BoxRec

I reckon if Brook beats clearly Spence then GGG's win over Brook will raise a lot. Spence may not have a notable win on his resume but he's known as the man who kicked Broner's ass in sparring and also gave Floyd good work in sparring.

apollo creed wrote:If Brook beats fair and square Spence, will you consider that GGG beat a top 10 p4p fighter in Brook ?

I reckon if Brook beats clearly Spence then GGG's win over Brook will raise a lot. Spence may not have a notable win on his resume but he's known as the man who kicked Broner's ass in sparring and also gave Floyd good work in sparring.

This is an utterly absurd notion!

GGG’s victory over Kell Brook proved that middleweights can KO welterweights. It does nothing other than support the argument that "a good big 'un nearly always beats a good little 'un".

If Brook defeats Spence Jr., all it proves is that experienced world-class veterans near their physical prime are capable of defeating unproven and inexperienced young talent!

A victory for Brook over Spence Jr. has no effect whatsoever on Golovkin’s legacy.

Let me ask you a similar question, using your own flawed logic… if Spence Jr. beats Brook in a more impressive and dominant manner than GGG did, should we automatically elevate him above Golovkin on the pound-for-pound list?

The answer to that question is obvious, but I’d be intrigued to know if you’d be automatically obliged to apply the same “faulty” rules to different fighters or if your bias would compel you to behave inconsistently.

Would anyone consider Brook p4p top ten after beating Spence?

apollo creed wrote:

Just face it, Brook beating Spence Jr. does not enhance GGG’s legacy/reputation in any way, because there’s no correlation between this fight and the one that Gennady had with Kell.

Brook may have been regarded as a pound-for-pound top-ten fighter before his bout with GGG, but Golovkin won’t gain much credit from his victory, because he beat a much smaller man, something that the Kazakh immediately conceded during his post-fight interview with Sky.

Enlightened-One wrote:

apollo creed wrote:

Just face it, Brook beating Spence Jr. does not enhance GGG’s legacy/reputation in any way, because there’s no correlation between this fight and the one that Gennady had with Kell.

Brook may have been regarded as a pound-for-pound top-ten fighter before his bout with GGG, but Golovkin won’t gain much credit from his victory, because he beat a much smaller man, something that the Kazakh immediately conceded during his post-fight interview with Sky.

Was Brook p4p top ten before the Golovkin fight? Based on what?

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:Would anyone consider Brook p4p top ten after beating Spence?

I definitely would. I consider Spence top 10 p4p based on my eye test.

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

apollo creed wrote:

Just face it, Brook beating Spence Jr. does not enhance GGG’s legacy/reputation in any way, because there’s no correlation between this fight and the one that Gennady had with Kell.

Brook may have been regarded as a pound-for-pound top-ten fighter before his bout with GGG, but Golovkin won’t gain much credit from his victory, because he beat a much smaller man, something that the Kazakh immediately conceded during his post-fight interview with Sky.

Was Brook p4p top ten before the Golovkin fight? Based on what?

That's not my personal opinion. I never rated him that high.

I think either ESPN or The Ring rated him that high. I read it elsewhere also:
http://www.ibtimes.com/boxing-rankings- ... 10-2353327

boxing_rocks wrote:

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:Would anyone consider Brook p4p top ten after beating Spence?

I definitely would. I consider Spence top 10 p4p based on my eye test.

Based on what?

Based on the eye test Spence > Thurman and Garcia.

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:Would anyone consider Brook p4p top ten after beating Spence?

I definitely would. I consider Spence top 10 p4p based on my eye test.

Based on what?

Based on skill.

boxing_rocks wrote:

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:
I definitely would. I consider Spence top 10 p4p based on my eye test.

Based on what?

Based on skill.

Fair enough. I rank my top ten by who they've fought and beat, and Spence isn't anywhere in my top ten.

I could never put Brook even into consideration for a lb for lb list, because if you examine the evidence the body of work, he hasn't accomplished nearly enough. And once Spence puts him in the Upside Down, hopefully won't have to hear about it again.

Spence top 10 p4p? Christ sake. He's beat a 90 year old Bundu and who else?

In answer to the OP: no, I think Brook was just outside the p4p top ten and beating Spence now doesn't change that. Brook is an A level fighter and the best GGG has faced, but seeing as he had to move up two divisions for the fight, it only counts as a B level win.

That said, I think Spence will win and probably by a stoppage, as Brook is going to struggle to make 147lb healthily.

forcefraser wrote:Spence top 10 p4p? Christ sake. He's beat a 90 year old Bundu and who else?

Who did Thurman beat? Garcia at 147 ?

Lets just let the two fight, and decide after that. If one guy wins by a narrow margin, what will it tell us? A dominant win will tell us more. In other words, hold off on the pfp talk until this fight takes place. I still have my reservations that Brook will follow through with the fight. He has a history of that. Bradley, Chavez, Rios, Alexander. All for different reasons to not make the fight.

The Brook vs GGG fight was basically the same as the Khan vs Canelo fight. Neither Khan nor Brook had anything to lose, and made big money. They expected to lose, and knew their stock at welter would not suffer. To make a big deal of how brave they were is just downright stupid. How many of us would fight any current boxer on the planet for a million$? $$$

apollo creed wrote:I reckon if Brook beats clearly Spence then GGG's win over Brook will raise a lot. Spence may not have a notable win on his resume but he's known as the man who kicked Broner's ass in sparring and also gave Floyd good work in sparring.

I think that it's an interesting question , Apollo. Don't listen to the GGG haters who have a problem with it because they will find any way not to give GGG his credit. The truth is that if Brook defeats Spence than it will be a pretty significant upset in my eyes. Brook will have to rise up in the P4P rankings notching up a victory like that and whenever that happens, it also raises up those associated with the boxer.

ABSOLUTELY, this will mean that GGG beat a top 10 fighter.

BUT... if Spence dispatches Brook... It will be regarded as just another win for GGG, and Brook has never fought anyone.. Or the case that a middleweight will always KO a welterweight.

caldo2025 wrote:

apollo creed wrote:I reckon if Brook beats clearly Spence then GGG's win over Brook will raise a lot. Spence may not have a notable win on his resume but he's known as the man who kicked Broner's ass in sparring and also gave Floyd good work in sparring.

I think that it's an interesting question , Apollo. Don't listen to the GGG haters who have a problem with it because they will find any way not to give GGG his credit. The truth is that if Brook defeats Spence than it will be a pretty significant upset in my eyes. Brook will have to rise up in the P4P rankings notching up a victory like that and whenever that happens, it also raises up those associated with the boxer.

ABSOLUTELY, this will mean that GGG beat a top 10 fighter.

Spence is a strong skilled fighter just like Brook. I put these 2 fighters above Thurman and Garcia.

Spence and Brook are both unproven fighters the difference being that one is a champ and one aint, both have no business being mentioned in p4p terms as all it does is cheapen the concept

Enlightened-One wrote:GGG’s victory over Kell Brook proved that middleweights can KO welterweights. It does nothing other than support the argument that "a good big 'un nearly always beats a good little 'un".

Hmmm... Doesn't happen nearly always -- more like most often.

How about Leonard's victory over Marv Hagler??? ... And Basilio's victory over Sugar Ray Robinson??? ... And Emile Griffith's 2 victories over Dick Tiger???

Did those support the idea that good big guys don't nearly always beat to good little guys? -- Also Roberto Duran vs Iran Barkley and May vs DLH

If the big guy is a terrific hitter you get the Liston-Patterson matchup and it's tougher... Especially if he's also a better boxer as in Dick Tiger vs Bob Foster.

Kalan wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:GGG’s victory over Kell Brook proved that middleweights can KO welterweights. It does nothing other than support the argument that "a good big 'un nearly always beats a good little 'un".

Hmmm... Doesn't happen nearly always -- more like most often.

How about Leonard's victory over Marv Hagler??? ... And Basilio's victory over Sugar Ray Robinson??? ... And Emile Griffith's 2 victories over Dick Tiger???

Did those support the idea that good big guys don't nearly always beat to good little guys? -- Also Roberto Duran vs Iran Barkley and May vs DLH

If the big guy is a terrific hitter you get the Liston-Patterson matchup and it's tougher... Especially if he's also a better boxer as in Dick Tiger vs Bob Foster.

Exceptions never disprove the general rule. And people can often recall those exceptions much better than the norm, since it's human nature for surprising or shocking events to stick in the mind, because they often compel you to feel a variety of emotions, unlike everyday situations, which are easily forgotten.

littlepug wrote:Spence and Brook are both unproven fighters the difference being that one is a champ and one aint, both have no business being mentioned in p4p terms as all it does is cheapen the concept

No, exciting skilled fighters like Spence should be mentioned in p4p discussions instead of cherry pickers who had good wins years ago but nothing lately.

boxing_rocks wrote:

littlepug wrote:Spence and Brook are both unproven fighters the difference being that one is a champ and one aint, both have no business being mentioned in p4p terms as all it does is cheapen the concept

No, exciting skilled fighters like Spence should be mentioned in p4p discussions instead of cherry pickers who had good wins years ago but nothing lately.

has to be based on results also, not potenial