Comments Thread For: Hearn: In Beating Errol Spence, Brook Stands Out as Best at 147

[sicko]

Confusing because leading up to the GGG fight you guys was proclaiming him as the best Welterweight

[deathofaclown]

I like Brook but i'm not sure, It would have been too long between beating Spence and Porter.

If Thurman beats Garcia, he would have beaten Porter and Garcia back to back, surely he has a good claim in it.

Plus we can't dismiss Pacquiao's achievements or write him off. He might have lost to Floyd but so what? - He beat Bradley and Vargas with ease recently, those are very good wins by anybody else's standards, especially when he did it fairly comfortably. If anybody else but Pacquiao had won those fights, people would be hyping them.

[Sp0rty Cr@ig]

Crazy how people refer to Spence as a prospect soon as the fight was signed. Give Brook some credit for taking a high risk fight even though he was trying to get a bigger fight instead!!!

[inidouh]

How could any of them be considered the best when there are still top guys that are undefeated such as Thurman, and to a lesser extent Garcia. If Brook gets by Spence and knocks off the winner of Thurman/Garcia, then I think it's fair to say that he's the man at 147

[removed]

Brook is already the best WW, a win over Spence confirms it. Garcia has beaten nobody and Thurman's best win is Brook's leftovers.

Manny is the only guy you could put above him.

[inidouh]

If Garcia wins, he'd have a similar claim

There's also Pacman

Pac man is not even in the Picture. Why? Because he's not going to fight any of these guys. He and Arum are back to running their cherrypicking scams, fighting the Horns and the Algieris of boxing. It always amazes me to see how people still haven't caught on to the Con.

[LacedUp]

Rated #1 by whom? Even Sky had him #3 Welterweight

Ring Magazine.

[Sir_Didymus]

It never ceases to amaze me how someone can make a career out of fighting nobodies that rack up a total losses of 925, be regarded as the best Welterweight without having fought anyone of note. There are still at least two maybe three fights left to prove who is completely the best at Welterweight with the way things are setup and people are also forgetting a lot of other fringe contenders. You can't be the best of anything without competing with the best. Idiots.

[Ray*]

It never ceases to amaze me how someone can make a career out of fighting nobodies that rack up a total losses of 925, be regarded as the best Welterweight without having fought anyone of note. There are still at least two maybe three fights left to prove who is completely the best at Welterweight with the way things are setup and people are also forgetting a lot of other fringe contenders. You can't be the best of anything without competing with the best. Idiots.

Sad that's happens a lot with British fighters, they would build up a 30-0 sort of resume with maybe former named fighters, and they would probably fight one of two current champ on that list.... Ricky Hatton had the exact career too until he fought Mayweather and Pac towards the end of this career.

[techliam]

How could any of them be considered the best when there are still top guys that are undefeated such as Thurman, and to a lesser extent Garcia. If Brook gets by Spence and knocks off the winner of Thurman/Garcia, then I think it's fair to say that he's the man at 147

Undefeated means little - Thurman/Garcia have done less than Brook at the weight until they fight.

If Garcia wins, and so does Brook, both would have an equal claim in my eyes.

Pacquiao beat the highest rated welterweight out of anyone last year, along with being the no.1 rated fighter universally. That's why he's relevant. Your biases are not