Kell Brook

So how good is/was Kell Brook?

Has Hearn prevented Kell reaching great heights in the prime of his career or did he do the complete opposite?

A fundamental boxer, good power and technique, but to me has underachieved - if we go off his record.

Surely fights vs Dan, Bizier, Jones etc at a time when he had over 20 fights undefeated.......should/could he have been fighting better contenders?

Im lost on Kell ill be honest, i have absolutely no idea how to rate his career - ive slated him in the past for fighting nobodies - he then turns in a good performance against Porter, but the gets flattened (no shame here) by Golovkin and Spence. 2 top fighters.

His career now looks in tatters due to injury.

Did he not fight decent operators a few years ago on purpose?

Thoughts?!

It's a bit misleading to say he got flattened by Golovkin and Spence when eye injuries did for him.

Very talented fighter with one really good win and a decent record. Was beat by the two best fighters he faced.

Had the talent to go down as a British great, but for me hasn't quite done enough (yet).

AdamT wrote:Very talented fighter with one really good win and a decent record. Was beat by the two best fighters he faced.

Had the talent to go down as a British great, but for me hasn't quite done enough (yet).

Agree with what Adam said. Good fighter and very solid WW in a good era for the weight.

He had to fight Spence because he happily fought sub-par title defences because they were his mandatories.

You have to wonder why his career took so long to get going

Fought regularly under Warren without being put in any risky fights. Warren obviously liked to pad out records of his prospects but he seemed more inclined to with Kell. Always looked to possess good timing and footwork. Seemed able to fight quite close without really getting hit too much early in his career but

Under Hearn he struggled with Carson Jones who is a decent operator but not in the elite bracket and for me this was the level he started getting hit a lot more. This fight was put down to stamina issues but could it have been his level?

He won a World title and his losses have come against GGG in a fight he should never have been put in and Spence Jr. To put a world class welter against a world class middleweight would have been very risky, with any doubt about whether Kell was 'world level' (definition used one of the top 1-3 welters in the world) it was a poor decision.

Spence Jr on the other hand is a fight a welter with a title should be fighting. Stamina to me was the problem in this fight.

Really hard to gauge where Kell's level was. I'm not convinced he was ruined by GGG but just feel that he wasn't good enough against the elite level. The timing that looked so good against lower level opposition wasn't there against the best and he was getting hit a lot more than he should have.

For me he was a very good British boxer but just short of the level needed to dominate his division and become 'world class'.

huw wrote:You have to wonder why his career took so long to get going

Fought regularly under Warren without being put in any risky fights. Warren obviously liked to pad out records of his prospects but he seemed more inclined to with Kell. Always looked to possess good timing and footwork. Seemed able to fight quite close without really getting hit too much early in his career but

Under Hearn he struggled with Carson Jones who is a decent operator but not in the elite bracket and for me this was the level he started getting hit a lot more. This fight was put down to stamina issues but could it have been his level?

He won a World title and his losses have come against GGG in a fight he should never have been put in and Spence Jr. To put a world class welter against a world class middleweight would have been very risky, with any doubt about whether Kell was 'world level' (definition used one of the top 1-3 welters in the world) it was a poor decision.

Spence Jr on the other hand is a fight a welter with a title should be fighting. Stamina to me was the problem in this fight.

Really hard to gauge where Kell's level was. I'm not convinced he was ruined by GGG but just feel that he wasn't good enough against the elite level. The timing that looked so good against lower level opposition wasn't there against the best and he was getting hit a lot more than he should have.

For me he was a very good British boxer but just short of the level needed to dominate his division and become 'world class'.

Absolutely bang on. Great post.

Such a talent, had the ingredients, but genuinely dont think he will go down as "world class" even if he did hold a title at 147.

Faced 3 good fighters, lost to 2. The other 1 was a razor thin close fight anyway.

I always thought he had the tools but maybe he just hasnt.

Probably comes back against Khan and cashes out.

Khan has a better record.

Judah
Paulie
Maidana
Alexander to name a few.

Would of fancied Brook to beat him, but for me Khan shout rank higher all time.

AdamT wrote:Khan has a better record.

Judah
Paulie
Maidana
Alexander to name a few.

Would of fancied Brook to beat him, but for me Khan shout rank higher all time.

100% agree.

Also been willing to get in with the best (not sure if Brook has been kept away on purpose) - got in with Canelo. Went to fight Peterson in Washington. Pushing actively for Mayweather and Pacquiao. Danny Garcia.

His resume is just better overall in my eyes.

Wins over Algieri, Paulie, Maidana, Alexander, Collazo etc trump anything Brooks every beaten with maybe porter being an exception.

Algieri and Collazo too.

Not Khans biggest ever fan, but he for sure has had a better career than Kell.

Agree 100%

Brook has had stamina issues. Carson jones wasn't his level, he played with him for 6 rounds then hit a wall. The word was he didn't take his training seriously and he's looked to have gas in fights since then until spence.

Always thought he was a classy boxer but his lack of head movement/defence always worried me. I thought the porter fight was closer than the judges had it, I actually thought he put in a decent showing against golovkin but golovkin was getting through to him from the first bell (again to me a sign of question marks over his defence). I never saw him as a real power puncher either, he never looked like he really sat down on his punches. But he held his own against the next big thing for 6 or 7 rounds until he seemed to gas again (weight? Spence body shots? Having to work too hard in first part of fight? Psychological damage from eye injury? Who knows).

In short he's a very good welterweight, there's not much to choose between Garcia Thurman porter and brook for me... but that's decent company and I'd have him as marginal favourite against all of them. Well I would have a year or so ago.

He certainly spent too long fighting stiffs on the way up, and stabbings, mandatories etc meant he didn't have meaningful fights after porter... got to give credit for the last two opponents though.

Kell Brooks career frustrates me a lot.

After he beat Porter the world should have been his oyster. Through a mix of bad luck ( stabbing and injuries) bad management and probably a bit of ill discipline it just never happened. He should never have fought GGG but ultimately for one reason or another the big fights just werent presenting themselves.He also seems to have one of those rare issues where he is a bit too big to fight comfortably ar welter, but a bit too small for the weights above... Spence certainly looked as big as Kell physically, so why does he struggle so much with the weight?

Maybe the Spence fight was a result of GGG, maybe Spence is just a bit special? Maybe Kell just isn't good enough? Who knows but prior to GGG i would certainly have liked to see him in with Thurman, Garcia etc... I certainly think he can compete at that level but we will never really know, and that's a shame.