Kell Brook vs Lamont Peterson is actually a good fight

The fight serves no purpose to Brook at the moment. Peterson isn't even a welterweight. The only significant "win" on his resume is Khan and he was up to the gills on testosterone. It would be very low down on the pecking order of fights available. Brook can get Chaves or whoever is going to be mandatory out of the way then I think he should target Danny Garcia.

good fight but Kelly Brook will never take this fight because it be would too risky for him, Brook will fight another Bum.

The decision is pretty much unanimous, this is actually a good fight. Kell is the rightful favourite however Lamont will make it very interesting. For now it looks like we'll be getting Diego Chaves which is also a solid match up. Provodnikov and Thurman have stated an interest in Brook too in the last couple of days.

I don't particularly think of a skilled boxer when I think of Pacquiao even if he improved from being the one handed fighter he was. Whenever he's been in the ring with truly skilled boxers like Marquez, Mayweather or Morales in the first fight, he's been outboxed and outclassed for long stages. I'm not saying he's unskilled but to say that he Mayweather and Tim Bradley (lol) of all people are the 3 most skilled boxers in the world is just idiotic. I would agree. Pacquiao is obviously an ATG and a terrific fighter, but that's more about his speed, angles, awkwardness, etc.. than skilful boxing. Mayweather, Ward, Rigondeaux....those are the 3 most skilled fighters in boxing.

Peterson is very underrated imo... I don't say that he is an elite fighter but neither he is a journeyman. Better than Broner to be honest. Peterson is often overlooked because the MatthysseKO loss and his dopping case but otherwise he gave hell to Garcia (I had Peterson winning) and he gave a tough-tough fight to Khan (He shouldn't have won it though...)

Peterson would be a good oppoent for Brook, I had actually forgotten about him. The problem with Peterson is that he is coming off a loss, albeit a disputed one, and probably wouldn't come to England.

As Pacquiao has evolved he has turned into a very skilled fighter. He may not be known for it because of his early years and the fact that he made his name by going through weight divisions knocking guys out, but he is very skilful. Even before 135 he had good skills, he decisioned elite guys. I agree he may not be top 5, but I would definitely have him top 10 in the world, and your first post basically said he wasn't skilful which is incorrect. He has lots of moves, lots of tricks, too many things to name, but the guy has every shot in the book. I don't particularly think of a skilled boxer when I think of Pacquiao even if he improved from being the one handed fighter he was. Whenever he's been in the ring with truly skilled boxers like Marquez, Mayweather or Morales in the first fight, he's been outboxed and outclassed for long stages. I'm not saying he's unskilled but to say that he Mayweather and Tim Bradley (lol) of all people are the 3 most skilled boxers in the world is just idiotic.

He's hardly the most skilled boxer in the world or even second. I wouldn't even put him in the top 5. As Pacquiao has evolved he has turned into a very skilled fighter. He may not be known for it because of his early years and the fact that he made his name by going through weight divisions knocking guys out, but he is very skilful. Even before 135 he had good skills, he decisioned elite guys. I agree he may not be top 5, but I would definitely have him top 10 in the world, and your first post basically said he wasn't skilful which is incorrect. He has lots of moves, lots of tricks, too many things to name, but the guy has every shot in the book.

First of all Pacquaio is hardly a skilled boxer and then to say Bradley is only behind him and Mayweather in terms of boxing skill is beyond laughable. Bradley didn't "box circles" around Alexander - have you even seen that fight? He mauls and smothers Alexander with barely any clean punches being landed. Although I guess that sort of thing impresses you since you scored so many rounds for Porter against Brook. That must be what you think "skill" is. You've been in the ring? You must be sh1t. :thinking:

Pacquiao isn't a skilled boxer? :lol1: You don't know **** about boxing lmfao. Mayweather even said why Pacquiao is so great, "he sets traps for everyone else but me". You know more than Mayweather? YDKSAB Pacquiao's lateral movement, as well as his ability so split the orthodox jab is second to none, you've been exposed as the clown you are. He's hardly the most skilled boxer in the world or even second. I wouldn't even put him in the top 5.

I agree its a good fight, I think there are plenty of guys that possibly beat Brook from 140-154. His stock is over-inflated at the moment, I think he has a lot of momentum from fans, and they want him to be a top elite champion. I am more of a simple m%ther f%cker I guess, I like fighters to actually prove it. The Porter win was very good, but I still feel he has lots of unanswered questions about his ability, and I also agree that fight was close and hard to score. In the Porter fight lots of his defence was based around clinching, he won't get away with that against every style, he will have to show more. People already have Brook as the second or third best ww in the world, based on what exactly? He has so much to prove, and that is disrespectful to the guys who are proven. I think he is a good fighter, and his management are steering him the right way, he should be fighting guys like Rios and Chaves, he needs learning fights against solid B-level guys before going into deep waters again. That is where he is in my opinion. But there are plenty on here that don't understand that. I am actually pretty frustrated with his fights since Porter although I am sure Eddie Hearn is really happy with last year, as he has had a chance to build Brook's profile with no risk.

Peterson has to fight Malignaggi first.

First of all Pacquaio is hardly a skilled boxer and then to say Bradley is only behind him and Mayweather in terms of boxing skill is beyond laughable. Bradley didn't "box circles" around Alexander - have you even seen that fight? He mauls and smothers Alexander with barely any clean punches being landed. Although I guess that sort of thing impresses you since you scored so many rounds for Porter against Brook. That must be what you think "skill" is. You've been in the ring? You must be sh1t. Pacquiao isn't a skilled boxer? :lol1: You don't know **** about boxing lmfao. Mayweather even said why Pacquiao is so great, "he sets traps for everyone else but me". You know more than Mayweather? YDKSAB Pacquiao's lateral movement, as well as his ability so split the orthodox jab is second to none, you've been exposed as the clown you are.

:haha: absolute idiot. How many actual bouts have you been in? I'm closing in on 40 and have actually been in the ring unlike you keyboard warrior. And Bradley's resume is stacked you retard. Stop the dumb cunt act you bellend. First of all Pacquaio is hardly a skilled boxer and then to say Bradley is only behind him and Mayweather in terms of boxing skill is beyond laughable. Bradley didn't "box circles" around Alexander - have you even seen that fight? He mauls and smothers Alexander with barely any clean punches being landed. Although I guess that sort of thing impresses you since you scored so many rounds for Porter against Brook. That must be what you think "skill" is. You've been in the ring? You must be sh1t.

It's official - you don't know sh1t about boxing :lol1: You make a thread and tell people to not veer off-topic then you randomly bring up scoring Brook-Porter because you're intention for this thread was to try and dig out Brook, not to have any actual discussion about Brook-Peterson. I wish you'd stop the "I'm not a Khantard" act, it's stale. :haha: absolute idiot. How many actual bouts have you been in? I'm closing in on 40 and have actually been in the ring unlike you keyboard warrior. And Bradley's resume is stacked you retard. Stop the dumb cunt act you bellend.

It would be a tough fight Peterson might be all wrong for Brook.

Wow this is kinda true Imo Bradley is only behind Mayweather and Pacquiao in terms of boxing skill, he boxed circles round Alexander and Marquez too. Also wasn't Peterson only stopped once against my boy Matthysse in 3? It was a perfect left hook, not many recovering from that. It's official - you don't know sh1t about boxing :lol1: Bith I made the thread, I'll smack your ass (Kell voice) :lol1: if you didn't get the reference it's how Kell tweeted Brandon (even the ass "smacking" bit). And what the **** is your problem? I'm talking about Brook so I'll talk about his other performances if I want dork. The same way I've mentioned Lamont's performance versus Garcia. You make a thread and tell people to not veer off-topic then you randomly bring up scoring Brook-Porter because you're intention for this thread was to try and dig out Brook, not to have any actual discussion about Brook-Peterson. I wish you'd stop the "I'm not a Khantard" act, it's stale.

When did people start rating Peterson as good? I mean seriously this guys best days were at 140 when he was roided. I dont even care for Garcia (because of his fans) and I thought Garcia clearly beat him 7-5 because Lamont was running around like a jack @$$ the first 6rds. He dont deserve a Brook match, he really didnt even deserve a Garcia match. He was only relevent because the IBF loved him for some reason. So to add to your thread this is actually a terrible fight. Lamont should fight guys like Hank Lundy. Did Frankie Gavin "deserve" a title shot? No way in hell would he have won the eliminator vs Bradley. It's a solid defence and 7-5 either way was reasonable in Peterson-Garcia. A lot of people thought Peterson won as did I on first watch.

No stupid comments as I'm being serious. Kell Brook is in the elite and 147 and Lamont Peterson planned on moving to 147. Stylistically this is a very good match up in my opinion. Peterson is a tough durable guy who can put the earmuffs on and pile the pressure or he can be slick and make you miss as he did vs Garcia. It would be a tough fight and also an entertaining one. You'd have to rightfully favour Kell but Peterson is tough and looked good in his last outing vs DSG which he could have won if he put his foot down earlier. Would anyone be interested in this fight? A step up from Dan and Gavin who's been in with a lot of good names and would be intersting to see how Kell deals with someone slick (which he hasn't done yet) or someone that's in your chest, same height as you as doesn't smother his own work. Also, I don't see Brook stopping Peterson, Lamont has a lot of dog in him. When did people start rating Peterson as good? I mean seriously this guys best days were at 140 when he was roided. I dont even care for Garcia (because of his fans) and I thought Garcia clearly beat him 7-5 because Lamont was running around like a jack @$$ the first 6rds. He dont deserve a Brook match, he really didnt even deserve a Garcia match. He was only relevent because the IBF loved him for some reason. So to add to your thread this is actually a terrible fight. Lamont should fight guys like Hank Lundy.

Bradley? I don't see that myself. Bradley mauled inside against Alexander and beat him up, similar to what Porter did to him. I also thought the Marquez fight was much closer than some suggest, a couple of rounds max. Bradley is good, but I don't rate him as a top P4P fighter. Peterson was down 3 times against Matthysse, down a few times against Victor Ortiz in a fight he clearly lost and got gifted a draw, down against Khan, down against Bradley....Going up to fight bigger, better and stronger opponents is a bad idea IMO. All that is true, I had Khan and Ortiz winning. Bradley's victory over was pretty clear imo. Nonetheless Peterson made it tough for all of them. He always gets up and presents a stern challenge, not necessarily a bad defence for Brook He was also very big versus Danny. Same height as Brook and also has a three inch reach advantage.