How is Brook Suddenly the Best Welterweight?

[New England]

personally i saw it as wide open...Bradley has only lost to many but beat everyone else and fougt tougher competition than Brook, so has other fighters since he won the ibf..as of today I say thurman considering he has defeated Porter BUT his lower level wins are over better competition.

so you didn't have a ranking. if you did, brook would have been on top. just be objective. your entire life doens't have to be a manifestation of how threatened gennady golovkin makes you feel.
\

if you had bradley, porter, or thurman higher than brook prior to the thurman - porter you have no business at all ranking fighters. none.


since his '14 loss to manny bradley had not looked great. looked very bad against chavez. didn't do much to distance himself from vargas, who had never shown much of anything and arguably had a loss to josesito lopez. so you had him ranked over brook based on his win over brandon rios? the guy was coming off of a loss, so why would you have him ranked over brook?

a guy with no significant welterweight wins, a similarly poor performance against diego chavez, and who lost every second of every round to pacquiao? he's rated over brook, who had a clear win over a big, prime welterweight in shawn porter?



just try and be objective for a week. you'll be surprised how good it feels.

[therealpugilist]

so you didn't have a ranking. if you did, brook would have been on top. just be objective. your entire life doens't have to be a manifestation of how threatened gennady golovkin makes you feel.
\

if you had bradley, porter, or thurman higher than brook prior to the thurman - porter you have no business at all ranking fighters. none.


since his '14 loss to manny bradley had not looked great. looked very bad against chavez. didn't do much to distance himself from vargas, who had never shown much of anything and arguably had a loss to josesito lopez. so you had him ranked over brook based on his win over brandon rios? the guy was coming off of a loss, so why would you have him ranked over brook?

a guy with no significant welterweight wins, a similarly poor performance against diego chavez, and who lost every second of every round to pacquiao? he's rated over brook, who had a clear win over a big, prime welterweight in shawn porter?



just try and be objective for a week. you'll be surprised how good it feels.

im not reading all that crap...I gave you my two cents...brooks was neve rthe best welterweight

get over it

[New England]

im not reading all that crap...I gave you my two cents...brooks was neve rthe best welterweight

get over it

you have, as usual, absolutely no leg to stand on. and you're in way over your head, the way you are every time i reply to you.

[Da Pimper]

a guy with no significant welterweight wins, a similarly poor performance against diego chavez, and who lost every second of every round to pacquiao? he's rated over brook, who had a clear win over a big, prime welterweight in shawn porter?

just try and be objective for a week. you'll be surprised how good it feels.

Beautiful post my friend!

[removed]

Lets be honest lads, Brook beats any WW including Thurman & Bradley. Too big, too strong, too skilled.

[Da Pimper]

Marquez hasn't retired, just hasn't fought in about two years, he was just in negotiations with Cotto. Pretty much the same 2 year period of grace you are giving Brook for fighting a top welter

Marquez is retired you dumb ass, he can come OUT of retirement, but when you are not fighting for 2 years, have been unranked, have no fights/return scheduled and constantly refuse to come back you are retired at the moment and irrelevant.

Brook on the other hand has been active and has defended his IBF welterweight title multiple times in the past 2 years since winning it, do you really not see the difference here you ****** fk?

Oh i'm sorry, did my reply frighten you. I know you thought you were in the clear, thanking God you wouldn't have to reply to yet again show how dumb you are.

Nah, just find it hilarious how one moment you're putting on this mature old-guy act, saying "I'm too cool and old for this, bye forever", and the next moment you're coming back swearing like a 10 year old kid. It's really quite amusing to see an adult act like this.

If you're gonna take on a personality at least make up your damn mind who it's gonna be. The key to keeping up a certain image is consistency, and you have none of it.

Which is evident by you thinking me saying the Marquez's win over Pacquiao equates him to being number 1 at welterweight. Not only are you too dumb to figure things out on your own, you also get confused by your own questions.

No you moron, I asked YOU if you really thought Marquez should be ranked above Brook at Welter, I never said it equates to him being #1. That 3rd grade education really holding you back here eh?

Oh, so now you don't think Marquez is above Brook? Good, me neither.

Here i'll help you out:
You: What fighters do you think can beat Brook:
Me: Spence, Bradley, Thurman

Ok, now let me help you out.

You: Spence, Bradley, Thurman beats Brook.
Me: Brook was more impressive than Thurman vs Porter. Spence is unproven. Bradley hasn't beaten a young undefeated ranked WW like Porter in years.

And after I crushed your answer, I asked you again who you thought could beat Brook at Welterweight and why, but you kept your mouth shut because you knew that you had no real answer to the question that I couldn't easily debunk

Nobody in this thread said anything about Marquez being ranked #1 at welter. Why would they and he hasn't fought in 2 years?

And neither did I, if your ******ed ass knew how to read. This thread is about whether or not Brook is the best welterweight in boxing. The fighters you claimed could beat Brook (Thurman, Spence, etc) I've debunked, and you've offered no further intelligent argument. So again, you still haven't come up with a welterweight better than Brook.

I understand that you're butt hurt that your image got shattered and want to save face here but it's pretty much a wrap that Brook is the best Welter on the planet right now, at least until Spence proves himself further.

[1g5a22]

Dumbass. Use your eyes! He's Ring ranked #1. Secondly id favour him over Thurman. Thirdly there is hardly any current fighter in a given weight class ranked #1 who has cleared it out! Its a concensus same as Golovkin is concensus #1 at MW! Brook is the best WW for me..

[Da Pimper]

Its a concensus same as Golovkin is concensus #1 at MW! Brook is the best WW for me..

It's pretty obvious Brook's #1 at Welter, and funny thing is most people actually agreed with it, but now as soon as he becomes a Golovkin opponent they want to trash him.

[Rip Chudd]

Marquez is retired you dumb ass, he can come OUT of retirement, but when you are not fighting for 2 years, have been unranked, have no fights/return scheduled and constantly refuse to come back you are retired at the moment and irrelevant.

Marquez hasn't announced retirement and has been in negotiations to fight Cotto. No matter how much you want to pray that inactivity=retirement, it's not.

Brook on the other hand has been active and has defended his welterweight title multiple times in the past 2 years since winning it, do you really not see the difference here you ****** fk?

Defending his title against domestic level bums, which is what I said from the beginning but go ahead as you were the one comparing Marquez not fighting to Brook fighting in 2 years, whereas i was comparing the length in time they took on somebody that was good. Please let us know the murderers row Brook has fought since Porter.

Nah, just find it hilarious how one moment you're putting on this mature old-guy act, saying "I'm too cool and old for this, bye forever", and the next moment you're coming back swearing like a 10 year old kid. It's really quite amusing to see an adult act like this.

If you're gonna take on a personality at least make up your damn mind who it's gonna be. The key to keeping up a certain image is consistency, and you have none of it.

Please point out where I have said "Oh i'm too mature/old for this", i'll wait. I did however point out how dumb kids like yourself start calling names when they have no argument. And where did I swear? I don't swear, I did call you an idiot though as you are, so no foul. You equate me having a picture honoring a great trainer as me thinking i'm old and wise Man you really are dumb. Guess everyone who has a sig or avi with an old fighter or trainer better watch out or they'll appear as if they are trying to be some sort of wise boxing guru

No you moron, I asked YOU if you really thought Marquez should be ranked above Brook at Welter, I never said it equates to him being #1. That 3rd grade education really holding you back here eh?

Why ask such a dumb question when the whole point of even bringing up Marquez was to say he has a single win better than Brook? You had nothing to say but "oh he retired and old doe"

Oh, so now you don't think Marquez is above Brook? Good, me neither.

Again, nobody ever said he was above Brook we said his win over Pacquiao is better than Brooks win over Porter. Read the bold slowly a few times in a row, maybe it'll sink through

Ok, now let me help you out.

You: Spence, Bradley, Thurman beats Brook.
Me: Brook was more impressive than Thurman vs Porter. Spence is unproven. Bradley hasn't beaten a young undefeated ranked WW like Porter in years.

And after I crushed your answer, I asked you again who you thought could beat Brook at Welterweight and why, but you kept your mouth shut because you knew that you had no real answer to the question that I couldn't easily debunk

Crushed what? All you did was go on some dumb rant that oh Brook was more impressive, Spence is unproven(although Spence's win over Algieri is better than anything Brook has done since Porter), Bradley hasn't beat a top welter in years(funny thing is Brook hasn't beaten a top welter in 2 years). You also never asked why, you just asked who I thought would beat Brook, you yourself don't even give reasons why. You'd rather talk about "oh da bidnezz side" on why Brook hasn't fought anyone in the welterweight division since Porter, even though he has had an opportunity and chose to fight mandatories and chase after a chinny fighter in Khan.

And neither did I, if your ******ed ass knew how to read. This thread is about whether or not Brook is the best welterweight in boxing. The fighters you claimed could beat Brook (Thurman, Spence, etc) I've debunked, and you've offered no further intelligent argument. So again, you still haven't come up with a welterweight better than Brook.

Again, what have you debunked? All you gave were excuses. I've said he has to fight them in order to give credit but you'd rather just give credit off of wins he doesn't have and let the one win he does last several years. Do you not see how pathetic that is? Of course you don't, look who i'm talking too

I understand that you're butt hurt that your image got shattered and want to save face here but it's pretty much a wrap that Brook is the best Welter on the planet right now, at least until Spence proves himself further.

No need to save face when you've already provided enough ammo to show how idiotic you are. You know what's a shame is i've said Brook was talented, but he needs to fight the other guys out there just like they need to fight each other to PROVE they are the number 1 guy. You just give Brook that by default, which i understand as you're a fanboy.

[Rip Chudd]

personally i saw it as wide open...Bradley has only lost to many but beat everyone else and fougt tougher competition than Brook, so has other fighters since he won the ibf..as of today I say thurman considering he has defeated Porter BUT his lower level wins are over better competition.

Nah man that can't be right, wide open? You have to give it to Brook even though his last relevant win in the division was 2 years ago. That seems to be the mindset nowadays instead of having the guys at welterweight prove who is the best by fighting one another.