I think we're giving too much credit for Paulie. Brook has never fought a fighter like Porter, but vice versa is true as well. A consistent jab and plentiful counter straight rights will be Porter's undoing.
Remember about 3-4 fights on the spin, pretty rough fights Paulie was deemed as shot. He then beat Senchenko who we knew was a good sort of basic Euro level operator. THEN he got beaten up by Cano! Dropped and many felt he lost that fight.
Fans, not just a few but most/all had him down as shot with a good few saying he was never much good in the first place. Both fair comments IMO
Then he fights Broner - I felt that could of gone either way.
Many felt this wasn't a mismatch due to styles.
This is the same AB who can't handle movement we seen it against Ponce, DeMarco early on, even Rees for 2-3 rounds and we're all in agreement that Broner was a massive hypejob.
So how come beating Paulie is this great fate?
I understand the manner was a shock from a non puncher but Paulie's had a hard career, taken a lot of pastings and his chin is good but you tap a brick with a hammer enough times it'll break eventually.
I don't get how hes gone from shot to suddenly re-energised or something all by putting in one good losing effort to a limited, overrated prospect who frankly hasn't beaten anyone of note.
It's going to be close, people are underrating Porter's boxing skills. He was a good amateur and was consistently landing the jab on both Paulie and Alexander. I want Kell to win so we can get Khan-Brook in the UK. If he establishes his jab early and keeps it long, he has a good chance to win a decision or even a stoppage if Porter gets frustrated and lunges in.
WAR BROOK
Kell's jab will be the defining punch of this fight.
It's powerful, accurate and sets everything up....you're not getting past that jab easily. Paulie and Devon couldn't crack an egg if they hit it from opposite sides at the same time, Kell's jab is very strong.
I just think Kell is the better fighter all around.
Comment