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.
Bookmarks