By Scott Gilfoid: It’s interesting to hear the reasons why fighters pick easy opposition rather than more dangerous choices that could actually help them by improving them as fighters. Unbeaten welterweight contender Kell Brook (26-0, 18 KO’s) is a perfect example of fighter coming up with excuses to justify a mismatch in his fight against Matthew Hatton (42-5-2, 16 KO’s) on March 17th at the Motorpoint Arena, Sheffield, Yorkshire, UK.

Few boxing fans see this as a competitive fight, as Brook, 25, is a lot better than Hatton. There is a huge class difference between the two of these guys, yet Brook is excited about this as if he just a Christmas present that he’d been hoping for.

As quoted by ESPN, Brook said “This is the fight I’ve wanted for a long time, and to get it at the Sheffield arena means the world to me…I know by putting [Hatton] out of the equation, it gives me a clearer run at the title. I want people to stand up and take notice of me, and these are the kind of nights that makes that happen.”

Is Brook on the level? How can a fight against Hatton, a fighter ranked #8 by the WBA, help the #2 WBO ranked Brook? Isn’t that a backwards move for Brook? If anything, Brook would be helping Hatton out, because he’s being moved up very, very slowly for the year because he’s not taken on anyone with a pulse. You can almost say the same thing for Brook, because he’s been almost as bad with his reluctance to fight top tier opposition.

If Brook wanted to get the boxing public’s attention then he should have told his promoter he wanted no part of Hatton and instead opted to fight #1 IBF/WBO ranked Mike Jones, Randall Bailey, Devon Alexander, Victor Ortiz, Jan Zaveck, Selcuk Aydin, Andre Berto, Shawn Porter or Thomas Dulorme. Those guys are the ones Brook should be fighting, not Hatton.