It's hard to say which guy is better but I can understand someone making a case for either guy. Time will tell who truly is the better fighter....or who is luckier.
Brook is better than Thurman
Collapse
-
-
He might be the better boxer in some aspects. They need to fight each other to find out who is actually better though.
I don't think it was more impressive. Brook definitely boxed better but he spoiled the fight quite a bit by wrapping up and clinching so much. Some will say it's good boxing, and it was, but I don't necessarily think it makes his win over Porter more impressive.I also think Brooks victory over Porter was MUUUCH more impressive than thurmans. I just want to put this to rest before the Spence fight.Comment
-
Hmmm..Thurman fought better opposition. I wonder how Kell handles a real puncher. That is why i am looking forward Spence fight.Comment
-
Brook is an old school fighter, he is well schooled and does all the basic thing quite well. This is why I see him knocking out Amir Khan. Brook is very intelligent and technically gifted in the ring, when you have a ring brain the only thing left is to get your body prepared for any battle.Comment
-
Comment
-
Still makes no sense given he's fought far harder punchers than Spence has at 147. Why you not questioning his ability to take a shot?
Algieri, Bundu, Van Heerden, what a murderous row.
Pretty bad? lol
He took GGGs power better than most MWs have.Comment
-
I mentioned that Spence hits harder than anybody Brook faced at 147.
Do you think Jo Jo, Bizier and Porter hit harder than Spence?Comment
Comment