Does Kell Brook's Porter win look better after Thurman's performance?

[Dr Rumack]

Not really. It was a very composed performance from Brook, but Thurman walked into the fire and came out on top. That has way more upside than a win riddled with clinches. Brook's stagnation since says a lot. Has hometown popularity, but elsewhere there's no clamour to see him just yet.

[Box-Office]

Why do events after a particular fight bear any relevance? A fighter faces an opponent that has achieved everything up to that point.

[bojangles1987]

It was an easier win, but by a far uglier method. I admire that Thurman gutted it out inside with Porter rather than clinch. I love that Thurman won that way.

Let's be honest, though, Thurman/Porter shouldn't be needed to make people think well of that win for Brook. He was an underdog coming to America and NSB especially thought he would get his ass kicked. Porter is clearly a solid opponent and one of the better fighters at WW. The Thurman fight wasn't needed to know that.

[boxinghead530]

Kell Brook's win was a clear 116-112 with an argument for 117-111. No one reputable at scoring scored it for Porter. Brook also rocked Porter a few times but Porter never once rocked/stunned or even caught Brook with a huge punch.

Thurman's win on the other hand has scoring all over with quite a lot of people saying it should have been a draw. Thurman was rocked multiple times and didn't look as good and was a tough win for Thurman while Brook won his pretty easy.

Thoughts?

No, brooks porter win doesnt look any better than it did before Saturday nights fights. In fact if Porter fought the way saturday against Brook, i find it hard seeing him losing.

Certain fights bring out more in a person than others. And Thurman brought out more in Porter than Brook did. If Porter can bottle this performance up and land a rematch with Brook, i see this version of Porter beating Brook.

[bigdunny1]

Yes! Brook also beat Porter but he wasn't booed in the entire arena when they announced the decision like Thurman was. AND MIND YOU BEFORE THE FIGHT THURMAN HAD MORE FANS THERE ROOTING FOR HIM THEN PORTER. Thurman's win was far from decisive and the whether you thought he won, draw or lost there is no doubt he struggled and was made to look bad because of Porter. Fans are demanding a rematch something nobody said after Brook beat Porter.

[FrankieBruno]

Thurman didnt clinch his way to a win

He actually landed punches flush and was willing to exchange on the inside and outside

Brook vs Porter was one of the most boring fights ever, you take away the excessive clinching and Brook more than likely would have lost

[-Hyperion-]

clinching excessively is cheating. Can't give too much credit for it. Thurman actually boxed.

[New England]

Well Brook averaged 14 clinches per round so Thurman's win was better and more entertaining.

did he really hold 14 times a round? is that even possible?

i remembered him holding on, but 14 times a round is well over 150 clinches, or approximately a clinch every 13 seconds

[RightJabLikeZab]

Thurman landed far cleaner punches like I thought he would. Both beat Porter 7-5/8-4.

[Doctor_Tenma]

Brook beat Porter in beautiful fashion in my opinion. Only reason Brook was that successful holding Porter is because Porter isn't a traditional inside fighter, he doesn't know how to slow down his attack to land anything meaningful, at times he looks like a kid having a tantrum as the parent tries to contain him, it's looked that bad.

It wasn't solely Brook that made the fight ugly, it was Porter's sloppiness getting him tangled up and he was coming in with his head as well. I don't know why we tend to ignore the holding on Porter's end, he is no different from Mosley in that he'll look to tie up once he's done throwing his combinations.

Brook did what he had to do and he controlled him, even if the ref deducted a point which wouldn't have made a difference, he kept Porter under control the way he was suppose to.