Re: Is Brook a "quitter?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Brook was with Warren for years before most of you had apparently ever heard of him. Warren got rid of him, publicly stating he'd never be a champion (Brook dumped him for Eddie).
So no he wouldn't have fought Golovkin as he'd still be in leisure centres defending an international title.
To be fair to Warren Brook turned down several big fights Warren offered him including a world title shot. Can't remember who it was going to be against. Brook was off the rails when he was with Warren and maybe only got with the programme a bit when he signed with Hearn. The last year or so with Warren was when Frank was without TV dates so Brook had a good reason for leaving but he had plenty chances previous to that and never took them.
To be fair that's Warren's side of the story. Brook's mob claim they were constantly offered false promises which led to them dumping him. Regardless, he was constantly accused of never stepping up (with Frank and Eddie), now he's lost at the highest level his handlers are being accused of overmatching him. Fighter and promoter (whoever it is) can't win either way.
Re: Is Brook a "quitter?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Brook was with Warren for years before most of you had apparently ever heard of him. Warren got rid of him, publicly stating he'd never be a champion (Brook dumped him for Eddie).
So no he wouldn't have fought Golovkin as he'd still be in leisure centres defending an international title.
To be fair to Warren Brook turned down several big fights Warren offered him including a world title shot. Can't remember who it was going to be against. Brook was off the rails when he was with Warren and maybe only got with the programme a bit when he signed with Hearn. The last year or so with Warren was when Frank was without TV dates so Brook had a good reason for leaving but he had plenty chances previous to that and never took them.
To be fair that's Warren's side of the story. Brook's mob claim they were constantly offered false promises which led to them dumping him. Regardless, he was constantly accused of never stepping up (with Frank and Eddie), now he's lost at the highest level his handlers are being accused of overmatching him. Fighter and promoter (whoever it is) can't win either way.
Brook and Hearn must be crying all the way to their bank which has millions of pounds of money they can use to dry their eyes.
Re: Is Brook a "quitter?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
holmcall
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Smash, I don't think you'll get in trouble for telling stories about Brook mate, they're not secrets, it's printed all over the shop, all over podcasts, twitter, forums.
Brook got his leg cunt off cos he's a bender.
Brook is a snorting machine.
Those strories have been banded about for years, it's certainly not made him or his team shy.
Dare I ask, what's a bender?" :confused:
;D
Re: Is Brook a "quitter?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Brook was with Warren for years before most of you had apparently ever heard of him. Warren got rid of him, publicly stating he'd never be a champion (Brook dumped him for Eddie).
So no he wouldn't have fought Golovkin as he'd still be in leisure centres defending an international title.
To be fair to Warren Brook turned down several big fights Warren offered him including a world title shot. Can't remember who it was going to be against. Brook was off the rails when he was with Warren and maybe only got with the programme a bit when he signed with Hearn. The last year or so with Warren was when Frank was without TV dates so Brook had a good reason for leaving but he had plenty chances previous to that and never took them.
To be fair that's Warren's side of the story. Brook's mob claim they were constantly offered false promises which led to them dumping him. Regardless, he was constantly accused of never stepping up (with Frank and Eddie), now he's lost at the highest level his handlers are being accused of overmatching him. Fighter and promoter (whoever it is) can't win either way.
i hear what you are saying, he doesn't step up its brooks fault, he steps up and loses and its his promoters fault, but I think theres more too it than that
when he wasn't stepping up he was a novice who hadn't made any money
during his time with hearn he had been built into a genuine world champion, ok since winning the title he hadn't really done anything but he was still a name and could have filled bramall lane before the golovkin fight against a lesser opponent than spence or golovkin
So he was in a fantastic position, could have made money and continued his career in a number of ways, yet they chose to move up 2 divisions and fight a beast
Re: Is Brook a "quitter?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Brook was with Warren for years before most of you had apparently ever heard of him. Warren got rid of him, publicly stating he'd never be a champion (Brook dumped him for Eddie).
So no he wouldn't have fought Golovkin as he'd still be in leisure centres defending an international title.
To be fair to Warren Brook turned down several big fights Warren offered him including a world title shot. Can't remember who it was going to be against. Brook was off the rails when he was with Warren and maybe only got with the programme a bit when he signed with Hearn. The last year or so with Warren was when Frank was without TV dates so Brook had a good reason for leaving but he had plenty chances previous to that and never took them.
To be fair that's Warren's side of the story. Brook's mob claim they were constantly offered false promises which led to them dumping him. Regardless, he was constantly accused of never stepping up (with Frank and Eddie), now he's lost at the highest level his handlers are being accused of overmatching him. Fighter and promoter (whoever it is) can't win either way.
At one point Warren was publicising the offers he was making to Brook in the papers while waiting for an answer from Team Brook (his dad was calling the shots at this point) and I'm sure there was a bona fide world title offer made to Brook that was in the papers at the time.
Re: Is Brook a "quitter?"
I think Brook will never be able to recover from this.
Some of what chris Eubank SNR said actually made sense in a warrior code type of way..lol
https://youtu.be/xnw1_ZXrSi4
Re: Is Brook a "quitter?"
Tor Hammer was a quitter. Freitas against Chico was a quitter. Duran against SR was a quitter. Even Cotto against Margo was a quitter, But the difference between Hammer quitting and Cotto quitting is all the difference you need to understand that quitting can mean different things depending on the context.
Brook did not quit. he was beaten into submission and took his knee to save is eyes.Maybe in a dictionary sense he qui, but certain not in a boxing sense.
IMHO
Re: Is Brook a "quitter?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
holmcall
Tor Hammer was a quitter. Freitas against Chico was a quitter. Duran against SR was a quitter. Even Cotto against Margo was a quitter, But the difference between Hammer quitting and Cotto quitting is all the difference you need to understand that quitting can mean different things depending on the context.
Brook did not quit. he was beaten into submission and took his knee to save is eyes.Maybe in a dictionary sense he qui, but certain not in a boxing sense.
IMHO
Brook did not quit but Cotto did? I guess we draw our lines according to our own biases. Cotto took a knee to save himself from a career-ending beating at the plaster-casted hands of a proven cheater. A loss he later avenged. He's also been in a hell of a lot more wars than Brook certainly has. Not being a professional fighter myself and having never been in that position, I'll choose to exclude Cotto from that list.
Freitas and Duran absolutely quit in their respective fights.
Re: Is Brook a "quitter?"
Yeah got to agree with @TitoFan here...getting blasted in the head with plaster wraps and taking a knee doesn't mean the guy is a quitter. When you have given all you have and you aren't winning the fight but you could just continue on taking punishment when does it become OK to say "I've had enough" or "I'll take the L and fight on another time"? When is that ok? Should every fight like that end up like Holmes-Cobb (not alleging Holmes loaded his gloves, that was just a merciless beating) or Resto-Collins?
Re: Is Brook a "quitter?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Yeah got to agree with @
TitoFan here...getting blasted in the head with plaster wraps and taking a knee doesn't mean the guy is a quitter. When you have given all you have and you aren't winning the fight but you could just continue on taking punishment when does it become OK to say "I've had enough" or "I'll take the L and fight on another time"? When is that ok? Should every fight like that end up like Holmes-Cobb (not alleging Holmes loaded his gloves, that was just a merciless beating) or Resto-Collins?
What part of "But the difference between Hammer quitting and Cotto quitting is all the difference you need to understand that quitting can mean different things depending on the context" did you and Tito miss? We are all on the same page with Cotto
Re: Is Brook a "quitter?"
