Comments Thread For: Team Porter Upset: Kell Brook Was Holding Too Much

[LacedUp]

He leapt in but he didn't do it with his head down. That's just simply not true. And how would you know that they felt that way if they didn't comment on it? You completely contradict yourself. When a guy is allowed to get away with that much holding it is worth commenting on. Steve Farhood commented on it. Is he pathetic? Brian Kenney commented on it. Is he pathetic? I'm sure you don't think so. It's only when the fighter or his team comment on it that it becomes pathetic. Right? I get that you are a Kell Brook fan. But there is nothing wrong with acknowledging reality.

[logmasken]

Did not see Porters fight with Alexander. Watched him demolish Malignaggi. Thought he got exposed by Brook. Totally surprised. Brook beat him hands down. Both tied each other up. Thought Porter had more boxing talent than what he showed. He just tried to out physical Brook and could not do it. And he did not land many clean punches at all. Sour G****s!

[Beercules]

porter only started holding late in the fight when he was tired. brook came out in round 1 clinching every time porter was close. the rabbit punches were because brook was holding him nonstop. that's what happens. he could have just stood there and let himself be clinched. that would have won him in the fight...

Porter was caught every time he came in like a wild caveman. He looked like crap, no plan at all.

Just go out there wild as can be and hope something lands. Brook even stunned Porter with a right uppercut in round 7 I think it was.

[brettWall]

People really need to rewatch the fight, in slowmo, even, and see it with an unbiased mind. I don't have a dog in this fight. Brook should have been penalized for the clinching. Man, he did it for 12 effing rounds without consequences.

[bojangles1987]

People really need to rewatch the fight, in slowmo, even, and see it with an unbiased mind. I don't have a dog in this fight. Brook should have been penalized for the clinching. Man, he did it for 12 effing rounds without consequences.

And Porter rabbit punched for 12 rounds without consequence, yet Brook was warned the 2 times he rabbit punched.

[logmasken]

and both had Brook winning anyway!

[peplz]

Yeah. That's what I thought. When you have no point just post an emoji... I guess I just got owned by two laughing faces and a baby bottle. Right? Lol

[peplz]

And Porter rabbit punched for 12 rounds without consequence, yet Brook was warned the 2 times he rabbit punched.

Okay so you want to play the whole tit for tat game about how two wrongs make it right. Even if I were to buy into that notion what is undeniable is that the so called rabbit punches came as a direct result of the excessive clinching and that while Porter's actions had no effect on the outcome of the fight Brook's tactics definitely did.

[brettWall]

And Porter rabbit punched for 12 rounds without consequence, yet Brook was warned the 2 times he rabbit punched.

Just watch the fight again, bro. This is not rocket science. Brook just didn't have the balls to fight inside. He could have not ******, we don't know, but he didn't try, not even once. He got lucky. They had a useless ref.

[-Kev-]

All of those so called rabbit punches happened in the clinch. And he wasn't aiming for the back of the head. He was trying to make space and catch Brook in the face but Brook was able to move inside of those punches in the clinch and they were going around his head and not even really landing. No harm no foul and he wasn't aiming for the back of the head. And once again those rabbit punches only happened after Kell Brook initiated the clinch.

It's a case of 'which came first, the chicken or the egg', no, not really, it's clear which came first.

Brook's holding or Porter's rabbit punching? You say Brook's holding initiated the rabbit punching, but what initiated the holding? Clearly, it was Porter ramming his head and shoulders into Brook's chest and stomach, that made Brook have to hold.