The RedCafe Boxing Thread

ivaldo said:
So the only example of a fight of the welterweight elite is Thurman vs Porter, Kell Brook fought Porter, and beat him, hardly the best example to us now is it?

You can say 'fair fecks' all you like about Brook fighting GGG but you're still belittling it, I get that you want to see welterweights fights, so do I, but it seems crazy to criticise Brooks integrity as a fighter when you berate him for not taking on inferior fighters because he's ducking them. Brook would've happily fought Vargas but managed to bait a bigger fish, he would've happily fought Khan but Khan turned down the oppotunity.

Look at ring mags top 10. We have Brook, Thurman, Garcia, Spence, Ponomarev, Gomez all with 0's their name, it's hard getting a fight with anyone in this division because no one wants to lose. To pick out Book to criticise and then praise Thurman is a little ridiculous, christ his fight before Porter was Collazo!
Click to expand...

Well no don't move the goalposts to suit your argument. Your direct quote was "I mean its not like the other welterweights are fighting each other either is it?" and I named an example. I know Brook has fought Porter but your point was no welterweights are fighting each other when there was literally a fight between 2 top welterweights 3 weeks ago.

What do you want me to say about it? I've given my opinion on it. I don't think it's this great achievement. I'm entitled to an opinion, you may think it's talking a fight down and whatever but my opinion is just that...my opinion. I'd rather see him fight good welterweights so am not really that interested in it. I've answered this hundreds of times it seems but it doesn't suffice to you. Fine....like I said I hope you enjoy the fight, I'll probably watch it but I won't be dead into it knowing the result pretty much before it happens. To me it's just a bit of a waste of time. Why are you so bothered that I won't enjoy it or am not looking forward to it? I appreciate the concern but don't worry I'll live.

Ponomarev is 23 years old so it's a bit harsh to compare him to Brook he's earlier in his career (and I know he fought a lot but it was in Russia where he was fighting 7-8 times in a year similar to Canelo in Mexico), Frankie Gomez is 24 years old and has 21 fights so is hardly a fair measuring stick for Brook, Errol Spence has had 20 fights so again is hardly a fair example to use.

Oh and where did I praise Thurman?? You said (and again I quote) "I mean its not like the other welterweights are fighting each other either is it?" I merely stated that is incorrect as Keith Thurman has in fact just fought another top welterweight....one in the Ring Magazine Top 10 ranking system that you yourself just used as a measuring stick for others. It's not exactly huge praise of someone to say they just fought someone and it was a good fight more of an acknowledgement of what he did.
 
I was really disappointed with Kovalev's performance last night - Chilemba had no ambition but it's worrying that he couldn't find the target enough to finish him. I am now backing Ward to win a points victory when they face. If he thinks Chilemba is elusive and awkward, wait until he tries to hit Ward.
 
Oggmonster said:
Well no don't move the goalposts to suit your argument. Your direct quote was "I mean its not like the other welterweights are fighting each other either is it?" and I named an example. I know Brook has fought Porter but your point was no welterweights are fighting each other when there was literally a fight between 2 top welterweights 3 weeks ago.

What do you want me to say about it? I've given my opinion on it. I don't think it's this great achievement. I'm entitled to an opinion, you may think it's talking a fight down and whatever but my opinion is just that...my opinion. I'd rather see him fight good welterweights so am not really that interested in it. I've answered this hundreds of times it seems but it doesn't suffice to you. Fine....like I said I hope you enjoy the fight, I'll probably watch it but I won't be dead into it knowing the result pretty much before it happens. To me it's just a bit of a waste of time. Why are you so bothered that I won't enjoy it or am not looking forward to it? I appreciate the concern but don't worry I'll live.

Ponomarev is 23 years old so it's a bit harsh to compare him to Brook he's earlier in his career (and I know he fought a lot but it was in Russia where he was fighting 7-8 times in a year similar to Canelo in Mexico), Frankie Gomez is 24 years old and has 21 fights so is hardly a fair measuring stick for Brook, Errol Spence has had 20 fights so again is hardly a fair example to use.

Oh and where did I praise Thurman?? You said (and again I quote) "I mean its not like the other welterweights are fighting each other either is it?" I merely stated that is incorrect as Keith Thurman has in fact just fought another top welterweight....one in the Ring Magazine Top 10 ranking system that you yourself just used as a measuring stick for others. It's not exactly huge praise of someone to say they just fought someone and it was a good fight more of an acknowledgement of what he did.
Click to expand...
Find if you want to be pedantic Thurman had fought as many big names as Brook.You either hold Brook to the same standard as Thurman or you accept you're a hypocrite. Your choice mate. I'm not the one questioning Brook and holding Thurman up as an example, you are.

It's a very obvious point you seem to be repeatedly ignoring. What top welterweights do you want him to fight exactly when they aren't willing to fight him? Do you not understand why I listed those fighters? Because they are in the top 10, these are the one's you apparently want him fight, the ones you are using their age as a reason for not fighting top fighters.

Its a forum, the idea is people to discuss their opinions? If you're going to get precious when someone challenges your opinion then don't post.
 
ivaldo said:
Find if you want to be pedantic Thurman had fought as many big names as Brook.You either hold Brook to the same standard as Thurman or you accept you're a hypocrite. Your choice mate. I'm not the one questioning Brook and holding Thurman up as an example, you are.

It's a very obvious point you seem to be repeatedly ignoring. What top welterweights do you want him to fight exactly when they aren't willing to fight him? Do you not understand why I listed those fighters? Because they are in the top 10, these are the one's you apparently want him fight, the ones you are using their age as a reason for not fighting top fighters.

Its a forum, the idea is people to discuss their opinions? If you're going to get precious when someone challenges your opinion then don't post.
Click to expand...

I don't get how it's pedantic though to be fair? Which part? You said there's been no big welterweight fights and I just said there had been and named the 1. It's not exactly a huge list I'd agree but the fact remains there had been a big welterweight fight. Again...please find me ANYWHERE where I've praised Thurman? You just avoided that point and said it again. I just said he was involved in a big fight (which he was as we've just discussed, which apparently makes me pedantic.) Please, where did I hold him up??

Do you have inside information on Kell Brook out of interest? Cos you seem to know a lot about him, you know he's being avoided it seems. How do you know people are unwilling to fight him? Cos Eddie Hearn said so or d o you honestly know something we all done? If it's the latter than cool I'd love to know more. But I'd guess you're just taking Hearn's word as gospel. Below are examples of top fighters calling out Brook. Now they might be bullshitting but what's to say Hearn/Brook aren't bulshitting as well? The fact is no one knows, however another fact is Eddie Hearn in particular has a reputation of making his fighters fight low level boxers....notice how I'm not blaming Brook here by the way more his management.

http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/shawn-porter-i-beat-kell-brook-i-want-a-rematch/

http://www.skysports.com/boxing/new...face-kell-brook-if-he-gets-past-jessie-vargas

http://www.skysports.com/boxing/new...to-britain-to-take-on-ibf-champion-kell-brook

Again, maybe they are lying and wouldn't fight him. But there's 3 examples. Again, do you know something we don't? Maybe it is partly on them but lets not pretend everyone is terified of Brook when that's 3 fighters who said they will fight him....1 who already had.

Your argument an unbeaten fighters whilst I can se the logic the point I am making is it's slightly unfair to compare and Errol Spence unbeaten record to Kell Brook's when 1 has had nearly twice as many fights as the other. Would I love for them to fight? Course I would. Who wouldn't? Any boxing fan should want the top to fight the top and any boxing fan really shouldn't care about "protecting the 0" etc.

My final point was the whole thing is going round in circles. You have your opinion I have mine and you should respect that (rather than telling people not to post.) I think you're fair enough with yours, you on the other hand call me pedantic and precious for saying I'm not dead interested in a GGG vs. Brook fight? If you want to carry on discussing it then fair enough I will do as it's a bit of interest in the thread whilst no boxing is on. It was merely me saying it's kind of pointless as no one will budge. There's no way you or anyone including Sky's propaganda wheel will convince me Brook vs. GGG is a good fight and again you're looking forward to it and I genuinely hope you do enjoy it. No need for calling people precious for seeing a discussion is going no where.
 
Oggmonster said:
Iamir-khan-dismisses-challenge-from-kell-brook-pursuing-other-options there's been no big welterweight fights and I just said there had been and named the 1. It's not exactly a huge list I'd agree but the fact remains there had been a big welterweight fight. Again...please find me ANYWHERE where I've praised Thurman? You just avoided that point and said it again. I just said he was involved in a big fight (which he was as we've just discussed, which apparently makes me pedantic.) Please, where did I hold him up??

Do you have inside information on Kell Brook out of interest? Cos you seem to know a lot about him, you know he's being avoided it seems. How do you know people are unwilling to fight him? Cos Eddie Hearn said so or d o you honestly know something we all done? If it's the latter than cool I'd love to know more. But I'd guess you're just taking Hearn's word as gospel. Below are examples of top fighters calling out Brook. Now they might be bullshitting but what's to say Hearn/Brook aren't bulshitting as well? The fact is no one knows, however another fact is Eddie Hearn in particular has a reputation of making his fighters fight low level boxers....notice how I'm not blaming Brook here by the way more his management.

http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/shawn-porter-i-beat-kell-brook-i-want-a-rematch/

http://www.skysports.com/boxing/new...face-kell-brook-if-he-gets-past-jessie-vargas

http://www.skysports.com/boxing/new...to-britain-to-take-on-ibf-champion-kell-brook

Again, maybe they are lying and wouldn't fight him. But there's 3 examples. Again, do you know something we don't? Maybe it is partly on them but lets not pretend everyone is terified of Brook when that's 3 fighters who said they will fight him....1 who already had.

Your argument an unbeaten fighters whilst I can se the logic the point I am making is it's slightly unfair to compare and Errol Spence unbeaten record to Kell Brook's when 1 has had nearly twice as many fights as the other. Would I love for them to fight? Course I would. Who wouldn't? Any boxing fan should want the top to fight the top and any boxing fan really shouldn't care about "protecting the 0" etc.

My final point was the whole thing is going round in circles. You have your opinion I have mine and you should respect that (rather than telling people not to post.) I think you're fair enough with yours, you on the other hand call me pedantic and precious for saying I'm not dead interested in a GGG vs. Brook fight? If you want to carry on discussing it then fair enough I will do as it's a bit of interest in the thread whilst no boxing is on. It was merely me saying it's kind of pointless as no one will budge. There's no way you or anyone including Sky's propaganda wheel will convince me Brook vs. GGG is a good fight and again you're looking forward to it and I genuinely hope you do enjoy it. No need for calling people precious for seeing a discussion is going no where.
Click to expand...
Because you've choosen to take everything literally, to avoid the actual crux of the point. Kell Brook has had as many 'big' welterweight fights as the other top welterweights no? So tell me, why is it he online particular that you seem to have the problem with, despite him taking on a far bigger fight than any of them have and probably ever will, that's including Khan and Canelo.

Yeah you're blaming his manager now (now diversion) for taking low level fights. Yet he's not taking on an incredibly tough fight and you have come to the same conclusion.

Who said anything about boxing fans caring about the 0, care for a literal quote on that one? Its undeniable that it matters to boxers and in modern boxing, whether you like it or not, it takes a lot of the top fighters to risk it against eachother. Spence wouldn't go near Brook right now, he'll have another 10 fights against mostly bums just like any other fighter does now, deal with it.

http://www.skysports.com/boxing/new...llenge-from-kell-brook-pursuing-other-options

From the horses mouth, you know the fighter you early claimed he avoided a fighter with for whatever reason?
 
ivaldo said:
Because you've choosen to take everything literally, to avoid the actual crux of the point. Kell Brook has had as many 'big' welterweight fights as the other top welterweights no? So tell me, why is it he online particular that you seem to have the problem with, despite him taking on a far bigger fight than any of them have and probably ever will, that's including Khan and Canelo.

Yeah you're blaming his manager now (now diversion) for taking low level fights. Yet he's not taking on an incredibly tough fight and you have come to the same conclusion.

Who said anything about boxing fans caring about the 0, care for a literal quote on that one? Its undeniable that it matters to boxers and in modern boxing, whether you like it or not, it takes a lot of the top fighters to risk it against eachother. Spence wouldn't go near Brook right now, he'll have another 10 fights against mostly bums just like any other fighter does now, deal with it.

http://www.skysports.com/boxing/new...llenge-from-kell-brook-pursuing-other-options

From the horses mouth, you know the fighter you early claimed he avoided a fighter with for whatever reason?
Click to expand...


No no...you're avoiding the question. Again find me 1 quote where I said Keith Thurman is any better than Brook? Please, just 1. I said he was recently in a top welterweight fight. That's all I said, nothing else about his career. Can you find any quote? Or will you admit you just made it up to suit your argument.

You're next quote "You're blaming his manager now." My first post on the topic (which you quoted)
I dunno how much is the fighter and how much is Eddie Hearn, Hearn fights seem to have a similar pattern of being mismatches.
Click to expand...

My second post:

It's his (or his managements) problem he's not a big name......I used to like the guy but his/Hearn's bullshit excuses genuinely got boring a long time ago
Click to expand...

A post after that:

He will fight Golovkin and probably lose but then Hearn and him will come out and say how "brave" he was for taking a fight that's not in his weight class and "stepping up
Click to expand...

Again again:

This is Eddie Hearn who is managing this so he will spin it completely so that Brook will come out the plucky underdog who gave it all just to entertain the fans or some bollocks. There's no way Hearn has done this and it will look bad on Brook.
Click to expand...

More here:

I equally think this is all a marketing ploy by Eddie Hearn, the guy is a clever man and good at his job. This is the same promoter who puts his fighters in "easy" fights as soon as they become champions for the large part...
Click to expand...

Hang on, whilst we're at it here's another point I made where I say it's not just Brook:

It's not just Brook either most boxers do it and it's why the sport suffers. Just make the best in their division fight each other not jump around in weight clases. They exist for a reason
Click to expand...

And finally it's not just Brook who does it, it's loads of fighters and I just think it's a shame to be honest.
Click to expand...

So there you go. I've not just suddenly brought up Eddie Hearn have I? Will you admit that considering there's a load of quotes from my previous posts. Or will you spin it again (probably to something about Keith Thurman!!)

Also, you ask why I'm speaking about Brook?? Surely that's easy? SOmeone asked a question about Brook so why would I talk about someone else? Here is the original question:

Don't get why Brook gets so much stick, he's fought who he's had to and always been keen for big fights as this proves. He's also gone over to USA a couple of times to fight, what's the problem? He's not even had his belt all that long has he?
Click to expand...

So how would I answer that without mentioning Brook? I've said (as you can see above) that I don't think he's the only one either. I think plenty of boxers do it, I just think he in particular has ben a culprit of it with his belt.

I',m not pining all the blame on Brook, I've said it loads. It's a problem across boxing and the example or original person was asked about was Brook, hence he was named.

Again, I do ask though can you find my quote about my love for Keith Thurman since this has come up? Genuinely curious to see it more than anything now.
 
Oggmonster said:
No no...you're avoiding the question. Again find me 1 quote where I said Keith Thurman is any better than Brook? Please, just 1. I said he was recently in a top welterweight fight. That's all I said, nothing else about his career. Can you find any quote? Or will you admit you just made it up to suit your argument.

You're next quote "You're blaming his manager now." My first post on the topic (which you quoted)


My second post:



A post after that:



Again again:



More here:



Hang on, whilst we're at it here's another point I made where I say it's not just Brook:





So there you go. I've not just suddenly brought up Eddie Hearn have I? Will you admit that considering there's a load of quotes from my previous posts. Or will you spin it again (probably to something about Keith Thurman!!)

Also, you ask why I'm speaking about Brook?? Surely that's easy? SOmeone asked a question about Brook so why would I talk about someone else? Here is the original question:



So how would I answer that without mentioning Brook? I've said (as you can see above) that I don't think he's the only one either. I think plenty of boxers do it, I just think he in particular has ben a culprit of it with his belt.

I',m not pining all the blame on Brook, I've said it loads. It's a problem across boxing and the example or original person was asked about was Brook, hence he was named.

Again, I do ask though can you find my quote about my love for Keith Thurman since this has come up? Genuinely curious to see it more than anything now.
Click to expand...
It was implied, when you are belittling someone and use someone else as an Example, you're automatically putting them above, why else would you use them as an example, a crap example at that as you've managed to pick someone with less top fights than Brook! Bravo.

Follow the dialogue of the conversation, WE were talking about Kell ducking fights, i don't care what you've said before, when have I ever said you hadn't mentioned it was Hearn as well? Please quote me. Infact I've stated all along this is what modern boxing is about. I'm sure we will see your next post flooded with quotes of the like..
But now we've established the two big fights you've claimed he turned down (I've given proof beyond contestation that it was Khan and not Brook, we've also established Vargas was turned down for the GGG, a much bigger fight) it kind of shits on your point. Strange that you didn't choose to comment on that part of your post. You even completely ignored he had fought Porter in your first few posts, why would you ignore that unless you're trying to slant the point?

Did you just not notice or are you conveniently ignoring the fact you quoted absolutely no one in the post I responded to? All my original post was suggesting was that Brook is avoided like JC was, something it appears you're now agreeing with.

We seem to be going round in circles here. Why not leave it at that?
 
ivaldo said:
It was implied, when you are belittling someone and use someone else as an Example, you're automatically putting them above, why else would you use them as an example, a crap example at that as you've managed to pick someone with less top fights than Brook! Bravo.

Follow the dialogue of the conversation, WE were talking about Kell ducking fights, i don't care what you've said before, when have I ever said you hadn't mentioned it was Hearn as well? Please quote me. Infact I've stated all along this is what modern boxing is about. I'm sure we will see your next post flooded with quotes of the like..
But now we've established the two big fights you've claimed he turned down (I've given proof beyond contestation that it was Khan and not Brook, we've also established Vargas was turned down for the GGG, a much bigger fight) it kind of shits on your point. Strange that you didn't choose to comment on that part of your post. You even completely ignored he had fought Porter in your first few posts, why would you ignore that unless you're trying to slant the point?

Did you just not notice or are you conveniently ignoring the fact you quoted absolutely no one in the post I responded to? All my original post was suggesting was that Brook is avoided like JC was, something it appears you're now agreeing with.

We seem to be going round in circles here. Why not leave it at that?
Click to expand...

Huh? I didn't belittle him. You said there's been no big welterweight facts, it just so happened that my apparent idol and god Keith Thurman was involved in a fight and I named that fight, from there you have now suggested I love Keith Thurman and put him in high regard. Now I ask again, can you please find the quote where I said this? One where I said he's better than Brook. Not where I happened to mention he was involved in a big fight after you said there's no big welterweight fights. It was merely I said there has been one and Brook wasn't involved but Thurman was. I didn't say who the better fighter was.

I'm perfectly aware what we're speaking about (ironic you say that considering you said I'm the pedantic one.) But you just said (and it's another quote!) "Yeah you're blaming his manager now (now diversion) for taking low level fights" the reality is I've said it was Hearn as well as Brook all along, he's the guys manager. Equally Brook picks his manager and will probably have some sway in who he fights. James DeGale implied that Hearn was useless at getting him fights so went to Al Haymon instead. If Brook wants a legacy then he could follow a similar path.

By "not caring what I said before" is stupid as well as that's surely the basis of the whole dicusion? We're not starting from square 1 every single time. I

Again, I didn't actually say he didn't fight Porter, your argument is bizarre. Did you want me to list all his 36 fights before making my point? Any boxing fan knows Kell Brook fought Shawn Porter why would I have to mention it? I'm not disputing he did it. It'd be like saying "Portugal just played France" people know it happened.

I'm not agreeing with Brook being avoided either and I never will, I don't think he is in the slightest. I'm not arguing it cos I feel I've done enough to prove he isn't. Including 3 articles that state top level (according to your previous Ring Magazine ratings) boxers will fight him.

The Khan stuff is back and forth with them both for that long it's dull. But here's something I've said about Brook a million times: There's more to life than Amir Khan, get over it and fight someone else. Which he is doing now. Again I'm not a fan of the fight. You are, good for you! I've said it every single time. Enjoy it and watch it, pay for it on Box Office when it happens. I won't be paying for it as I think the thing is a bit of a joke. I'd rather he fought Vargas, I'd rather GGG fought Canelo. That's boxing to me, not these novelty fights of Khan vs. Canelo or Brook vs. GGG. It's the same in UFC with McGregor fighting Diaz, it's stupid and just holds up divisions. Again, just my opinion though.

I suggested the same thing before and you stated I was pedantic and precious? Odd.
 
Oggmonster said:
Huh? I didn't belittle him. You said there's been no big welterweight facts, it just so happened that my apparent idol and god Keith Thurman was involved in a fight and I named that fight, from there you have now suggested I love Keith Thurman and put him in high regard. Now I ask again, can you please find the quote where I said this? One where I said he's better than Brook. Not where I happened to mention he was involved in a big fight after you said there's no big welterweight fights. It was merely I said there has been one and Brook wasn't involved but Thurman was. I didn't say who the better fighter was.

I'm perfectly aware what we're speaking about (ironic you say that considering you said I'm the pedantic one.) But you just said (and it's another quote!) "Yeah you're blaming his manager now (now diversion) for taking low level fights" the reality is I've said it was Hearn as well as Brook all along, he's the guys manager. Equally Brook picks his manager and will probably have some sway in who he fights. James DeGale implied that Hearn was useless at getting him fights so went to Al Haymon instead. If Brook wants a legacy then he could follow a similar path.

By "not caring what I said before" is stupid as well as that's surely the basis of the whole dicusion? We're not starting from square 1 every single time. I

Again, I didn't actually say he didn't fight Porter, your argument is bizarre. Did you want me to list all his 36 fights before making my point? Any boxing fan knows Kell Brook fought Shawn Porter why would I have to mention it? I'm not disputing he did it. It'd be like saying "Portugal just played France" people know it happened.

I'm not agreeing with Brook being avoided either and I never will, I don't think he is in the slightest. I'm not arguing it cos I feel I've done enough to prove he isn't. Including 3 articles that state top level (according to your previous Ring Magazine ratings) boxers will fight him.

The Khan stuff is back and forth with them both for that long it's dull. But here's something I've said about Brook a million times: There's more to life than Amir Khan, get over it and fight someone else. Which he is doing now. Again I'm not a fan of the fight. You are, good for you! I've said it every single time. Enjoy it and watch it, pay for it on Box Office when it happens. I won't be paying for it as I think the thing is a bit of a joke. I'd rather he fought Vargas, I'd rather GGG fought Canelo. That's boxing to me, not these novelty fights of Khan vs. Canelo or Brook vs. GGG. It's the same in UFC with McGregor fighting Diaz, it's stupid and just holds up divisions. Again, just my opinion though.

I suggested the same thing before and you stated I was pedantic and precious? Odd.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if you're flatly ignoring what I say are you're struggling to understand, I've answered your original question and you're still asking for a quote. Still waiting for my quote by the way, or are you going to continually ignore that like it doesn't exist.

How is it ironic when you've decided half way through a conversation we are going to talk about an entirely different person? :lol: nice try. We don't discuss everything everyone has said in the thread, we (that means me and you) pick a subject matter and we discuss that, what you discuss with other posters is up to you.

Proven it how exactly? I've give you proof that it was Khan that refused the fight and the Vargas fight was rejected by a much bigger fight. That proves the opposite! To counter the arguement you've suggested Thurmans name like I meant no other fighter in the top ten has ever fought eachother. you seem incapable of comprehending any kind of pragmatic dialogue, I thought it was fairly evident for anyone who has ever graced an online forum that a bit of nous is required when reading a comment, but youve clung on to this Thurman thing so desperately. What remains to be proven by you is if any other undefeated fighter in the top 10 has had more high profile fights than Brook. Until you can prove otherwise my point about the relevance of having an 0 stands. And singling out Brook who is about to have a bigger fight than any other fighter currently in the welterweight division will ever have as a ducker looks even more ridiculous.
 
ivaldo said:
I'm not sure if you're flatly ignoring what I say are you're struggling to understand, I've answered your original question and you're still asking for a quote. Still waiting for my quote by the way, or are you going to continually ignore that like it doesn't exist.

How is it ironic when you've decided half way through a conversation we are going to talk about an entirely different person? :lol: nice try. We don't discuss everything everyone has said in the thread, we (that means me and you) pick a subject matter and we discuss that, what you discuss with other posters is up to you.

Proven it how exactly? I've give you proof that it was Khan that refused the fight and the Vargas fight was rejected by a much bigger fight. That proves the opposite! To counter the arguement you've suggested Thurmans name like I meant no other fighter in the top ten has ever fought eachother. you seem incapable of comprehending any kind of pragmatic dialogue, I thought it was fairly evident for anyone who has ever graced an online forum that a bit of nous is required when reading a comment, but youve clung on to this Thurman thing so desperately. What remains to be proven by you is if any other undefeated fighter in the top 10 has had more high profile fights than Brook. Until you can prove otherwise my point about the relevance of having an 0 stands. And singling out Brook who is about to have a bigger fight than any other fighter currently in the welterweight division will ever have as a ducker looks even more ridiculous.
Click to expand...

What quote? I gave you the quote. You said "Yeah you're blaming his manager now (now diversion) for taking low level fights" and then I proved that I had slagged Hearn off from post 1. Isn't that the quote you're after? I'm genuinely lost now. The whole thing with Brook is going round in circles.

Who is this other person? You're the one who keeps brought up Thurman for example! By giving previous examples of my opinion that is a perfectly valid what of getting an opinion across as it shows that I've thought what I said previously. Genuinely don't get what point you're trying to make here. DeGale is used as an example of how Hearn has previously mismanaged fighters, again surely relevant in a discussion about Kell Brook and how I said I think he is wasting his career?

Khan rejecting a fight is a fair comment yeah, again million times over I didn't say Brook is the only one. And the Vargas stuff I've said previously it's a fight I'd rather see as I don't like these gimmicky fights. You seem hell bent on making me really want to enjoy and look forward to this fight despite the fact I've given a fair and balanced opinion why I won't pay for it nor particularly look forward to it. Surely you can see people are allowed different opinions on a sport? I respect yours and the fact you want to see the fight but you really don't seem to appreciate mine. I don't have to look forward to something cos you want me to.

No I've not hung on to this Thurman thing desperately. I keep bringing it up cos it's some absolute bollocks you spouted to be frank. Find the quote and I'll let it drop. Or admit you were wrong to suggest I implied Thurman was this elite level fighter? It's not that hard to admit you may of misread something surely?

Why are you obsessed with this other fighter thing? I've stated multiple times Brook isn't the only problem. I think Danny Garcia is as bad if not worse. As for the other fighters in his division? Well I dunno, Vargas hasn't defended the belt yet so it's surely not fair to judge him? He's meant to be fighting Timothy Bradley again which isn't a bad first defence considering people think he was robbed in the last fight they had. And if it does happen it's Number 5 vs. Number 8 in the now infamous Ring Rankings. Which for me personally is more interesting than the apparent P4P Number 1 fighting someone not even in his weight class.
 
Oggmonster said:
What quote? I gave you the quote. You said "Yeah you're blaming his manager now (now diversion) for taking low level fights" and then I proved that I had slagged Hearn off from post 1. Isn't that the quote you're after? I'm genuinely lost now. The whole thing with Brook is going round in circles.

Who is this other person? You're the one who keeps brought up Thurman for example! By giving previous examples of my opinion that is a perfectly valid what of getting an opinion across as it shows that I've thought what I said previously. Genuinely don't get what point you're trying to make here. DeGale is used as an example of how Hearn has previously mismanaged fighters, again surely relevant in a discussion about Kell Brook and how I said I think he is wasting his career?

Khan rejecting a fight is a fair comment yeah, again million times over I didn't say Brook is the only one. And the Vargas stuff I've said previously it's a fight I'd rather see as I don't like these gimmicky fights. You seem hell bent on making me really want to enjoy and look forward to this fight despite the fact I've given a fair and balanced opinion why I won't pay for it nor particularly look forward to it. Surely you can see people are allowed different opinions on a sport? I respect yours and the fact you want to see the fight but you really don't seem to appreciate mine. I don't have to look forward to something cos you want me to.

No I've not hung on to this Thurman thing desperately. I keep bringing it up cos it's some absolute bollocks you spouted to be frank. Find the quote and I'll let it drop. Or admit you were wrong to suggest I implied Thurman was this elite level fighter? It's not that hard to admit you may of misread something surely?

Why are you obsessed with this other fighter thing? I've stated multiple times Brook isn't the only problem. I think Danny Garcia is as bad if not worse. As for the other fighters in his division? Well I dunno, Vargas hasn't defended the belt yet so it's surely not fair to judge him? He's meant to be fighting Timothy Bradley again which isn't a bad first defence considering people think he was robbed in the last fight they had. And if it does happen it's Number 5 vs. Number 8 in the now infamous Ring Rankings. Which for me personally is more interesting than the apparent P4P Number 1 fighting someone not even in his weight class.
Click to expand...
I think I'll stop here, this is getting ridiculous and the thread has been completely derailed. Have a nice evening :)
 
The argument in this thread has longer posts than I've seen in any of the CE threads which is very impressive to be honest.
 
Noticeable how much smaller Kell's head and hands are despite the frame of their body's being similar.

 
I just heard on Sky Sports that Golovkin won 345 of 350 amateur fights. Is this true?

That's a ridiculous number.
 
Gol123 said:
I just heard on Sky Sports that Golovkin won 345 of 350 amateur fights. Is this true?

That's a ridiculous number.
Click to expand...
That's his apparent record but some claim he had more than 5 losses. He's also never been dropped as an amateur or a pro.
 
Kazi said:
That's his apparent record but some claim he had more than 5 losses. He's also never been dropped as an amateur or a pro.
Click to expand...
He is an absolute monster. 350 fights and he is still going. Christ!
 
The thing with golovkin is that he may end up retiring without ever being really tested . Hel likely never be recognized as a legend , but he's undoubtedly one of the most seemingly unbeatable fighters of any generation .
 
DavidG said:
The thing with golovkin is that he may end up retiring without ever being really tested . Hel likely never be recognized as a legend , but he's undoubtedly one of the most seemingly unbeatable fighters of any generation .
Click to expand...
Who is there currently that could test him though?
 
DavidG said:
Canelo would be a test . Andre ward would be the best one to see him fight though.
Click to expand...
Canelo would be a good fight.

I'm not a big fan of fighters going up weight classes though. Leads to them being distorted in the history books.
 
Lomachenko is the greatest amateur of all time, and for me the most talented fighter in the world.

If Ward beats Kovalev, I think Ward and GGG will meet at 168 at some point in the next two years.
 
Providing it's not for a serious personal issue (obvious condolences if so) but thank the good lord that I can watch Sky boxing off mute again now Mr Arrrrrhmmmm Punches, Jim Watt has retired.
 
He has got more annoying over the last few years. Read a few comments on Sky calling him bias though which made me laugh. Any commentator that replaces him will be bias as it's the Sky agenda for them to be. I remember going to Quigg vs. Frampton and having Frampton well up on the cards and Sky made out it was a dead close fight which was odd.

Wonder who will replace him? Smith Jr has done a few as had Froch...as much as I dislike him as a boxer I think Bellew has always done a good job on the 5 Live coverage as well.
 
BAMSOLA said:
Looks like the bookies got this one right. Very one sided with a Crawford win on points. Won just about every round.
Click to expand...
Well, there you go. What the hell do I know. I mean, I did expect him to win but not like that.

Crawford proves he's one of the best in the world right now. Hopefully he fights Manny next.
 
Can tell the power of Hearn in the media when Frampton is in a huge fight this weekend and Sky wouldn't even let you know about it!!

Anyone gonna be watching? I hope Frampton does it but feel LSC is a bit to big for him to be honest.
 
It's not really up to Hearn to promote Frampton and why should he - this fight has been poorly advertised by his own promotional team.

Frampton looked in great shape at the weigh in but LSC looks like he has the sort of frame that could really fill out in the next 24 hours.

Tricky fight for Luke Campbell on the SKY card - Mendez is decent if his head is right.
 
G-manc said:
It's not really up to Hearn to promote Frampton and why should he - this fight has been poorly advertised by his own promotional team.

Frampton looked in great shape at the weigh in but LSC looks like he has the sort of frame that could really fill out in the next 24 hours.

Tricky fight for Luke Campbell on the SKY card - Mendez is decent if his head is right.
Click to expand...

Huh? I didn't say it was up to Hearn. I just said it shows how much power he has with Sky when they haven't even mentioned the fight at all. Not blaming Hearn for that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.