly say what he can do at the top level. 35 fights in and had to clinch 70+times to barely beat a mugger who can't even throw a straight punch. Be thankful he has gotten this far cuz your lil tea party has only lasted this long by NOT fighting real fighters and taking every safe fight they could.

Re: Kell Brook vs. Timothy Bradley: who would win?

Posted: 09 Nov 2015, 13:31
by sucracristo
i'm one of about half the people watching, including all media, who thought
brook deserved at best a draw against porter. bradley by UD

Re: Kell Brook vs. Timothy Bradley: who would win?

Posted: 09 Nov 2015, 13:48
by digzee
SFW wrote:
digzee wrote:
caldo2025 wrote:
Let's not get crazy, Digzee. I'm just saying that if you put all of my predictions together, those would have been some of my better ones. lol.
I actually thought that Rios was going to give Bradley a run for his money Saturday. So that should show you the level of my knowledge. It's pretty pathetic.
.
Haha ok fair enough, just give Brook a year and I promise you by the end of next year he will have 3 more top 10 welterweights on his record hopefully 2 top 5, if not I'll feel the same as you.

SFW- Its easier to be proven when your promoted by the same company with the big names, you can get the big fights without having to get into a mandatory position and get paid peanuts like Kell did. Don't you understand this?
lol that's your excuse for that pathetic resume? Are you a direct family member or just one of those invisible cousins? Peanuts is definitely right , that's all he's ever made or deserved for the poo he chose to fight.. If he actually fought the dozen times he pulled out of fights there wouldn't be any debate. Yet, as it stands, nobody can truly say what he can do at the top level. 35 fights in and had to clinch 70+times to barely beat a mugger who can't even throw a straight punch. Be thankful he has gotten this far cuz your lil tea party has only lasted this long by NOT fighting real fighters and taking every safe fight they could.
Its a fact not an excuse you moron, how often do European fighters walk into big fights without being signed up to an American promoter? Name me them? I'll be waiting...

Brook never held excessively only when Porter stormed in head first as he always does...

Re: Kell Brook vs. Timothy Bradley: who would win?

Posted: 09 Nov 2015, 13:54
by Lackeos
People are very critical of Kell Brook's follow-up to beating Shawn Porter last year, but he was stabbed right after that fight. Then, he was supposed to fight Diego Chaves this October, but sustained a rib injury in training. Seems like in the span of one year, fighting a then top 15 fighter, a then top 25 fighter, attempting to fight a top 10 fighter, sustaining a rib injury, and being critically stabbed would constitute a busy enough year where fans wouldn't be like "Yeah, but couldn't you have fought the divisional #1 in between all of those stabbings and injuries and other fights? I mean Christ, it's been one whole entire year."

Re: Kell Brook vs. Timothy Bradley: who would win?

Posted: 09 Nov 2015, 13:55
by IKSRTFO
digzee wrote: Its a fact not an excuse you moron, how often do European fighters walk into big fights without being signed up to an American promoter? Name me them? I'll be waiting...

Brook never held excessively only when Porter stormed in head first as he always does...

Joe Calzaghe
Ricky Hatton
Naseem Hamed

Re: Kell Brook vs. Timothy Bradley: who would win?

Posted: 09 Nov 2015, 13:57
by Horse
Lackeos wrote:People are very critical of Kell Brook's follow-up to beating Shawn Porter last year, but he was stabbed right after that fight. Then, he was supposed to fight Diego Chaves this October, but sustained a rib injury in training. Seems like in the span of one year, fighting a then top 15 fighter, a then top 25 fighter, attempting to fight a top 10 fighter, sustaining a rib injury, and being critically stabbed would constitute a busy enough year where fans wouldn't be like "Yeah, but couldn't you have fought the divisional #1 in between all of those stabbings and injuries and other fights? I mean Christ, it's been one whole entire year."
Stop making excuses for him.

His career was ridiculously boring before he won his world title and got stabbed/slashed. It was never likely to be much better than this anyway.

Re: Kell Brook vs. Timothy Bradley: who would win?

Posted: 09 Nov 2015, 14:00
by palooka
Lackeos wrote:People are very critical of Kell Brook's follow-up to beating Shawn Porter last year, but he was stabbed right after that fight. Then, he was supposed to fight Diego Chaves this October, but sustained a rib injury in training. Seems like in the span of one year, fighting a then top 15 fighter, a then top 25 fighter, attempting to fight a top 10 fighter, sustaining a rib injury, and being critically stabbed would constitute a busy enough year where fans wouldn't be like "Yeah, but couldn't you have fought the divisional #1 in between all of those stabbings and injuries and other fights? I mean Christ, it's been one whole entire year."
I feel that the UK fans are seeing this as not one year but as a continuity of his career, over a decade. Kell had been marked out as 'special' from turning pro but had been a pro almost 10 years before facing someone dangerous - Carson Jones, who along with Porter are the best opponents on Brook's résumé. Chaves wouldn't be a bad ticking over bout for someone claiming to be the best welter in the world but isn't really a statement bout.

Re: Kell Brook vs. Timothy Bradley: who would win?

Posted: 09 Nov 2015, 14:05
by digzee
IKSRTFO wrote:
digzee wrote: Its a fact not an excuse you moron, how often do European fighters walk into big fights without being signed up to an American promoter? Name me them? I'll be waiting...

Brook never held excessively only when Porter stormed in head first as he always does...

Joe Calzaghe
Ricky Hatton
Naseem Hamed
Calzaghe had 40 fights before he fought Lacy and was getting criticized like hell as Brook is now.
Hatton had 38 fights before he fought Tszyu and then that opened doors.
Naz is a special case where everyone wanted to see his unbelievable skills.

Re: Kell Brook vs. Timothy Bradley: who would win?

Posted: 09 Nov 2015, 14:08
by IKSRTFO
digzee wrote:
IKSRTFO wrote:
digzee wrote: Its a fact not an excuse you moron, how often do European fighters walk into big fights without being signed up to an American promoter? Name me them? I'll be waiting...

Brook never held excessively only when Porter stormed in head first as he always does...

Joe Calzaghe
Ricky Hatton
Naseem Hamed
Calzaghe had 40 fights before he fought Lacy and was getting criticized like hell as Brook is now.
Hatton had 38 fights before he fought Tszyu and then that opened doors.
Naz is a special case where everyone wanted to see his unbelievable skills.
Eubank was Calzaghe's first scalp and Eubank was a top fighter.
No one even considered Hatton as being a good fighter until he fought Tyszu (who many picked him to lose to) while people are saying Brook would beat Bradley.

Re: Kell Brook vs. Timothy Bradley: who would win?

Posted: 09 Nov 2015, 14:19
by Lackeos
palooka wrote:
Lackeos wrote:People are very critical of Kell Brook's follow-up to beating Shawn Porter last year, but he was stabbed right after that fight. Then, he was supposed to fight Diego Chaves this October, but sustained a rib injury in training. Seems like in the span of one year, fighting a then top 15 fighter, a then top 25 fighter, attempting to fight a top 10 fighter, sustaining a rib injury, and being critically stabbed would constitute a busy enough year where fans wouldn't be like "Yeah, but couldn't you have fought the divisional #1 in between all of those stabbings and injuries and other fights? I mean Christ, it's been one whole entire year."
I feel that the UK fans are seeing this as not one year but as a continuity of his career, over a decade. Kell had been marked out as 'special' from turning pro but had been a pro almost 10 years before facing someone dangerous - Carson Jones, who along with Porter are the best opponents on Brook's résumé. Chaves wouldn't be a bad ticking over bout for someone claiming to be the best welter in the world but isn't really a statement bout.
Well some people don't seem to understand how boxing works. They must think that every top 10 welterweight fights and beats Mayweather in every single fight. The reality is that many elite welterweights like Bradley, Brook, Thurman, Khan, Porter, Garcia, etc. have 0-1 wins against other top 10 welterweights in their entire career. That 1 big win that they may or may not even have is often flanked by wins over a few fighters of Chaves / Rios's caliber, and some wins over fighters of Julio Diaz's caliber. Brook's resume is not that different from Thurman's or Garcia's. If a boxing fan expects Brook to have a significantly better resume than Thurman or Garcia, then they are not living in reality.

On a mildly related note, Timothy Bradley's matchmaking has been pretty aggressive, and I think he deserves a lot more respect than he has been getting the last few years. The dude legitimately beat Juan Manuel Marquez, he deserves a permanent home in the p4p top 10.

Re: Kell Brook vs. Timothy Bradley: who would win?

Posted: 09 Nov 2015, 14:36
by caldo2025
Lackeos wrote:
On a mildly related note, Timothy Bradley's matchmaking has been pretty aggressive, and I think he deserves a lot more respect than he has been getting the last few years. The dude legitimately beat Juan Manuel Marquez, he deserves a permanent home in the p4p top 10.
You said it, big boy. If anyone belongs on that list, it's TB. In the last 6 years, this guy has fought Lamont Peterson, Devon Alexander, Provodnikov, JMM, Manny X2's, Diego Chaves, Jesse Vargas and Brandon Rios. And you Brits even want to discuss Kell Brook in the same conversation with this animal? Bradley talks the talk and walks the walk like no other boxer today. Keep Brook's name out your mouth when discussing Bradley. It's not even close. That's a resume that speaks volumes

Re: Kell Brook vs. Timothy Bradley: who would win?

Posted: 09 Nov 2015, 15:44
by SFW
Bradley is just a better fighter, period. He deserves bigger fights and bigger paydays then Kell brings. Kell should think about manning up and moving up anyway, everybody knows he kills himself to keep fighting the little guys at 147 where he has the advantage. They've obviously lacked confidence in him, probably a good assessment.

Not sure how pointing out his career somehow gets twisted into just referring to one year, that's pretty funny even for CS. You guys wanna kneel and bob on him that's your prerogative, hopefully he makes himself relevant soon. Maybe one day we will finally see what he can do. At world level. Not the Bush leagues where he has spent 95% of his career.

Re: Kell Brook vs. Timothy Bradley: who would win?

Posted: 09 Nov 2015, 23:15
by amwsnw
Bradley UD

Re: Kell Brook vs. Timothy Bradley: who would win?

Posted: 10 Nov 2015, 07:33
by johnswan1
caldo2025 wrote:
digzee wrote:
caldo2025 wrote:
Let's not get crazy, Digzee. I'm just saying that if you put all of my predictions together, those would have been some of my better ones. lol.
I actually thought that Rios was going to give Bradley a run for his money Saturday. So that should show you the level of my knowledge. It's pretty pathetic.
.
Haha ok fair enough, just give Brook a year and I promise you by the end of next year he will have 3 more top 10 welterweights on his record hopefully 2 top 5, if not I'll feel the same as you.

SFW- Its easier to be proven when your promoted by the same company with the big names, you can get the big fights without having to get into a mandatory position and get paid peanuts like Kell did. Don't you understand this?
I'm sorry, I don't understand this. Brook has been all over the place calling out this guy or telling us why he's not fighting that guy. Since winning the title (which was awesome btw and I loved it), Brook has been a joke. I'm sorry, I know you love him and all but either shut up or fight. I let up on my criticism when he signed on to fight Diego Chaves because that's not an easy fight even when he's a bit undersized for Brook. Chaves is a tough out and a full nights work for any WW. Then all of a sudden the fights called off out of nowhere and here we are scratching our head yet again about this guy and his future fights. It's a joke man. Now we can look forward to Brook and Khan slugging it out over news columns instead of inside the ring.

It's old man. Brook is junk until he proves otherwise. Gavin and Dan since winning the belt off Porter. That's beyond pathetic to me. Nothing you can say will change my mind about that. He's part of what's wrong with Boxing. Shut up and take a fight....and follow through on the fight. The guy tied up Chaves from making other fights when his star was pretty bright. Pathetic.
I hate conspiracy theories but my suspicion is that Brook pulled out with a fake injury because he was supposed to be part of the Klitschko-Fury UK PPV. The fact that his fight hasn't been officially rescheduled might suggest that it was genuine after all, or else they were not convinced the new date for Klitschko-Fury would go ahead. You then think whether the Chaves fight could have supported AJ-Whyte, but that fight already has strong support with Eubank-O'Sullivan, and maybe Kell wasn't prepared to move from headlining in Sheffield on PPV to undercard in London.

Re: Kell Brook vs. Timothy Bradley: who would win?

Posted: 10 Nov 2015, 07:47
by caldo2025
johnswan1 wrote:
I hate conspiracy theories but my suspicion is that Brook pulled out with a fake injury because he was supposed to be part of the Klitschko-Fury UK PPV. The fact that his fight hasn't been officially rescheduled might suggest that it was genuine after all, or else they were not convinced the new date for Klitschko-Fury would go ahead. You then think whether the Chaves fight could have supported AJ-Whyte, but that fight already has strong support with Eubank-O'Sullivan, and maybe Kell wasn't prepared to move from headlining in Sheffield on PPV to undercard in London.
I just think Brook realized that he made a mistake to sign on to fight against Chaves because it's a high risk-low reward. If the fight was going to be rescheduled then it would have been done by now. He opted out of the fight, plain and simple. I'm sure that we'll find out in the next few weeks that he's fighting a 18-7 boxer or something for the end of December. That would be what wouldn't surprise me about this punk.

Re: Kell Brook vs. Timothy Bradley: who would win?

Posted: 10 Nov 2015, 08:40
by johnswan1
caldo2025 wrote:
johnswan1 wrote:
I hate conspiracy theories but my suspicion is that Brook pulled out with a fake injury because he was supposed to be part of the Klitschko-Fury UK PPV. The fact that his fight hasn't been officially rescheduled might suggest that it was genuine after all, or else they were not convinced the new date for Klitschko-Fury would go ahead. You then think whether the Chaves fight could have supported AJ-Whyte, but that fight already has strong support with Eubank-O'Sullivan, and maybe Kell wasn't prepared to move from headlining in Sheffield on PPV to undercard in London.
I just think Brook realized that he made a mistake to sign on to fight against Chaves because it's a high risk-low reward. If the fight was going to be rescheduled then it would have been done by now. He opted out of the fight, plain and simple. I'm sure that we'll find out in the next few weeks that he's fighting a 18-7 boxer or something for the end of December. That would be what wouldn't surprise me about this punk.
Brook is the real deal but I am also a little annoyed at the lack of any news on a revised date. They may also be looking to see if Khan gets Pacman because if he doesn't then Brook-Khan is a very big event in the UK. Khan was sitting ringside with Eddie Hearn at the weekend in Liverpool.

Re: Kell Brook vs. Timothy Bradley: who would win?

Posted: 10 Nov 2015, 09:55
by caldo2025
johnswan1 wrote:
caldo2025 wrote:
johnswan1 wrote:
I hate conspiracy theories but my suspicion is that Brook pulled out with a fake injury because he was supposed to be part of the Klitschko-Fury UK PPV. The fact that his fight hasn't been officially rescheduled might suggest that it was genuine after all, or else they were not convinced the new date for Klitschko-Fury would go ahead. You then think whether the Chaves fight could have supported AJ-Whyte, but that fight already has strong support with Eubank-O'Sullivan, and maybe Kell wasn't prepared to move from headlining in Sheffield on PPV to undercard in London.
I just think Brook realized that he made a mistake to sign on to fight against Chaves because it's a high risk-low reward. If the fight was going to be rescheduled then it would have been done by now. He opted out of the fight, plain and simple. I'm sure that we'll find out in the next few weeks that he's fighting a 18-7 boxer or something for the end of December. That would be what wouldn't surprise me about this punk.
Brook is the real deal but I am also a little annoyed at the lack of any news on a revised date. They may also be looking to see if Khan gets Pacman because if he doesn't then Brook-Khan is a very big event in the UK. Khan was sitting ringside with Eddie Hearn at the weekend in Liverpool.
There's no way Khan and Brook gets done. Here you have the two most erroneously inflated ego's in the sport both thinking that they are the A side of any negotiation. These guys will end up fighting well past the appropriate time to fight. Like Manny and Floyd, they will fight well past the time anyone gives a darn. Screw boxing.

Re: Kell Brook vs. Timothy Bradley: who would win?

Posted: 10 Nov 2015, 10:22
by johnswan1
caldo2025 wrote: There's no way Khan and Brook gets done. Here you have the two most erroneously inflated ego's in the sport both thinking that they are the A side of any negotiation. These guys will end up fighting well past the appropriate time to fight. Like Manny and Floyd, they will fight well past the time anyone gives a darn. Screw boxing.
Brook and Hearn are desperate for the Khan fight. Brook is not a diva and is far more realistic than Khan.

Re: Kell Brook vs. Timothy Bradley: who would win?

Posted: 10 Nov 2015, 11:17
by SFW
At least Kahn has shown the balls to fight the best, he dared to take much more risk than Kell has. That's just a simple fact.

Re: Kell Brook vs. Timothy Bradley: who would win?

Posted: 10 Nov 2015, 11:58
by palooka
SFW wrote:At least Kahn has shown the balls to fight the best, he dared to take much more risk than Kell has. That's just a simple fact.
I agree, Khan has his faults as a person and as a boxer but he has shown he will put himself out of his comfort zone and will box very good opposition - Kell has yet to show this and it is a surprise that Khan is younger than Brook - Khan has boxed at a high level for years and years.

Re: Kell Brook vs. Timothy Bradley: who would win?

Posted: 10 Nov 2015, 12:05
by johnswan1
palooka wrote:
SFW wrote:At least Kahn has shown the balls to fight the best, he dared to take much more risk than Kell has. That's just a simple fact.
I agree, Khan has his faults as a person and as a boxer but he has shown he will put himself out of his comfort zone and will box very good opposition - Kell has yet to show this and it is a surprise that Khan is younger than Brook - Khan has boxed at a high level for years and years.
Khan hasn't taken a risky fight since he got knocked out by Garcia at Light Welter. He's only fought light punching boxers since then. Porter is more dangerous than any guy Khan has faced at 147.

Re: Kell Brook vs. Timothy Bradley: who would win?

Posted: 10 Nov 2015, 12:08
by palooka
johnswan1 wrote:
palooka wrote:
SFW wrote:At least Kahn has shown the balls to fight the best, he dared to take much more risk than Kell has. That's just a simple fact.
I agree, Khan has his faults as a person and as a boxer but he has shown he will put himself out of his comfort zone and will box very good opposition - Kell has yet to show this and it is a surprise that Khan is younger than Brook - Khan has boxed at a high level for years and years.
Khan hasn't taken a risky fight since he got knocked out by Garcia at Light Welter. He's only fought light punching boxers since then.
BoxRec was packed out with posters and punters backing Collazo to knock Khan clean out, people were wisw after the event.

Devon Alexander is better than every opponent Brook has boxed.

Re: Kell Brook vs. Timothy Bradley: who would win?

Posted: 10 Nov 2015, 12:12
by johnswan1
palooka wrote: Devon Alexander is better than every opponent Brook has boxed.
Better than Porter?

Re: Kell Brook vs. Timothy Bradley: who would win?

Posted: 10 Nov 2015, 12:35
by IKSRTFO
johnswan1 wrote:
palooka wrote: Devon Alexander is better than every opponent Brook has boxed.
Better than Porter?

I don't think so...BUT the way Tim handled undefeated Alexander was more impressive than how Brook beat undefeated Porter

Re: Kell Brook vs. Timothy Bradley: who would win?

Posted: 10 Nov 2015, 12:42
by caldo2025
johnswan1 wrote:
caldo2025 wrote: There's no way Khan and Brook gets done. Here you have the two most erroneously inflated ego's in the sport both thinking that they are the A side of any negotiation. These guys will end up fighting well past the appropriate time to fight. Like Manny and Floyd, they will fight well past the time anyone gives a darn. Screw boxing.
Brook and Hearn are desperate for the Khan fight. Brook is not a diva and is far more realistic than Khan.
HAHAHAHAHAH Brook is not a diva? Are you kidding me? The guy thinks he's the best boxer in the history of the sport because he finally grabbed a strap. Just look at all of the news he's made over absolutely nothing. I can't tell you how many quotes I've read from this guy since winning the title and he's done zip since. He's now backed out on Chaves title fight like a punk. Who does he think he is? At least Khan has a body of work against quality opponents to fall back on. He's been in big fights. Brook is way worse than Khan. At least Khan has some legitimacy.