Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kell Brook vs Lamont Peterson is actually a good fight

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Dirk Diggler UK View Post
    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 ****.
    Pacquiao isn't a skilled boxer? 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.
    Last edited by SalimShady1212; 08-04-2015, 11:35 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Peterson has to fight Malignaggi first.

      Comment


      • #33
        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.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Salim_Shady View Post
          Pacquiao isn't a skilled boxer? 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.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Dirk Diggler UK View Post
            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 ****.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Dirk Diggler UK View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by sunny31 View Post
                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.

                Comment


                • #38
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    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...)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Dirk Diggler UK View Post
                      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.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP