Comments Thread For: Brook Has October Backup if Brandon Rios Falls Out

[Evil Abed]

Here's hoping it falls apart. **** this fight.

Should be Brook-Bradley and Rios-Provo

[Greed.]

I hope it falls out if we can get Rios-Provodnikov. That's a far more exciting fight

[Mpower]

Let me help most of you who don't understand what this means.


"We know rios will fall thru, and fully capitalized on this using it to fight another post man and blame it on Rios falling through".

Brook is a *****.

[FrankieBruno]

Let me help most of you who don't understand what this means.


"We know rios will fall thru, and fully capitalized on this using it to fight another post man and blame it on Rios falling through".

Brook is a *****.

Nail on head

[Slick_Rick]

Thurman, surely?

Both need to step it up.

[285Kid]

This fall should be like this

The Top Guy: Floyd Mayweather vs #3 Khan
WBO interim guy: Bradley vs #9 Ali
IBF guy: Brook vs #10 Brad Solomon
WBA guy: Thurman vs #6 Porter
WBA interim guy: Berto vs #8 Maidana

[SchoolTheseCats]

Fight not going happen because brook wants a rematch clause in contract for Brandon rios....

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Fight not going happen because brook wants a rematch clause in contract for Brandon rios....

Source?

Rematch clauses are standard for voluntary defences anyway.

[Weebler I]

I think it's a fun, stay-busy fight for what it is. Rios still gives most guys problems and will be up there in his face the whole time, smiling like a twat, and Brook gets a well-known scalp if he beats him.

Why does he need a stay-busy though? Brook has just fought Jojo Dan and Frankie Gavin.

To be fair, Rios is ranked in the top 10 now but it's not a fight I'd get too excited about.

Stylistically, I would've preferred Brook-Chaves and Rios-Provonikov, but that's jmo.

Bradley v. Brook. It should have never been Brook v. Rios.

Arum wants Bradley fighting Ali in Dubai (or so he says).

[MrRolltide91]

Fight not going happen because brook wants a rematch clause in contract for Brandon rios....

there is nothing wrong with rematch clauses