Would a brook win be more shocking than fury beating klitschko?

[Earl-Hickey]

That was another high profile fight which at the time almost nobody saw a fury win.

Would this eclipse that?

[RussB23]

Probably , because brook is going up in weight and GGG has like 22 or 23 KOS in a row.

[Elroy The Great]

absolutely and unequivocally yes.

[Redd Foxx]

Fury/Klitschko was weird because there was no action and it was a mental thing that shut Wlad down. For Brook to win, it's likely going to mean that he had a brilliant strategy and fought his heart out. Plus, he is used to fighting much smaller guys. So, I'd say YES. Bigger upset.

[Champ Wilder]

Absolutely

But we all know Brits can't fight. All paper champs, just look how lucky fury got and what he's been doing to stall the rematch so Wlad declines even more

[Earl-Hickey]

Absolutely

But we all know Brits can't fight. All paper champs, just look how lucky fury got and what he's been doing to stall the rematch so Wlad declines even more

Exactly. Brits just genetically can't fight. This has been known for years. They win by pure cheating only

[-Kev-]

I definitely would see it as bigger. Fury is bigger, taller by a good bit, longer arms than Wlad by a god margin, and he actually fights at HW, and has been nothing but a HW as a pro. Fury isn't exactly a light puncher either

Brook is shorter than GGG, has shorter arms, has been a WW his whole career, hasn't shown his power against top WW's although he does seem to blast out the mediocre WW's

[b00g13man]

Definitely. While I picked Wlad to win going into the fight, a Fury win wasn't something that would've shocked me.

[LacedUp]

Definitely, especially since Fury winning wasn't a shock.

[The Hammer]

Yes.

Golovkin at 34 is still in his prime, and Brook is moving up in weight and may be slower with the added muscle.