Vasyl Lomachenko is P4P #1

[Fenster]

In the entire discussion I've never once judged Brook as a middleweight, only his performance against Golovkin in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray. He didn't fight Golovkin weighing 147, he weighed 160. His weight is IRRELEVANT to my argument. However, as he weighed 160 he was a verified middleweight for that particular contest. The past, present and future are utterly irrelevant, only what happened on the night. I don't care about "what ifs" only "what happened."

Repeat - I have only judged Brook's performance in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray (The 5 fighters @Master chose).

The "official" scores are integral to the argument. To have success in a boxing match you need to land blows, to win rounds you need to be more impressive than your opponent in any particular three minutes.

So even if you claim "the punches didn't hurt," or "GGG let Brook punch him" they still REGISTERED far more successfully than Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray's did - hence Brook WON ROUNDS.

No holes. No digging. It's called SOUND REASONING. Whether you think it or not (thankfully most forum members are not having problems understanding the point) it has more substance than "Brook did better because Golovkin let him." "Brook didn't deserve the fight," "Brook only fought cos Eubank didn't," "Geale wasn't at his best," etc. All of which are moot points regarding this discussion.

[Master]

In the entire discussion I've never once judged Brook as a middleweight, only his performance against Golovkin in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray. He didn't fight Golovkin weighing 147, he weighed 160. His weight is IRRELEVANT to my argument. However, as he weighed 160 he was a verified middleweight for that particular contest. The past, present and future are utterly irrelevant, only what happened on the night. I don't care about "what ifs" only "what happened."

Repeat - I have only judged Brook's performance in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray (The 5 fighters @Master chose).

The "official" scores are integral to the argument. To have success in a boxing match you need to land blows, to win rounds you need to be more impressive than your opponent in any particular three minutes.

So even if you claim "the punches didn't hurt," or "GGG let Brook punch him" they still REGISTERED far more successfully than Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray's did - hence Brook WON ROUNDS.

No holes. No digging. It's called SOUND REASONING. Whether you think it or not (thankfully most forum members are not having problems understanding the point) it has more substance than "Brook did better because Golovkin let him." "Brook didn't deserve the fight," "Brook only fought cos Eubank didn't," "Geale wasn't at his best," etc. All of which are moot points regarding this discussion.

Official scores are one thing but so are your eyes, experience watching the boxing game, context and background of the fight.

You admit the rounds he did well you did not think he won which tells you that the overall picture he was losing and always going to lose the fight. GGG knew that it was only a matter of time so if he had to take two shots to deliver his one he would do so.

[Fenster]

In the entire discussion I've never once judged Brook as a middleweight, only his performance against Golovkin in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray. He didn't fight Golovkin weighing 147, he weighed 160. His weight is IRRELEVANT to my argument. However, as he weighed 160 he was a verified middleweight for that particular contest. The past, present and future are utterly irrelevant, only what happened on the night. I don't care about "what ifs" only "what happened."

Repeat - I have only judged Brook's performance in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray (The 5 fighters @Master chose).

The "official" scores are integral to the argument. To have success in a boxing match you need to land blows, to win rounds you need to be more impressive than your opponent in any particular three minutes.

So even if you claim "the punches didn't hurt," or "GGG let Brook punch him" they still REGISTERED far more successfully than Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray's did - hence Brook WON ROUNDS.

No holes. No digging. It's called SOUND REASONING. Whether you think it or not (thankfully most forum members are not having problems understanding the point) it has more substance than "Brook did better because Golovkin let him." "Brook didn't deserve the fight," "Brook only fought cos Eubank didn't," "Geale wasn't at his best," etc. All of which are moot points regarding this discussion.

Official scores are one thing but so are your eyes, experience watching the boxing game, context and background of the fight.

You admit the rounds he did well you did not think he won which tells you that the overall picture he was losing and always going to lose the fight. GGG knew that it was only a matter of time so if he had to take two shots to deliver his one he would do so.

For THE MILLIONTH TIME I am judging Brook against the fighters YOU listed - Rubio, Murray, Wade, Monroe and Geale. Do you even remember that YOU claimed they were better opponents than Brook?

THEY DID NO BETTER THAN BROOK!!! To my eye, the judges eye, the dogs eye and everything on the planet's eye.

MY opinion on the actual fight is IRRELEVANT. I only scored Brook one round. I didn't see as competitive a fight as most. However, that has NOTHING to do with how YOUR middleweights did? They were even WORSE than Brook. Fact.

[Master]

In the entire discussion I've never once judged Brook as a middleweight, only his performance against Golovkin in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray. He didn't fight Golovkin weighing 147, he weighed 160. His weight is IRRELEVANT to my argument. However, as he weighed 160 he was a verified middleweight for that particular contest. The past, present and future are utterly irrelevant, only what happened on the night. I don't care about "what ifs" only "what happened."

Repeat - I have only judged Brook's performance in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray (The 5 fighters @Master chose).

The "official" scores are integral to the argument. To have success in a boxing match you need to land blows, to win rounds you need to be more impressive than your opponent in any particular three minutes.

So even if you claim "the punches didn't hurt," or "GGG let Brook punch him" they still REGISTERED far more successfully than Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray's did - hence Brook WON ROUNDS.

No holes. No digging. It's called SOUND REASONING. Whether you think it or not (thankfully most forum members are not having problems understanding the point) it has more substance than "Brook did better because Golovkin let him." "Brook didn't deserve the fight," "Brook only fought cos Eubank didn't," "Geale wasn't at his best," etc. All of which are moot points regarding this discussion.

Official scores are one thing but so are your eyes, experience watching the boxing game, context and background of the fight.

You admit the rounds he did well you did not think he won which tells you that the overall picture he was losing and always going to lose the fight. GGG knew that it was only a matter of time so if he had to take two shots to deliver his one he would do so.

For THE MILLIONTH TIME I am judging Brook against the fighters YOU listed - Rubio, Murray, Wade, Monroe and Geale. Do you even remember that YOU claimed they were better opponents than Brook?

THEY DID NO BETTER THAN BROOK!!! To my eye, the judges eye, the dogs eye and everything on the planet's eye.

MY opinion on the actual fight is IRRELEVANT. I only scored Brook one round. I didn't see as competitive a fight as most. However, that has NOTHING to do with how YOUR middleweights did? They were even WORSE than Brook. Fact.

And for the millionth time I say to you that Brook was fortunate to get the fight and having lost gone back down to his proper weight which are important facts. So to say Brook would beat them easily is ridiculous to the extreme. These are career middleweights who have worked their way up to the title shot and you think Brook can just turn up at the weight and beat them is nonsense.

[Kirkland Laing]

Ffs everybody calm down. Let's just agree to disagree eh?

Even with everything that's been said the most offensive thing in this thread is still Bellew being ranked pound for pound.

[TitoFan]

Ffs everybody calm down. Let's just agree to disagree eh?

Even with everything that's been said the most offensive thing in this thread is still Bellew being ranked pound for pound.

If we're gonna talk offensive, my money is on Canelo as #1.

[Fenster]

In the entire discussion I've never once judged Brook as a middleweight, only his performance against Golovkin in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray. He didn't fight Golovkin weighing 147, he weighed 160. His weight is IRRELEVANT to my argument. However, as he weighed 160 he was a verified middleweight for that particular contest. The past, present and future are utterly irrelevant, only what happened on the night. I don't care about "what ifs" only "what happened."

Repeat - I have only judged Brook's performance in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray (The 5 fighters @Master chose).

The "official" scores are integral to the argument. To have success in a boxing match you need to land blows, to win rounds you need to be more impressive than your opponent in any particular three minutes.

So even if you claim "the punches didn't hurt," or "GGG let Brook punch him" they still REGISTERED far more successfully than Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray's did - hence Brook WON ROUNDS.

No holes. No digging. It's called SOUND REASONING. Whether you think it or not (thankfully most forum members are not having problems understanding the point) it has more substance than "Brook did better because Golovkin let him." "Brook didn't deserve the fight," "Brook only fought cos Eubank didn't," "Geale wasn't at his best," etc. All of which are moot points regarding this discussion.

Official scores are one thing but so are your eyes, experience watching the boxing game, context and background of the fight.

You admit the rounds he did well you did not think he won which tells you that the overall picture he was losing and always going to lose the fight. GGG knew that it was only a matter of time so if he had to take two shots to deliver his one he would do so.

For THE MILLIONTH TIME I am judging Brook against the fighters YOU listed - Rubio, Murray, Wade, Monroe and Geale. Do you even remember that YOU claimed they were better opponents than Brook?

THEY DID NO BETTER THAN BROOK!!! To my eye, the judges eye, the dogs eye and everything on the planet's eye.

MY opinion on the actual fight is IRRELEVANT. I only scored Brook one round. I didn't see as competitive a fight as most. However, that has NOTHING to do with how YOUR middleweights did? They were even WORSE than Brook. Fact.

And for the millionth time I say to you that Brook was fortunate to get the fight and having lost gone back down to his proper weight which are important facts. So to say Brook would beat them easily is ridiculous to the extreme. These are career middleweights who have worked their way up to the title shot and you think Brook can just turn up at the weight and beat them is nonsense.

Never again you cunt, never again....

[Batman]

Hows about if we look at it as though for a one off fight then Brook would put on a good show against all of those listed, as he did with GGG, and he may even beat some of the named fighters.

However if he was to campaign full time at middleweight then the size difference and power of the bigger fighters would soon tell on his body and he would end up being broken down and having his career shortened?

Hows that sound lads? meet in the middle or something??

[Master]

Hows about if we look at it as though for a one off fight then Brook would put on a good show against all of those listed, as he did with GGG, and he may even beat some of the named fighters.

However if he was to campaign full time at middleweight then the size difference and power of the bigger fighters would soon tell on his body and he would end up being broken down and having his career shortened?

Hows that sound lads? meet in the middle or something??

No, he would not win and i want an apology and an acceptance that i was right, otherwise I will keep on posting everyday.

[TitoFan]

But before his career was shortened.... he'd go back to 147 for one last fight, and the opponent would be Khan, who would be claiming that Brook had moved to 160 to duck him. Then Brook would KO him in the 1st round and promptly retire.

The End

[Ron Swanson]

In the entire discussion I've never once judged Brook as a middleweight, only his performance against Golovkin in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray. He didn't fight Golovkin weighing 147, he weighed 160. His weight is IRRELEVANT to my argument. However, as he weighed 160 he was a verified middleweight for that particular contest. The past, present and future are utterly irrelevant, only what happened on the night. I don't care about "what ifs" only "what happened."

Repeat - I have only judged Brook's performance in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray (The 5 fighters @Master chose).

The "official" scores are integral to the argument. To have success in a boxing match you need to land blows, to win rounds you need to be more impressive than your opponent in any particular three minutes.

So even if you claim "the punches didn't hurt," or "GGG let Brook punch him" they still REGISTERED far more successfully than Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray's did - hence Brook WON ROUNDS.

No holes. No digging. It's called SOUND REASONING. Whether you think it or not (thankfully most forum members are not having problems understanding the point) it has more substance than "Brook did better because Golovkin let him." "Brook didn't deserve the fight," "Brook only fought cos Eubank didn't," "Geale wasn't at his best," etc. All of which are moot points regarding this discussion.

It's sound logic except that you are giving weight to terrible score cards. Brook was being battered. Homer judges giving Brook rounds on the grounds he hadn't quit yet doesn't mean he was doing well.