American analyses Errol Spence: "You have been fooled. Kell Brook knocks him out"

[boliodogs]

Am one of those brits, he basically hasn't done anything to convince me that he can beat spence. I had a difficult fight against GGG and he is now fighting someone younger and hungrier than him, the pressure is all on him now because he is fighting at home, he has to impress in front of his fans and family, he wanted to prove he is the best at 147 which he hasnt done through boxing for 13 years. Spence is meant to be a tough prospect who is finally getting his chance but even he has done more in 4 years than Brook in 13 years at 147.

Good for you for being an English boxing fan who doesn't overrated English boxers like so many of them do.In a recent boxing scene article most of the English boxing experts polled picked 3 to 1 betting favorite Davis to lose to the UK boxer. Davis slaughtered him in 3 rounds.

[deathofaclown]

For me those two names alone is better than Brook 4 years at 147. Brook in 13 years has Porter and thats it. His first 4 years were against boxers of no note.

Yeah but Spence isn't fighting the Brook that's been fighting pro for 4 years. He's fighting Brook that's been a pro for over a decade and has fought and beaten better opponents than Spence has. What they did in their first 4 years is irrelevant in a head to head fight happening this weekend.

Brook is the more proven fighter. Even if it's just beating 1 genuinely good fighter, it's still 1 more than Spence has as of right now.

[Hype job]

Spence is the new hope for you know who.

[Ray*]

Yeah but Spence isn't fighting the Brook that's been fighting pro for 4 years. He's fighting Brook that's been a pro for over a decade and has fought and beaten better opponents than Spence has. What they did in their first 4 years is irrelevant in a head to head fight happening this weekend.

Brook is the more proven fighter. Even if it's just beating 1 genuinely good fighter, it's still 1 more than Spence has as of right now.

How is Brook proven? Because he beat Porter? If he beat 3 good level fighters in 13 years then i can say he beat 3 different style, nope he beat 1 in 13 years.

And the manner of the victory wasn't like it was clear cut, Spence might not have fought someone in Porter calibre but he has dealt with two different boxers, who were good enough to give Pac, Khan and Thurman a good fight.

For me Brook career is a massive disappointment, and this is coming from a boxing fan who use to back him, who use to berate Frank warren (Former promoter) for holding him back.

[Luilun]

I think you are 100% correct

[Eff Pandas]

A- troll thead.

Although that guy is unintentionally hilarious. He should do a show about a reality show or something. Could go mainstream on YouTube.

[SplitSecond]

How is Brook proven? Because he beat Porter? If he beat 3 good level fighters in 13 years then i can say he beat 3 different style, nope he beat 1 in 13 years.

And the manner of the victory wasn't like it was clear cut, Spence might not have fought someone in Porter calibre but he has dealt with two different boxers, who were good enough to give Pac, Khan and Thurman a good fight.

For me Brook career is a massive disappointment, and this is coming from a boxing fan who use to back him, who use to berate Frank warren (Former promoter) for holding him back.

Algieri gave no fight to pacquiao. Porter is much better than bundu and algieri and a victory over him means more. Brook is unquestionably the more proven fighter, he is proven in the sense that he can hang with the elite of the division. If spence beats him it doesnt expose brook, it just shows spence can hang at the level, beating the other styles is another matter.

[LacedUp]

Good for you for being an English boxing fan who doesn't overrated English boxers like so many of them do.In a recent boxing scene article most of the English boxing experts polled picked 3 to 1 betting favorite Davis to lose to the UK boxer. Davis slaughtered him in 3 rounds.

Khan fans.....

[LacedUp]

How is Brook proven? Because he beat Porter? If he beat 3 good level fighters in 13 years then i can say he beat 3 different style, nope he beat 1 in 13 years.

And the manner of the victory wasn't like it was clear cut, Spence might not have fought someone in Porter calibre but he has dealt with two different boxers, who were good enough to give Pac, Khan and Thurman a good fight.

For me Brook career is a massive disappointment, and this is coming from a boxing fan who use to back him, who use to berate Frank warren (Former promoter) for holding him back.

WTF did I just read.

Algieri gave Khan a good fight because Khan is total crap. Bundu didn't land a fking glove on Thurman and Pac used Algieri as a human basket ball.

Both Algieri and Bundu gave Spence tougher fights than they gave thurman and pac, even if those fights went the distance.

Even Bundu said today that Thurman is significantly better than Spence.

Once Brook beats Spence you'll come up with a different excuse, because that's what Khan fans do.

[deathofaclown]

How is Brook proven? Because he beat Porter? If he beat 3 good level fighters in 13 years then i can say he beat 3 different style, nope he beat 1 in 13 years.

And the manner of the victory wasn't like it was clear cut, Spence might not have fought someone in Porter calibre but he has dealt with two different boxers, who were good enough to give Pac, Khan and Thurman a good fight.

For me Brook career is a massive disappointment, and this is coming from a boxing fan who use to back him, who use to berate Frank warren (Former promoter) for holding him back.

Lol what? Algieri got bounced off the ring about 38 times.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying Brook as a great resume but he's still more proven than Spence because Spence isn't proven. Algieri and Bundu are not really a real test for a supposed top level fighter, Spence is. Whichever way you want to twist it, Brook is the more proven fighter in this fight. Whether he's the better fighter is another question that will be answered.