brook or postol, who's better p4p atm?

[danceswithfire]

considering resume , visual , competition

[LacedUp]

Brook of course.

[daggum]

both guys have one win and clinched for dear life in that one win. how do you rank clinchers? does one guy have better clinching technique than the other? does it go by quantity of clinches?

[danceswithfire]

well, one guy does better in clicnches than the other who has no clue whatsoever

[////]

lobby for clinching to be outright banned daggum

as in point deducted the first time and every time it happens

i've seen serious calls for that before

until then im afraid youll spend your life angry at clinching because it's basically a legal technique and only illegal when the ref deems it "excessive" (never)

[LacedUp]

lobby for clinching to be outright banned daggum

as in point deducted the first time and every time it happens

i've seen serious calls for that before

until then im afraid youll spend your life angry at clinching because it's basically a legal technique and only illegal when the ref deems it "excessive" (never)

It's illegal when it's unnecessary i.e. in attack i.e. klitschko mode.

[boliodogs]

I think they are both very good but I think Postol is a better 140 pounder than Brook is a welterweight.

[LacedUp]

I would say Brook most certainly does pretty much everything better than Postol.

[Greed.]

Probably Brook, though I expect Postol to face better opposition for his title defences so he could be ahead soon. I might actually be more impressed with Postol's resume though, KO wins over Matthysse and Aydin and a UD over Lundy are probably better than a KO over Dan and MD over Porter.

[boliodogs]

Both of them are good fighters and bad clinchers. I like both of them but I would like them much better if they didn't clinch so much.