When will you give Brook the respect he deserves?

[LacedUp]

I wasn't comparing, but just giving an example and it is really lulz you calling anything embarrassing given the thread we're posting in.

You can insert Ricky Hatton instead of Gomez if you wish.

He was 33. Khan fought him at age 29.

Malignaggi was coming off of beating Diaz and as for worse period you might want to revisit his comments to Kellerman post fight Diaz 2.

Porter also fought him coming off a similar rejuvenating win, but after he lost to Khan he went on to become a two weight champ stopping Senchenko (Brook's second best win lol) in his home country, which proves he was in his prime.

However, after getting KOed by Porter, so far we see asking EBU for exemptions to fight for their belt or recently being brought in to get laid out by Danny Garcia.

p.s. He struggled with Cano and the Broner fight was also disputable.

Oh Diaz? Meh. Nothing special.

So 33. I still ask you, when did he ever look better/worse than beating Senchenko or in his fight with Broner or Cano? He looked exactly the same guy who fought Hatton only a year prior or so to fighting Khan.

Cano is a tough cat man.

There's not a single piece of evidence to prove he was shot which you have claimed a load of times to discredit Brook his win. If there is, please tell me.

Paulie always struggled with his best opposition. He lost to Cotto, lost to Diaz, lost to Hatton, lost to Khan, lost to Broner, lost to Porter. This is a trait we've seen throughout his career.

[yoz]

No they aren't and no he didn't.



None of them are better or on the same level as Porter.



How is Maidana a better win than Porter? Porter was an undefeated champion and maidana was just a top contender. smh

you say he's beaten a string of top fightes and proceed to mention guys like Malignaggi and Judah + two guys he lost to in Garcia and Peterson. Those wins are YEARS ago. What has he done for me lately?

Keep reaching.

Wow, you're either trolling or infatuated with Brook. Given your persistence, i'll go with the latter.

[LacedUp]

Wow, you're either trolling or infatuated with Brook. Given your persistence, i'll go with the latter.

Which part of it was trolling?

How was Maidana a better win than Porter? Did he not coming off a very dubious decision and looking like dog****e against Chop chop before Khan? And was getting outboxed by a blind, ancient Morales the fight after? Porter was an undefeated champion at welterweight.

If it's not better than Maidana, then it's at least the same level. There's no other win on Khan's entire resume that can rival the Porter win. Not even remotely.

[Box-Office]

Which part of it was trolling?

How was Maidana a better win than Porter? Did he not coming off a very dubious decision and looking like dog****e against Chop chop before Khan? And was getting outboxed by a blind, ancient Morales the fight after? Porter was an undefeated champion at welterweight.

If it's not better than Maidana, then it's at least the same level. There's no other win on Khan's entire resume that can rival the Porter win. Not even remotely.

Maidana beat an undefeated Victor Ortiz, which was huge given the circumstances of being brought in to be laid out. Corley was an interim fight before Khan and while he may have troubled Maidana he didn't get a Draw or "arguably" beat him. Can't say the same about Porter-Julio Diaz 1 now can we? Not to mention Corley is a former World champ and was fighting Cotto-Mayweather opposition and while he had long fallen off he clearly retained some of that shine, but that's besides the point.

I agree that Maidana is on par with beating Porter, but since you like to claim things that happened afterwards, well by your logic: Maidana exposed an undefeated Broner, became a 2 weight champon and Floyd needed 10 ounce gloves and 2 attempts to beat him, but Khan once with a glass jaw and 8 ounce gloves. So, in fact Marcos is a better win than Porter.

Oh Diaz? Meh. Nothing special.

So 33. I still ask you, when did he ever look better/worse than beating Senchenko or in his fight with Broner or Cano? He looked exactly the same guy who fought Hatton only a year prior or so to fighting Khan.

Cano is a tough cat man.

There's not a single piece of evidence to prove he was shot which you have claimed a load of times to discredit Brook his win. If there is, please tell me.

Paulie always struggled with his best opposition. He lost to Cotto, lost to Diaz, lost to Hatton, lost to Khan, lost to Broner, lost to Porter. This is a trait we've seen throughout his career.

You're losing it at this point if you actually think Paule lost to Diaz. Both were one sided for Malignaggi.

"Meh. Nothing special" For a second I thought you were talking about Broner. A guy who was practically handed everything except his WBC title win. Diaz was a 3 belt World Champon and held wins over a fresh Katsidis or a unification win over Acelino Freitas to name a couple. Diaz was that one good world level win before Khan for Paulie. Just like Porter had one good world level win against Alexander before Porter. Of course now that it suits you you'll talk about how one was a World title fight.

Paule got the benefit of the doubt that Champs get against contenders in their own hometowns. His legs weren't there and haven't been for some time. Senchenko just was a robot, so Paulie got away. Cano is tough, but so are most Mexican fighters, but he is a fringe contender. Emanuel Augustus was also slick, but he was a journeyman at the end of the day.

[Heavyfist]

Brooks Porter win was absolutely crap. Brook hugged his way to victory. Also, Porter is a tiny Welter. A midget of a welter.

When Brook fights a good fighter his own size, then we will all sing a different tune. No more Frankie Gavins for christ sake. And Rios is a blown up light weight.

Why is Brook so allergic to fighting Thurman? Why not target Thurman?

Brooks resume is completely garbage. Full of bums.

I really don't know why we have to compare his resume to Khans. I think Brook would beat Khan, but it's ****ing asinine to say Brook has a better resume than Khan.

Khan's resume is infinitely better than Brooks.

[LacedUp]

Maidana beat an undefeated Victor Ortiz, which was huge given the circumstances of being brought in to be laid out. Corley was an interim fight before Khan and while he may have troubled Maidana he didn't get a Draw or "arguably" beat him. Can't say the same about Porter-Julio Diaz 1 now can we? Not to mention Corley is a former World champ and was fighting Cotto-Mayweather opposition and while he had long fallen off he clearly retained some of that shine, but that's besides the point.

I agree that Maidana is on par with beating Porter, but since you like to claim things that happened afterwards, well by your logic: Maidana exposed an undefeated Broner, became a 2 weight champon and was good enough to get a fight with Mayweather twice. So, in fact Marcos is a better win than Porter.

You're losing it at this point if you actually think Paule lost to Diaz. Both were one sided for Malignaggi.

"Meh. Nothing special" For a second I thought you were talking about Broner. A guy who was practically handed everything except his WBC title win. Diaz was a 3 belt World Champon and held wins over a fresh Katsidis or a unification win over Acelino Freitas to name a couple. Diaz was that one good world level win before Khan for Paulie. Just like Porter had one good world level win against Alexander before Porter. Of course now that it suits you you'll talk about how one was a World title fight.

Paule got the benefit of the doubt that Champs get against contenders in their own hometowns. His legs weren't there and haven't been for some time. Senchenko just was a robot, so Paulie got away. Cano is tough, but so are most Mexican fighters, but he is a fringe contender. Emanuel Augustus was also slick, but he was a journeyman at the end of the day.

Not saying Maidana didn't have a good win against Ortiz. But they were both just prospects. It's nowhere near the level of Brook vs Porter. I said Maidana looked like crap against Chop Chop which he absolutely did and arguably lost to a blinded Morales - which he absolutely did. Typical Khan fans trying to put words into my mouth.

Trying to big up a 37 year old Corley who was 6-9 in his last 15 against limited to average competition. What's the word I'm looking for?... Deluded - that's the one. It's not besides the point at all. He was absolute crap and Maidana did not look good.

Where did I go by what happened afterwards? The only time I've said that is Paulie looked exactly the same as he always did and never EVER showed he was "shot" which you've continuously claimed to discredit Brook his win.

Maidana two weight world champion? Ffs the ******ness is strong here. He was given a "regular" championship belt. And no Maidana is in no way a better win than Porter, stop being idiotic.

You go on to say Maidana exposed Broner and say he's a better win than Porter - and then proceeds to say he's nothing special in the same sentence. Can you not see the double standards? That was embarrassing.

You're thing about Paulie in the end was shameless. If anything he looked way more sharp after beating Khan.

Brook's win over Porter is better than any win Khan has in his career and is better than what Khan has done COMBINED since getting absolutely ***ing destroyed by Garcia.

If Khan hadn't fought any of those guys since Garcia - would it have made his resume significantly worse or better? No.

[LacedUp]

Brooks Porter win was absolutely crap. Brook hugged his way to victory. Also, Porter is a tiny Welter. A midget of a welter.

When Brook fights a good fighter his own size, then we will all sing a different tune. No more Frankie Gavins for christ sake. And Rios is a blown up light weight.

Why is Brook so allergic to fighting Thurman? Why not target Thurman?

Brooks resume is completely garbage. Full of bums.

I really don't know why we have to compare his resume to Khans. I think Brook would beat Khan, but it's ****ing asinine to say Brook has a better resume than Khan.

Khan's resume is infinitely better than Brooks.

You know, I think Brook's name is not big enough to fight Thurman. Khan mentioned Thurman though - for the first time in his life - the other day. Khan the international superstar should target Thurman.

Brook should stick to fighting guys he deserves to fight like Chris Algieri maybe. Or wait.. That was a "top top name" according to Khan.

Maybe Collazo will be nice and give Brook a payday sometime soon.

[HanzGruber]

Laced up working overtime tonight lol

[Box-Office]

Not saying Maidana didn't have a good win against Ortiz. But they were both just prospects. It's nowhere near the level of Brook vs Porter. I said Maidana looked like crap against Chop Chop which he absolutely did and arguably lost to a blinded Morales - which he absolutely did. Typical Khan fans trying to put words into my mouth.

Trying to big up a 37 year old Corley who was 6-9 in his last 15 against limited to average competition. What's the word I'm looking for?... Deluded - that's the one. It's not besides the point at all. He was absolute crap and Maidana did not look good.

Where did I go by what happened afterwards? The only time I've said that is Paulie looked exactly the same as he always did and never EVER showed he was "shot" which you've continuously claimed to discredit Brook his win.

Maidana two weight world champion? Ffs the ******ness is strong here. He was given a "regular" championship belt. And no Maidana is in no way a better win than Porter, stop being idiotic.

You go on to say Maidana exposed Broner and say he's a better win than Porter - and then proceeds to say he's nothing special in the same sentence. Can you not see the double standards? That was embarrassing.

You're thing about Paulie in the end was shameless. If anything he looked way more sharp after beating Khan.

Brook's win over Porter is better than any win Khan has in his career and is better than what Khan has done COMBINED since getting absolutely ***ing destroyed by Garcia.

If Khan hadn't fought any of those guys since Garcia - would it have made his resume significantly worse or better? No.

I'll just address the bold and then leave you to watch Brook-Porter, which you probably have on a loop since, last year.

Broner was hyped to the max, undefeated, 3 weight champ and there were believers as much as there were doubters unlike after that loss when we saw how he can't handle fighters of that caliber. "AFTER" Maidana it was sealed the fact he isn't special. Before that he had not lost, so you could argue "he young doe" and what not.

[LacedUp]

I'll just address the bold and then leave you to watch Brook-Porter, which you probably have on a loop since, last year.

Broner was hyped to the max, undefeated, 3 weight champ and there were believers as much as there were doubters unlike after that loss when we saw how he can't handle fighters of that caliber. "AFTER" Maidana it was sealed the fact he isn't special. Before that he had not lost, so you could argue "he young doe" and what not.

Well it was certainly a better fight than the stinkfests Khan has given us lately. Do you think Khan will ever get a KO again?

OK so you're saying Broner was an average win for Porter but a massive win for Maidana? That's what I took from what you said.

The same Broner who struggled with Ponce de leon and Paulie Malignaggi. Exactly the same fighter who fought Maidana and was exactly the same that fought Porter.