Kell Brook - All you need to know !!

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:50 pm

First topic message reminder :

1. Went to the US to fight an at the time highly regarded Champion in Porter..

2. Got stuck in with the number 1 fighter in Boxing and carried on with a bad injury for two rounds.

3. Fighting a 50/50 with Spence when he has options..

If you haven't got anytime for this guy...Boxing isn't for you !!

Huge respect for this kid..

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:25 am

Rodney wrote:Why would GGG outbox him when he could just treat him like he did ? GGG is a better fighter than Brook period - he beat him up in 4 and half rounds what more do you want.

I don't think Kovalev would treat GGG in the same amout of distain do you ?

Why doesn't GGG fight a 50/50 sometime........plenty at 168...

just keep puking on fighters that don't deserve it.

by Rodney Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:25 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Rodney wrote:
Derbymanc wrote:No i thought Brook looked good as well against GGG (helped change my opinion on him anyway)

Yeah I do believe it, the same way I believe that some people are incredibly annoyed that he took the fight as a lot said he'd duck him.

Oh and Spence isn't a big name in the UK, especially to the PPV market

Brook done ok but lets face it he won 1 round and got battered and stopped in 13 minutes - people go over the top.

Ok I agree Spence isn't a big name over here - but boxing fans aren't stupid - If Brook would've fought someone else (not a big name) he'd have come in for a scathing attack and backlash (rightly so) so give me a name who he could've fought please.

Cheers

Boxing fans are stupid............They don't give a guy who fights the best when he doesn't have to any credit..

Oh dear - who should he have fought then Truss ? please tell me ? he was out of options thats why the Spence deal stalled.

by AdamT Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:29 am

We will never find out what Kovalev could do, because GGG is never going to move up.

by Rodney Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:32 am

AdamT wrote:We will never find out what Kovalev could do, because GGG is never going to move up.

Not when his chasing down his biggest payday is in the same division would be foolish and why should he ?

by AdamT Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:34 am

Rodney wrote:
AdamT wrote:We will never find out what Kovalev could do, because GGG is never going to move up.

Not when his chasing down his biggest payday is in the same division would be foolish and why should he ?

Did you not blast Floyd for fighting McGregor? Do you realise how much he will be paid?

If GGG took what he is worth, he would already have fought Canelo, his ppv numbers are useless.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:36 am

Don't know why any fighter would want to fight the best...

With your attitude Rod....

I'd pick Brook to beat Jermall...

by Rodney Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:37 am

AdamT wrote:
Rodney wrote:
AdamT wrote:We will never find out what Kovalev could do, because GGG is never going to move up.

Not when his chasing down his biggest payday is in the same division would be foolish and why should he ?

Did you not blast Floyd for fighting McGregor? Do you realise how much he will be paid?

If GGG took what he is worth, he would already have fought Canelo, his ppv numbers are useless.

Go away - you're an idiot.

Yes I'll blast Floyd for the clown of a bloke he is fighting a non pro if true.

by EX7EY Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:37 am

I'm not having that GGG destroyed Brook which some people are trying to say. As I said in my original post yesterday, I think Brook P4P is better than GGG.

I watched the fight again the other night and Brook looked good. Yes you could put a lot of his success down to the fact that GGG knew he couldn;t be hurt so he was being wreckless. But, I'm pretty confident that had Brook been a natural MW he would have given GGG a world of problems that night.

Brooks got some chin, he got caught with some big big shots. He took some big body shots as well, shots that have taken out full middle weights. That's impressive, nobody can deny it. Especially when you consider GGG probably hits like a Light Heavy.

I forget now which round the eye started causing him problems, round 2 or 3?? Who knows what would have happened without that. Not saying he would have won of course, but even if he had just managed to go the 12 rounds that would have been hella impressive.

by Rodney Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:41 am

Got to disagree Ex7ey - Brook did ok and better than expected. But he lost 3 rounds out of 4 completed - got beaten up with a broken orbital bone and severely rocked. Will say though he had a tremendous chin.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:42 am

Derbymanc wrote:
Rodney wrote:
hazharrison wrote:Jackiewicz? Surprised at that (what top ten are you looking at)?

God knows back of Rice Krispie box I think. - Brook has had a very slow burner of a career, I like Brook but he seems to receive too many plaudits for his achievements.

Winning the linear title and being scorched in the sun in Puerto Rico , fighting arguably the best lightweight ever in his adopted house, constantly fighting abroad and displaying his skills - travelling to Italy, Japan, France and the likes of.. That's a real road warrior - save the plaudits for someone like Buchanan. Fans easily pleased nowadays.

Cheers

Whilst there is problems with boxing, especially amongst people avoiding fights, we should be giving Brook Plaudits for fighting Spence a lot of people claimed it wouldn't happen and that he'd move weights to avoid it, a lot of people said Brook would only fight Gimme's and then he took on GGG. No this fight doesn't make him an ATG, but what it does do is show that the fighter himself is willing to step up to the plate and THAT should be applauded.

Yes he's had a slow career but is that him or his managment?

Move this on....All a little negative on here.

Brook is 30 ????.............Not too bad if you're a slick boxer...........Age is more of a problem for those with shady defences....

Certainly if Brook beats Spence...............Added to the Porter win it puts him in the Honeyghan bracket for me........and that is a good place to be...

by Rodney Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:46 am

Hmm not sure it does Truss, albeit a good couple of wins he still won't be established as the man of the division which Honeyghan was.

by EX7EY Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:47 am

And it's not that Brook is getting massive credit for fighting Spence. It's the right thing to do, obviously. BUT, the weight issue was a ready made excuse to vacate and avoid, he hasn't done it. Even though it would have stunk he could have quite easily justified it having fought two weights higher in his last fight, but he didn't.

The credit Brook is getting from me is for what he's doing now. He's said for a long time, he wants the big fights, I didn't beleive him I'll be honest. I felt like he was taking easy options whilst waiting for a payday against Khan (maybe that was the plan at one stage?). But now, he fought GGG - showed big balls and now fighting spence when he COULD have avoided. To me that's a guy laying his cards on the table saying, 'right I'm on the World Stage. let's have it'. So the respect is for that. I like Brooks attitude and he's one of very few fighters that I believe genuinely wants to be involved in big fights against the best guys and I think we will see that from him now. Hopefully he beats Spence and if he does he should call out Thurman straight away. Spence is Americas golden boy so if he wins the Thurman fight would be huge.

by AdamT Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:50 am

Rodney wrote:
AdamT wrote:
Rodney wrote:
AdamT wrote:We will never find out what Kovalev could do, because GGG is never going to move up.

Not when his chasing down his biggest payday is in the same division would be foolish and why should he ?

Did you not blast Floyd for fighting McGregor? Do you realise how much he will be paid?

If GGG took what he is worth, he would already have fought Canelo, his ppv numbers are useless.

Go away - you're an idiot.

Yes I'll blast Floyd for the clown of a bloke he is fighting a non pro if true.

Result to name calling. Classy guy Rodney you Plonker!!

by EX7EY Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:50 am

Rodney wrote:Got to disagree Ex7ey - Brook did ok and better than expected. But he lost 3 rounds out of 4 completed - got beaten up with a broken orbital bone and severely rocked. Will say though he had a tremendous chin.

Maybe he did, but I don't think he got dominated. I can't not factor the weight difference into my observations when I watch the fight. Brook showed balls of steel IMO. He wasn't scared to let his hands go, he took the shots, he came back, he tried to fight through the injury. And he did all this against a man that's talked about as though he's a mythical beast.

Full respect to Brook in that fight, I think without the eye going it would have panned out differently and despite the fact Brook was obviously behind on the cards he certainly wasn't out of his depth by any means.

by AdamT Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:52 am

Rodney has no clue about boxing. He can't see that the only thing GGG could do was bully the smaller guy.

Brook earned my respect that night. He has guts to step up, unlike some.

by AdamT Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:57 am

Rodney one last question.

If GGG, or any other boxer knew they could make 200 million plus fighting a non boxing guy, would they do it? Would you?

No name calling and answer the question please.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:57 am

Rodney wrote:Hmm not sure it does Truss, albeit a good couple of wins he still won't be established as the man of the division which Honeyghan was.

Brook is the man at Welter......Ranked number 1 and took over the position when Mayweather retired.......

Honeyghan reigned alongside Breland and Starling for much of his time.....and Brown when he threw away the IBF.........Duff did admit they didn't fancy Breland.....

I'd pick Breland to beat Manny and Floyd........Much underrated fighter...

Whether Honey was the Man for much of his reign is subjective.......Certainly the Linear man if you are into that sort of thing............

Love to have seen Honey v Brook

by Rodney Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:02 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Rodney wrote:Hmm not sure it does Truss, albeit a good couple of wins he still won't be established as the man of the division which Honeyghan was.

Brook is the man at Welter......Ranked number 1 and took over the position when Mayweather retired.......

Honeyghan reigned alongside Breland and Starling for much of his time.....and Brown when he threw away the IBF.........Duff did admit they didn't fancy Breland.....

I'd pick Breland to beat Manny and Floyd........Much underrated fighter...

Whether Honey was the Man for much of his reign is subjective.......Certainly the Linear man if you are into that sort of thing............

Love to have seen Honey v Brook

Really ? well he hasn't proved his worth in the division for me if thats the case.

Adam,

Got no interest in debating with you, You;re a guy who values fighters on PPV numbers.

by EX7EY Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:07 pm

If Brook loses to Spence, which is clearly a real possibility, then he would go down as a poor champion with a pretyy poor record.

If he wins however, and I hope he does, he's got a very big opportunity to become a great champion. This is a pivotal moment for Brook.

Imagine if he win's, unifys three title's with Thurman, makes the Khan fight and wins....He'd then have to go down as a good champion with a very good record. Porter, Spence, Thurman, Khan. Won't matter how many rounds his previous opponents have lost combined which some people on the t'interweb keep banging on about.

I know that's a whole lot of ifs, and it's likely not to happen. But it's just another reason to give Kell the benefit of the doubt for the moment. I'm not going to keep judging a man for what he's done in the past when he's clearly trying to move in a new direction.

by AdamT Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:15 pm

Rodney wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Rodney wrote:Hmm not sure it does Truss, albeit a good couple of wins he still won't be established as the man of the division which Honeyghan was.

Brook is the man at Welter......Ranked number 1 and took over the position when Mayweather retired.......

Honeyghan reigned alongside Breland and Starling for much of his time.....and Brown when he threw away the IBF.........Duff did admit they didn't fancy Breland.....

I'd pick Breland to beat Manny and Floyd........Much underrated fighter...

Whether Honey was the Man for much of his reign is subjective.......Certainly the Linear man if you are into that sort of thing............

Love to have seen Honey v Brook

Really ? well he hasn't proved his worth in the division for me if thats the case.

Adam,

Got no interest in debating with you, You;re a guy who values fighters on PPV numbers.

You can't debate because you contradict yourself. You know rightly GGG would take the fight with McGregor. Sure he is calling Floyd out and says he would fight him at 154?

I hate double standards and I called you out for it today. Have a good day and go and lose a debate to the rest of them.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:17 pm

EX7EY wrote:If Brook loses to Spence, which is clearly a real possibility, then he would go down as a poor champion with a pretyy poor record.

If he wins however, and I hope he does, he's got a very big opportunity to become a great champion. This is a pivotal moment for Brook.

Imagine if he win's, unifys three title's with Thurman, makes the Khan fight and wins....He'd then have to go down as a good champion with a very good record. Porter, Spence, Thurman, Khan. Won't matter how many rounds his previous opponents have lost combined which some people on the t'interweb keep banging on about.

I know that's a whole lot of ifs, and it's likely not to happen. But it's just another reason to give Kell the benefit of the doubt for the moment. I'm not going to keep judging a man for what he's done in the past when he's clearly trying to move in a new direction.

Pretty Poor record ????

Everything is relative.........He'll go down as a former Abc world champion and Porter alone guarantees he has a decent record.....With Senchenko and Hatton as decent Euro level fighters to add to it..

You don't know how good Spence is..................He might be a future legend.....

No harm in losing to them....

by EX7EY Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:24 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
EX7EY wrote:If Brook loses to Spence, which is clearly a real possibility, then he would go down as a poor champion with a pretyy poor record.

If he wins however, and I hope he does, he's got a very big opportunity to become a great champion. This is a pivotal moment for Brook.

Imagine if he win's, unifys three title's with Thurman, makes the Khan fight and wins....He'd then have to go down as a good champion with a very good record. Porter, Spence, Thurman, Khan. Won't matter how many rounds his previous opponents have lost combined which some people on the t'interweb keep banging on about.

I know that's a whole lot of ifs, and it's likely not to happen. But it's just another reason to give Kell the benefit of the doubt for the moment. I'm not going to keep judging a man for what he's done in the past when he's clearly trying to move in a new direction.

Pretty Poor record ????

Everything is relative.........He'll go down as a former Abc world champion and Porter alone guarantees he has a decent record.....With Senchenko and Hatton as decent Euro level fighters to add to it..

You don't know how good Spence is..................He might be a future legend.....

No harm in losing to them....

Just my opinion Truss.

Let's just put it this way, he's not going to end his career as one of the most memorable WW champions in history as it stands right now is he?

And I'm not suggesting he can't come back from a loss to Spence. I can't predict the future so who knows what will happen. All I do know is a win against Spence opens the door to become a champion that will be remembered for years to come.

by hazharrison Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:29 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Rodney wrote:Hmm not sure it does Truss, albeit a good couple of wins he still won't be established as the man of the division which Honeyghan was.

Brook is the man at Welter......Ranked number 1 and took over the position when Mayweather retired.......

Honeyghan reigned alongside Breland and Starling for much of his time.....and Brown when he threw away the IBF.........Duff did admit they didn't fancy Breland.....

I'd pick Breland to beat Manny and Floyd........Much underrated fighter...

Whether Honey was the Man for much of his reign is subjective.......Certainly the Linear man if you are into that sort of thing............

Love to have seen Honey v Brook

Brook hasn't yet established himself top man at welterweight. He probably still has Pacquiao and Thurman above him (whoever wins the Brook-Spence-Thurman shoot-out, will probably have done enough if Pacquiao continues fighting the likes of the unranked Horn).

The idea someone becomes "the man" by default (certainly in the manner you're suggesting) is ridiculous - he needs to prove that in the ring.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:39 pm

hazharrison wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Rodney wrote:Hmm not sure it does Truss, albeit a good couple of wins he still won't be established as the man of the division which Honeyghan was.

Brook is the man at Welter......Ranked number 1 and took over the position when Mayweather retired.......

Honeyghan reigned alongside Breland and Starling for much of his time.....and Brown when he threw away the IBF.........Duff did admit they didn't fancy Breland.....

I'd pick Breland to beat Manny and Floyd........Much underrated fighter...

Whether Honey was the Man for much of his reign is subjective.......Certainly the Linear man if you are into that sort of thing............

Love to have seen Honey v Brook

Brook hasn't yet established himself top man at welterweight. He probably still has Pacquiao and Thurman above him (whoever wins the Brook-Spence-Thurman shoot-out, will probably have done enough if Pacquiao continues fighting the likes of the unranked Horn).

The idea someone becomes "the man" by default (certainly in the manner you're suggesting) is ridiculous - he needs to prove that in the ring.

More double standards...........Lineal matters one minute and then it doesn't the next...Because he is a Hearn fighter.

Okay when fighters you like like Pedrosa become the man by default and "Lineal" ...........

Black and white....Love and hate....You'll grow out of it.

by hazharrison Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:50 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Rodney wrote:Hmm not sure it does Truss, albeit a good couple of wins he still won't be established as the man of the division which Honeyghan was.

Brook is the man at Welter......Ranked number 1 and took over the position when Mayweather retired.......

Honeyghan reigned alongside Breland and Starling for much of his time.....and Brown when he threw away the IBF.........Duff did admit they didn't fancy Breland.....

I'd pick Breland to beat Manny and Floyd........Much underrated fighter...

Whether Honey was the Man for much of his reign is subjective.......Certainly the Linear man if you are into that sort of thing............

Love to have seen Honey v Brook

Brook hasn't yet established himself top man at welterweight. He probably still has Pacquiao and Thurman above him (whoever wins the Brook-Spence-Thurman shoot-out, will probably have done enough if Pacquiao continues fighting the likes of the unranked Horn).

The idea someone becomes "the man" by default (certainly in the manner you're suggesting) is ridiculous - he needs to prove that in the ring.

More double standards...........Lineal matters one minute and then it doesn't the next...Because he is a Hearn fighter.

Okay when fighters you like like Pedrosa become the man by default and "Lineal" ...........

Black and white....Love and hate....You'll grow out of it.

Brook has never been recognised as the "lineal" champion - have you been on the gin already?

Pedroza's was an unusual case. After Sal Sanchez died, the top two rated fighters at the weight were Pedroza and LaPorte (with Pedroza having beaten LaPorta only months prior). Recognise the lineal claims of the great Pedroza or not (and plenty do), this was plainly a different scenario to Brook (who'd beaten a fellow contender - with both of them rated behind Floyd and Pacquiao at the time). Had Brook beaten Thurman or Pacquiao just prior to Floyd retiring, then yeah you'd have a case. As it happens, Thurman's wins over Porter and Garcia have bumped him ahead of Brook - who's stood still at 147.

I do wonder whether you watch any of this?

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:54 pm

hazharrison wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Rodney wrote:Hmm not sure it does Truss, albeit a good couple of wins he still won't be established as the man of the division which Honeyghan was.

Brook is the man at Welter......Ranked number 1 and took over the position when Mayweather retired.......

Honeyghan reigned alongside Breland and Starling for much of his time.....and Brown when he threw away the IBF.........Duff did admit they didn't fancy Breland.....

I'd pick Breland to beat Manny and Floyd........Much underrated fighter...

Whether Honey was the Man for much of his reign is subjective.......Certainly the Linear man if you are into that sort of thing............

Love to have seen Honey v Brook

Brook hasn't yet established himself top man at welterweight. He probably still has Pacquiao and Thurman above him (whoever wins the Brook-Spence-Thurman shoot-out, will probably have done enough if Pacquiao continues fighting the likes of the unranked Horn).

The idea someone becomes "the man" by default (certainly in the manner you're suggesting) is ridiculous - he needs to prove that in the ring.

More double standards...........Lineal matters one minute and then it doesn't the next...Because he is a Hearn fighter.

Okay when fighters you like like Pedrosa become the man by default and "Lineal" ...........

Black and white....Love and hate....You'll grow out of it.

Brook has never been recognised as the "lineal" champion - have you been on the gin already?

Pedroza's was an unusual case. After Sal Sanchez died, the top two rated fighters at the weight were Pedroza and LaPorte (with Pedroza having beaten LaPorta only months prior). Recognise the lineal claims of the great Pedroza or not (and plenty do), this was plainly a different scenario to Brook (who'd beaten a fellow contender - with both of them rated behind Floyd and Pacquiao at the time). Had Brook beaten Thurman or Pacquiao just prior to Floyd retiring, then yeah you'd have a case. As it happens, Thurman's wins over Porter and Garcia have bumped him ahead of Brook - who's stood still at 147.

I do wonder whether you watch any of this?

Have you been tested for Autism ???.......All you do is make cheap pops.....

You don't know anything about Pedrosa......Lockridge wasn't the top feather he'd never beaten anybody then.....Azumah Nelson and Gomez were the top Feathers...

But look I can't be arsed........I don't think you're a 100 percent..

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:00 pm

EX7EY wrote:
Rodney wrote:Got to disagree Ex7ey - Brook did ok and better than expected. But he lost 3 rounds out of 4 completed - got beaten up with a broken orbital bone and severely rocked. Will say though he had a tremendous chin.

Maybe he did, but I don't think he got dominated. I can't not factor the weight difference into my observations when I watch the fight. Brook showed balls of steel IMO. He wasn't scared to let his hands go, he took the shots, he came back, he tried to fight through the injury. And he did all this against a man that's talked about as though he's a mythical beast.

Full respect to Brook in that fight, I think without the eye going it would have panned out differently and despite the fact Brook was obviously behind on the cards he certainly wasn't out of his depth by any means.

I agree he had a dodgy first round and then rallied in the second.....He did his eye in the second and it must have been a problem.....

GGG stops him late for me without it... but all the signs showed Brook could compete..

by Derbymanc Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:01 pm

Agreed, people are gonna make excuses when they don't wanna give someone credit (I did it enough times with Ward).

One last thing though, considering Eddie sold Haye/Bellew as a genuine contest (the result helped him massively) then he could have got him ANYONE and said it was a massive test with him moving up etc etc yaddah yaddah. You can't blame the 'casuals' (still hate that word) for buying fights like that and then backtrack and say it couldn't be done with some else.

by hazharrison Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:01 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Rodney wrote:Hmm not sure it does Truss, albeit a good couple of wins he still won't be established as the man of the division which Honeyghan was.

Brook is the man at Welter......Ranked number 1 and took over the position when Mayweather retired.......

Honeyghan reigned alongside Breland and Starling for much of his time.....and Brown when he threw away the IBF.........Duff did admit they didn't fancy Breland.....

I'd pick Breland to beat Manny and Floyd........Much underrated fighter...

Whether Honey was the Man for much of his reign is subjective.......Certainly the Linear man if you are into that sort of thing............

Love to have seen Honey v Brook

Brook hasn't yet established himself top man at welterweight. He probably still has Pacquiao and Thurman above him (whoever wins the Brook-Spence-Thurman shoot-out, will probably have done enough if Pacquiao continues fighting the likes of the unranked Horn).

The idea someone becomes "the man" by default (certainly in the manner you're suggesting) is ridiculous - he needs to prove that in the ring.

More double standards...........Lineal matters one minute and then it doesn't the next...Because he is a Hearn fighter.

Okay when fighters you like like Pedrosa become the man by default and "Lineal" ...........

Black and white....Love and hate....You'll grow out of it.

Brook has never been recognised as the "lineal" champion - have you been on the gin already?

Pedroza's was an unusual case. After Sal Sanchez died, the top two rated fighters at the weight were Pedroza and LaPorte (with Pedroza having beaten LaPorta only months prior). Recognise the lineal claims of the great Pedroza or not (and plenty do), this was plainly a different scenario to Brook (who'd beaten a fellow contender - with both of them rated behind Floyd and Pacquiao at the time). Had Brook beaten Thurman or Pacquiao just prior to Floyd retiring, then yeah you'd have a case. As it happens, Thurman's wins over Porter and Garcia have bumped him ahead of Brook - who's stood still at 147.

I do wonder whether you watch any of this?

Have you been tested for Autism ???.......All you do is make cheap pops.....

You don't know anything about Pedrosa......Lockridge wasn't the top feather he'd never beaten anybody then.....Azumah Nelson and Gomez were the top Feathers...

But look I can't be arsed.....

"

Isn't cheap pops your whole thing? I thought this was your online persona?

I know enough about Pedroza to spell his name right......ANYWAY......when Sanchez died, Pedroza and LaPorta were the top two ranked featherweights. As Pedroza had recently beaten LaPorta, the American mags recognised him as "lineal" champ.

Regardless of what you think about that (and I don't particularly care) this isn't the same scenario as Brook - who you think was somehow recognised as "the lineal champ" by beating Porter. That hasn't ever been the case old bean.

Chin, chin...

by Hammersmith harrier Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:02 pm

Who cares about lineal champions?

by hazharrison Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:03 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Who cares about lineal champions?

NOT YOU!

by Hammersmith harrier Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:05 pm

You're learning and you only care when it suits you.

by hazharrison Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:06 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're learning and you only care when it suits you.

Is this another 50 Shades thing?

by Derbymanc Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:22 pm

Some people do, some people don't. Too many belts, too many avoidances and so on

by Rodney Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:23 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Who cares about lineal champions?

Me - if you can't recognise the lineal one champion, whats the point ?

Cheers

by Derbymanc Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:25 pm

Yeah but you can't recognise when a fighter should be told 'good on you for taking that tough fight' ;-)

by AdamT Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:27 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Who cares about lineal champions?

In todays boxing? Pointless.

by hazharrison Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:32 pm

Rodney wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:Who cares about lineal champions?

Me - if you can't recognise the lineal one champion, whats the point ?

Cheers

It's tricky these days when you consider Stevenson is still the lineal 175 king.

Back in Pedroza's day, it mattered more.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:43 pm

Herman Jaeger wrote:Two victories from becoming a British legend too, Truss

Only Spence and Thurman mind..

Let's hope the winner can fight Thurman this year, Brook sounds like he wants that fight

I don't know.... What is the criteria for a British legend ??....I imagine the goalposts move whether you like the fighter in question or not....

Had a lot of respect for Colin Jones and he was never a World champion......Does that count against him ??......Had him beating Milton the first time....Sibson was another I admired. Had a great fight with Don Lee and some good wins..

British legend I guess is a subjective thing....

My take is Brook already is one for some and good luck to them.

by Hammersmith harrier Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:56 pm

I don't think lineal championships have mattered since the colour line was drawn; LaMotta, Maxim and Mills holding titles was as relevant as Brook holding an alphabet title now.

by hazharrison Fri Apr 07, 2017 2:42 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't think lineal championships have mattered since the colour line was drawn; LaMotta, Maxim and Mills holding titles was as relevant as Brook holding an alphabet title now.

LaMotta beat Cerdan who beat Zale for the only championship in town. How is that similar to Brook winning one of a dozen alphabet titles?

by Derbymanc Fri Apr 07, 2017 2:52 pm

Haz any chance you can post the updated you list ages ago of who's lineal now, i'd be interested to see it

by Hammersmith harrier Fri Apr 07, 2017 3:01 pm

hazharrison wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't think lineal championships have mattered since the colour line was drawn; LaMotta, Maxim and Mills holding titles was as relevant as Brook holding an alphabet title now.

LaMotta beat Cerdan who beat Zale for the only championship in town. How is that similar to Brook winning one of a dozen alphabet titles?

The point is lost on you clearly.

by hazharrison Fri Apr 07, 2017 4:15 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't think lineal championships have mattered since the colour line was drawn; LaMotta, Maxim and Mills holding titles was as relevant as Brook holding an alphabet title now.

LaMotta beat Cerdan who beat Zale for the only championship in town. How is that similar to Brook winning one of a dozen alphabet titles?

The point is lost on you clearly.

It is! Can you make it again (more clearly)?

by Hammersmith harrier Sat Apr 08, 2017 12:04 pm

It's quite simple but still beyond you.

What point is there to a lineal title that for years discriminated against the best boxers in the world because they were black?

The Middleweight and Light Heavyweight divisions in the 1940's were dominated by white champions this in spite of the fact that Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore and the BMR were the best boxers in the world. Now do explain to me what worth a lineal title is when the best in the world can't fight for it?

by Sponsored content