BoxRec

I thought Kell Brook put up a great fight with Spence, people make claims about brooks weight cut but i never hear anyone saying that spence also had to get down to weight. its not like spence is a small or avg sized ww. he also had to suck down weight but people make it sound like brook was the only one who had to get down to weight. In fact ill take it a step further, brook has more money than spence and has a world class nutrisionist whereas spence cooks all his own foods. So if anything i think it would be tougher for spence to get down to weight. Brook did really great against spence, i watched the fight 5 times and brooks eye was effected in the 8th round!! not the 7th round. spence took over from there. i would like to see what people think about brook vs thurman? if you have a 100% Kell Brook fighting a 100% keith thurman, who wins?? its my opinion that spence beats thurman much easier than he beat brook. whats your thoughts?

I think Brook has been broken. Thurman would win.

boxing_rocks wrote:I think Brook has been broken. Thurman would win.

X2

ATM Brook is done at a top level. Pre GGG fight, Brook would've beaten Thurman.

I thought Brook initially but after his last two fights who knows what shape he'd be in physically and mentally. Now I'd favour Thurman. I like both guys though.

Hopefully it's Thurman v Spence next. No excuses.

Thank you all for replying, however i also think brook is a broken fighter now thats why i asked if brook was 100% and thurman was 100% who wins?

Brooks not 100% now coming off 2 stoppagevdefeats and 2 broken eye sockets

Hypothetically speaking, prior to the golovkin fight I'd have backed brook vs Thurman. I think he was better. Thurmans number1 cos of the names he's beaten, but I think brook was better. Now he's big underdog for that fight.

Thurman rarely convinces me when I see him. He gets the job done, but I never get the feeling I'm watching a 147 king or anything.

I'd pick a 100% Brook. He did beat Porter more convincingly than Thurman did. Though it's only a sample size of 1 fight, I think Brook's performances against Golovkin and Spence uphold the theory that he is a top operator. I don't really expect Brook to be 100% anytime soon, though. In fact, Brook needs to take at least a year off, and then fight sh*tty opponents for another year, and then maybe he'll still be Brook by then if we're lucky.

Thurman would beat Brook anytime in the future I think. They will match up Brook against light hitters the same as they have for Khan and Pacquiao. Canelo was a money grab by Khan, same as Brook vs GGG, but makes it even more important that they stay away from it in the future. Why wasn't Khan calling out the winner of Garcia vs Thurman, or Spence vs Brook? All four would KO Khan. Khan is the only big money fight Brook has left, imo. He is next to done...same as Khan, in my opinion.

Brook and Khan makes the most sense.. Its still a huge money fight for them two. I think Brook beats ak easy which means not only will Brook have a big payday, but he will start heading in the right direction again. Its a win win for Brook and it will also be the end of ak.

I don't know why everyone bums o Thurman. He's beat some top name's possible the best wins than any really curent we. Maybe I'm missing something as I don't know the politics to well but the guys a warrior imo. And will clear the division in his own time. I just find it strange all the hate on the guy, I like his fights but don't know the first thing about how him outta the ring. Can anyone tell me why so many don't like him ?
Thanks

watsupdoc87 wrote:I don't know why everyone bums o Thurman. He's beat some top name's possible the best wins than any really curent we. Maybe I'm missing something as I don't know the politics to well but the guys a warrior imo. And will clear the division in his own time. I just find it strange all the hate on the guy, I like his fights but don't know the first thing about how him outta the ring. Can anyone tell me why so many don't like him ?
Thanks

I think he's good fighter by all means, but if a truly great fighter at 147 faces, he gets beat as he's not top top quality at 147, historically speaking.

And the question was 100% Kell vs 100% Thurman, so it's a bit make believe, as brook in particular now has problems, but hypothetically I thought brook was better, so gets the win.

I credit Thurman facing boxers to make him the number 1 at 147. But if anyone would like to list a fight where he truly shows he's a king at 147 I'll happily look it up and watch or rewatch

Thurman since Brook is pretty much done.

Tanzio wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:I think Brook has been broken. Thurman would win.

X2

x3,there was nothing from Brook the other night to suggest he'd even be competitive with Thurman.

bigjack wrote:

Tanzio wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:I think Brook has been broken. Thurman would win.

X2

x3,there was nothing from Brook the other night to suggest he'd even be competitive with Thurman.

Brook has big problems now depending on how he recovers from spence fight. But if we're talking brook at his best...

Watch both Porter fights and come back and say there's nothing to say brook vs Thurman would not be competitive

Then watch Thurmans last 3 fights. The only ones outside of possibly guererro (who was done when they fought) that are top level fights...

At what point of these 3 fights is Thurman displaying he's on another level and the brook fight wouldn't be competitive.

Exaggeration, the curse of these forums. You've been infected

Ossyrules wrote:

bigjack wrote:

Tanzio wrote: X2

x3,there was nothing from Brook the other night to suggest he'd even be competitive with Thurman.

Brook has big problems now depending on how he recovers from spence fight. But if we're talking brook at his best...

Watch both Porter fights and come back and say there's nothing to say brook vs Thurman would not be competitive

Then watch Thurmans last 3 fights. The only ones outside of possibly guererro (who was done when they fought) that are top level fights...

At what point of these 3 fights is Thurman displaying he's on another level and the brook fight wouldn't be competitive.

Exaggeration, the curse of these forums. You've been infected

i don't think he will recover that's why i don't think it would be competitive

bigjack wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:

bigjack wrote:


x3,there was nothing from Brook the other night to suggest he'd even be competitive with Thurman.

Brook has big problems now depending on how he recovers from spence fight. But if we're talking brook at his best...

Watch both Porter fights and come back and say there's nothing to say brook vs Thurman would not be competitive

Then watch Thurmans last 3 fights. The only ones outside of possibly guererro (who was done when they fought) that are top level fights...

At what point of these 3 fights is Thurman displaying he's on another level and the brook fight wouldn't be competitive.

Exaggeration, the curse of these forums. You've been infected

i don't think he will recover that's why i don't think it would be competitive

Fair enough, I've interpreted the thread title differently and assessed it under the assumption he would be at his best.

Ossyrules wrote:

bigjack wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:

Brook has big problems now depending on how he recovers from spence fight. But if we're talking brook at his best...

Watch both Porter fights and come back and say there's nothing to say brook vs Thurman would not be competitive

Then watch Thurmans last 3 fights. The only ones outside of possibly guererro (who was done when they fought) that are top level fights...

At what point of these 3 fights is Thurman displaying he's on another level and the brook fight wouldn't be competitive.

Exaggeration, the curse of these forums. You've been infected

i don't think he will recover that's why i don't think it would be competitive

Fair enough, I've interpreted the thread title differently and assessed it under the assumption he would be at his best.

So your interpretation is that we are to match the best Brook that will ever be v the best Once Upon A Time that will ever be? Ok, Brook will never be better than he was v Porter, imo. Once Upon A Time still may improve, depending on his recovery from the elbow surgery and how he ages.

I would have to go with Once Upon A Time by close but clear decision.

Tanzio wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:

bigjack wrote:
i don't think he will recover that's why i don't think it would be competitive

Fair enough, I've interpreted the thread title differently and assessed it under the assumption he would be at his best.

So your interpretation is that we are to match the best Brook that will ever be v the best Once Upon A Time that will ever be? Ok, Brook will never be better than he was v Porter, imo. Once Upon A Time still may improve, depending on his recovery from the elbow surgery and how he ages.

I would have to go with Once Upon A Time by close but clear decision.

The thread title said 100% brook vs 100% Thurman

I'm not sure we'll see brook at 100% again, that's why I've assessed it this way.

How you can call a fight on anticipated improvement though? It's unlikely considering Thurman too is too have lengthy surgery

Ossyrules wrote:

Tanzio wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:
Fair enough, I've interpreted the thread title differently and assessed it under the assumption he would be at his best.

So your interpretation is that we are to match the best Brook that will ever be v the best Once Upon A Time that will ever be? Ok, Brook will never be better than he was v Porter, imo. Once Upon A Time still may improve, depending on his recovery from the elbow surgery and how he ages.

I would have to go with Once Upon A Time by close but clear decision.

The thread title said 100% brook vs 100% Thurman

I'm not sure we'll see brook at 100% again, that's why I've assessed it this way.

How you can call a fight on anticipated improvement though? It's unlikely considering Thurman too is too have lengthy surgery

We are yet to see Thurman so we can only guess,Brook though seems done to me,that's my opinion anyway.

Ossyrules wrote:

Tanzio wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:
Fair enough, I've interpreted the thread title differently and assessed it under the assumption he would be at his best.

So your interpretation is that we are to match the best Brook that will ever be v the best Once Upon A Time that will ever be? Ok, Brook will never be better than he was v Porter, imo. Once Upon A Time still may improve, depending on his recovery from the elbow surgery and how he ages.

I would have to go with Once Upon A Time by close but clear decision.

The thread title said 100% brook vs 100% Thurman

I'm not sure we'll see brook at 100% again, that's why I've assessed it this way.

How you can call a fight on anticipated improvement though? It's unlikely considering Thurman too is too have lengthy surgery

I think that the Once Upon A Time who handled Danny would defeat the Brook who out grappled Porter.

Ossyrules wrote:

watsupdoc87 wrote:I don't know why everyone bums o Thurman. He's beat some top name's possible the best wins than any really curent we. Maybe I'm missing something as I don't know the politics to well but the guys a warrior imo. And will clear the division in his own time. I just find it strange all the hate on the guy, I like his fights but don't know the first thing about how him outta the ring. Can anyone tell me why so many don't like him ?
Thanks

I think he's good fighter by all means, but if a truly great fighter at 147 faces, he gets beat as he's not top top quality at 147, historically speaking.

And the question was 100% Kell vs 100% Thurman, so it's a bit make believe, as brook in particular now has problems, but hypothetically I thought brook was better, so gets the win.

I credit Thurman facing boxers to make him the number 1 at 147. But if anyone would like to list a fight where he truly shows he's a king at 147 I'll happily look it up and watch or rewatch

I don't read into boxers personal lives unless there very interesting like say the two Tyson. So can you tell me why don't people seem to discuss and not like Thurman and Andre ward. By the way I like krusher but still don't get the ward hate

watsupdoc87 wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:

watsupdoc87 wrote:I don't know why everyone bums o Thurman. He's beat some top name's possible the best wins than any really curent we. Maybe I'm missing something as I don't know the politics to well but the guys a warrior imo. And will clear the division in his own time. I just find it strange all the hate on the guy, I like his fights but don't know the first thing about how him outta the ring. Can anyone tell me why so many don't like him ?
Thanks

I think he's good fighter by all means, but if a truly great fighter at 147 faces, he gets beat as he's not top top quality at 147, historically speaking.

And the question was 100% Kell vs 100% Thurman, so it's a bit make believe, as brook in particular now has problems, but hypothetically I thought brook was better, so gets the win.

I credit Thurman facing boxers to make him the number 1 at 147. But if anyone would like to list a fight where he truly shows he's a king at 147 I'll happily look it up and watch or rewatch

I don't read into boxers personal lives unless there very interesting like say the two Tyson. So can you tell me why don't people seem to discuss and not like Thurman and Andre ward. By the way I like krusher but still don't get the ward hate

Is Thurman unpopular? I normally like hearing his interviews, think he's got a good strategic way of getting his points across. I think he's a good boxer too, I just reckon brook was better when discussing this question. However by virtue of beating the guys he has, Thurman is number 1 at the weight so he still should get good fights

Ward is kinda marmite. Some love him, others have no time for him. He's an excellent boxer though, but he's not a very inspuraing watch and as a personality he's even more dour. Before kovalev he was really fighting some poor opponents and pretty inactive also. So it's frustrating

Ossyrules wrote:

watsupdoc87 wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:
I think he's good fighter by all means, but if a truly great fighter at 147 faces, he gets beat as he's not top top quality at 147, historically speaking.

And the question was 100% Kell vs 100% Thurman, so it's a bit make believe, as brook in particular now has problems, but hypothetically I thought brook was better, so gets the win.

I credit Thurman facing boxers to make him the number 1 at 147. But if anyone would like to list a fight where he truly shows he's a king at 147 I'll happily look it up and watch or rewatch

I don't read into boxers personal lives unless there very interesting like say the two Tyson. So can you tell me why don't people seem to discuss and not like Thurman and Andre ward. By the way I like krusher but still don't get the ward hate

Is Thurman unpopular? I normally like hearing his interviews, think he's got a good strategic way of getting his points across. I think he's a good boxer too, I just reckon brook was better when discussing this question. However by virtue of beating the guys he has, Thurman is number 1 at the weight so he still should get good fights

Ward is kinda marmite. Some love him, others have no time for him. He's an excellent boxer though, but he's not a very inspuraing watch and as a personality he's even more dour. Before kovalev he was really fighting some poor opponents and pretty inactive also. So it's frustrating

Cheers still don't get it as they seem normal. Not my cup of tea I like the headcasses. But I respect all truly elite athletes wherever their from even. There our gladiators.
And wouldn't it be fukin great if Joe Smith wins next fight and then blows out Adonis , while indongo shocks the world with a victory over Crawford. Some rocky shit there