BoxRec

If you completely ignore him being staggered by the series of power shots, which proved to be far more damaging than anything he landed. He came back well and landed some okay blows (which the crowd went way over the top for--the replays even showed GGG blocking some of these flurries too), but he was hardly putting on a boxing lesson and didn't connect with anything in the league of what GGG landed earlier.

One decent flurry from Golovkin was about all he offered in the first round.

He looked poor, Brook was more consistent.

That flurry did far more damage than any of Brook's blows (scoring is to consider the effect of blows you know), and Golovkin was still landing apart from that. Brook recovered well but it's not like he was landing exceptionally well, and his supposedly big flurry that Sky replayed actually had two of the main punches blocked.

Scoring that for Brook is trying to give him the round.

crusader wrote:That flurry did far more damage than any of Brook's blows, and Golovkin was still landing apart from that. Brook really wasn't landing that much of his own, and his supposedly big flurry that Sky replayed actually had two of the main punches blocked.

If you thought Golovkin won the first round then fine, but plenty of others disagree and posting a " " emoticon about two judges seeing it that way is daft.

Horse wrote:One decent flurry from Golovkin was about all he offered in the first round.

He looked poor, Brook was more consistent.

Brook was noticeably wobbled in the first during that flurry. That round wasn't even remotely close. The 1st was as clear for Golovkin as the 2nd was for Brook.

Plenty others? I actually haven't seen anyone else post that they scored the first for Brook, though I'm sure I could find one or two knobs on Twitter who wanted to give Kell the round and thus did.

gilgamesh wrote:Brook was noticeably wobbled in the first during that flurry. That round wasn't even remotely close. The 1st was as clear for Golovkin as the 2nd was for Brook.

The round was close and a lot of people scored it for Brook.

A lot? How many besides the judges?

Horse wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:Brook was noticeably wobbled in the first during that flurry. That round wasn't even remotely close. The 1st was as clear for Golovkin as the 2nd was for Brook.

The round was close and a lot of people scored it for Brook.

I've seen nobody outside of those 2 judges score it for Brook.

crusader wrote:Plenty others? I actually haven't seen anyone else post that they scored the first for Brook,

You didn't even bother to check on this thread then?

crusader wrote:though I'm sure I could find one or two knobs on Twitter who wanted to give Kell the round and thus did.

People who scored the first round to Brook are knobs are they? How childish.

crusader wrote:A lot? How many besides the judges?

543,244.

Horse wrote:

crusader wrote:Plenty others? I actually haven't seen anyone else post that they scored the first for Brook,

You didn't even bother to check on this thread then?

crusader wrote:though I'm sure I could find one or two knobs on Twitter who wanted to give Kell the round and thus did.

People who scored the first round to Brook are knobs are they? How childish.

I did check the thread and noticed that one guy oddly had it for Brook---that's the first I've seen out of many RBR cards I've seen posted

I didn't say that someone was a knob if they scored it for Brook; I did say that you could find some knobs who had it for Brook, but that doesn't mean everyone who had it for Brook is a knob.

I don't see any way you could score that round for Brook unless you were being extremely bias in your scoring and bending over backward to give Brook every round you possibly could.

Even 5_burowz on TTR who argued with me adamantly that Brook won Rounds 2, 3 and 4 didn't think the first round was debatable.

Horse wrote:

crusader wrote:A lot? How many besides the judges?

543,244.

gilgamesh wrote:I don't see any way you could score that round for Brook unless you were being extremely bias in your scoring and bending over backward to give Brook every round you possibly could.

Even 5_burowz on TTR who argued with me adamantly that Brook won Rounds 2, 3 and 4 didn't think the first round was debatable.

I can't stand Brook and I gave him the first.

Briefly wobbling your opponent doesn't mean that you automatically win the round. Brook was better.

Horse wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:I don't see any way you could score that round for Brook unless you were being extremely bias in your scoring and bending over backward to give Brook every round you possibly could.

Even 5_burowz on TTR who argued with me adamantly that Brook won Rounds 2, 3 and 4 didn't think the first round was debatable.

I can't stand Brook and I gave him the first.

Briefly wobbling your opponent doesn't mean that you automatically win the round. Brook was better.

Not that I want to agree with Horse.....but I do this time.

Horse wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:I don't see any way you could score that round for Brook unless you were being extremely bias in your scoring and bending over backward to give Brook every round you possibly could.

Even 5_burowz on TTR who argued with me adamantly that Brook won Rounds 2, 3 and 4 didn't think the first round was debatable.

I can't stand Brook and I gave him the first.

Briefly wobbling your opponent doesn't mean that you automatically win the round. Brook was better.

Not that I want to agree with Horse.....but I do this time.

Horse wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:I don't see any way you could score that round for Brook unless you were being extremely bias in your scoring and bending over backward to give Brook every round you possibly could.

Even 5_burowz on TTR who argued with me adamantly that Brook won Rounds 2, 3 and 4 didn't think the first round was debatable.

I can't stand Brook and I gave him the first.

Briefly wobbling your opponent doesn't mean that you automatically win the round. Brook was better.

You obviously favor British fighters no matter what though. Brook didn't win that round.

Whenever Briefly wobbling your opponent is the most significant thing that happened in the round it definitely wins you the round.

What did Brook do that was so good it outweighed him being hurt (by far the most effective offense of the round), as well as everything else GGG did? He threw some flashy combos that the crowd and Sky commentary overreacted to, and even when Sky tried to big up one on the replay it showed GGG blocking about half the shots. It's hardly like Brook gave GGG a total boxing lesson for all of the round barring the period he was rocked, and power counts in scoring.

So if Brook won the first, what rounds didn't he win and why? I'd think if someone gave Brook the first they'd believe he had a strong case for being up 4-0...

crusader wrote:What did Brook do that was so good it outweighed him being hurt (by far the most effective offense of the round), as well as everything else GGG did? He threw some flashy combos that the crowd and Sky commentary overreacted to, and even when Sky tried to big up one on the replay it showed GGG blocking about half the shots. It's hardly like Brook gave GGG a total boxing lesson for all of the round barring the period he was rocked, and power counts in scoring.

So if Brook won the first, what rounds didn't he win and why? I'd think if someone gave Brook the first they'd believe he had a strong case for being up 4-0...

If Brook won the first in somebody's opinion all he had to do was be standing in the ring to get rounds.

gilgamesh wrote:

Horse wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:I don't see any way you could score that round for Brook unless you were being extremely bias in your scoring and bending over backward to give Brook every round you possibly could.

Even 5_burowz on TTR who argued with me adamantly that Brook won Rounds 2, 3 and 4 didn't think the first round was debatable.

I can't stand Brook and I gave him the first.

Briefly wobbling your opponent doesn't mean that you automatically win the round. Brook was better.

You obviously favor British fighters no matter what though. Brook didn't win that round.

Whenever Briefly wobbling your opponent is the most significant thing that happened in the round it definitely wins you the round.

So you wobble someone with 1 punch and they hit you with 5 ..... the boxer scoring with 5 punches wins

Maybe you could give Brook the round if he outlanded GGG by a 5-1 ratio, but no way was that the case. It also looked like a series of shots that hurt him, not just one.

Switch hitter wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

Horse wrote:I can't stand Brook and I gave him the first.

Briefly wobbling your opponent doesn't mean that you automatically win the round. Brook was better.

You obviously favor British fighters no matter what though. Brook didn't win that round.

Whenever Briefly wobbling your opponent is the most significant thing that happened in the round it definitely wins you the round.

So you wobble someone with 1 punch and they hit you with 5 ..... the boxer scoring with 5 punches wins

I don't think Brook outlanded GGG at all in that round. He certainly didn't outland him 5 to 1.

gilgamesh wrote:

Switch hitter wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
You obviously favor British fighters no matter what though. Brook didn't win that round.

Whenever Briefly wobbling your opponent is the most significant thing that happened in the round it definitely wins you the round.

So you wobble someone with 1 punch and they hit you with 5 ..... the boxer scoring with 5 punches wins

I don't think Brook outlanded GGG at all in that round. He certainly didn't outland him 5 to 1.

Maybe not 5 to 1 but just emphasising what you said doesn't make sense.... he did more in the fist round than GGG yes he did wobble but from just 1 punch

Golovkin landed 11 more punches than Brook in the 1st round.

30 to 19.

http://www.BS.com/gennady-golo ... ts--108627

In fact...Golovkin landed more than Brook in every round.