Arthur or Lockett, who has a better chance?

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 20 Mar 2008, 12:48

Guzman is the more proven and complete fighter.

Horse · Post by **Horse** » 20 Mar 2008, 13:14

stujones wrote:Guzman is the more proven and complete fighter.

Perhaps, but Arthur is the more proven and complete fighter when compared to Lockett.

Chambers2 · Post by **Chambers2** » 20 Mar 2008, 13:26

Both get beat IMO, no disgrace in that as they're up against the best in their respective divisions, but I'd say Lockett has the better chance of pulling of the Mammoth upset. Guzman is so good he makes my pants explode!

rhino222 · Post by **rhino222** » 20 Mar 2008, 13:32

i agree with the comments so far, arthur will be getting ko'd.... and so probably will lockett, but 'lockets rocket' could possibly prevail, and we would have a mammoth upset......

chris_23 · Post by **chris_23** » 20 Mar 2008, 14:41

search wrote:what si frankie warren up to?

first he throws macarelli to the wolves to be slaughtered (which was highly enjoyable), then he sends arthur and lockett to the wolves too. Not to mention Calzaghe could get beaten himself.

Next thing you know Khan will be fighting Cambpell!!

You must spend all your time crowing about who is going to get knocked out or next making rash and not very well thought out statements you sad sad man...

mindless boring trash..

StepinFetchit · Post by **StepinFetchit** » 20 Mar 2008, 14:59

chris_23 wrote:
search wrote:what si frankie warren up to?

first he throws macarelli to the wolves to be slaughtered (which was highly enjoyable), then he sends arthur and lockett to the wolves too. Not to mention Calzaghe could get beaten himself.

Next thing you know Khan will be fighting Cambpell!!
You must spend all your time crowing about who is going to get knocked out or next making rash and not very well thought out statements you sad sad man...

mindless boring trash..

He's right though, not even a faggit can deny that.

chris_23 · Post by **chris_23** » 20 Mar 2008, 15:13

StepinFetchit wrote:
chris_23 wrote:
search wrote:what si frankie warren up to?

first he throws macarelli to the wolves to be slaughtered (which was highly enjoyable), then he sends arthur and lockett to the wolves too. Not to mention Calzaghe could get beaten himself.

Next thing you know Khan will be fighting Cambpell!!
You must spend all your time crowing about who is going to get knocked out or next making rash and not very well thought out statements you sad sad man...

mindless boring trash..
He's right though, not even a faggit can deny that.

Just to confirm, 'Search' definitely is the infamous lirva33

I did a little check on his ip address. He literally has had TONS of other usernames aswell including Vicious, tunasaladsandwiches, Cousin Mark, etc, etc, etc (it's an endless list) and he has made tens of thousands of posts on these forums.

He's probably Stepinfetchit too.... sad little loser having little pretend chats with himself "yeah you're right" "yeah I know we are"

Absolute TOOL loser!!

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 20 Mar 2008, 15:16

Horse wrote:
stujones wrote:Guzman is the more proven and complete fighter.
Perhaps, but Arthur is the more proven and complete fighter when compared to Lockett.

Is he? Maybe more experienced and proven but not necessarily more complete.

Cannot see Lockett coming close to be unstuck against someone like Gary Woolcombe - which is what Arthur did last time out.

Horse · Post by **Horse** » 20 Mar 2008, 15:34

stujones wrote:
Horse wrote:
stujones wrote:Guzman is the more proven and complete fighter.
Perhaps, but Arthur is the more proven and complete fighter when compared to Lockett.
Is he? Maybe more experienced and proven but not necessarily more complete.

Cannot see Lockett coming close to be unstuck against someone like Gary Woolcombe - which is what Arthur did last time out.

Is Foster any worse than Rhodes? Foster punches a lot harder than Woolcombe does p4p, so they are not really that comparable.

If Foster is like Woolcombe then I personally can see Lockett coming unstuck against someone like Woolcombe.

Spud · Post by **Spud** » 20 Mar 2008, 15:39

I want Gary Lockett to win - come to think of it - I want Arthur to win too -to pick who has the best chance is one hell of a diffcult question - bloody hell good thread/question.

Bard of Boxrec · Post by **Bard of Boxrec** » 20 Mar 2008, 15:55

cat in hell or snowball in hell, not much diff.

glahn · Post by **glahn** » 20 Mar 2008, 16:24

I don't think either of them will win, but Arthur has more of a chance than Lockett for me.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 20 Mar 2008, 17:16

Horse wrote:
stujones wrote:
Horse wrote:Perhaps, but Arthur is the more proven and complete fighter when compared to Lockett.
Is he? Maybe more experienced and proven but not necessarily more complete.

Cannot see Lockett coming close to be unstuck against someone like Gary Woolcombe - which is what Arthur did last time out.
Is Foster any worse than Rhodes? Foster punches a lot harder than Woolcombe does p4p, so they are not really that comparable.

If Foster is like Woolcombe then I personally can see Lockett coming unstuck against someone like Woolcombe.

Woolcombe is the British champion and ranked a similar ranking at Light Middle as Steve Foster was at Feather.

Ally-M1 · Post by **Ally-M1** » 20 Mar 2008, 17:25

Arthur and Lockett are very much against it...

I'd love ARthur and Lockett to win (especially my fellow Scot) but my money is most certainly on Guzman and Pavlik.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 20 Mar 2008, 19:11

if AA beats guzman i'll eat my hat, if locket beats pavlik i'll merely express great surprise. therefore a gary win is more likely.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 20 Mar 2008, 20:28

Good question actually, tough to call. I think Arthur is proven at a class above anything Lockett has though so Alex has the better chance of causing an upset here - and he will be at home.

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 20 Mar 2008, 20:33

Arthur because he could at least get a home town decision

chesh · Post by **chesh** » 20 Mar 2008, 22:04

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Arthur because he could at least get a home town decision

I think all three judges would have to have the surname Arthur for Alex to outpoint Guzman.

Horse · Post by **Horse** » 20 Mar 2008, 23:44

chesh wrote:
Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Arthur because he could at least get a home town decision
I think all three judges would have to have the surname Arthur for Alex to outpoint Guzman.

Yeah, because no one defeats Super Guzman the indestructible force.

REAL_DEAL · Post by **REAL_DEAL** » 21 Mar 2008, 03:48

Arthur does due to the fact Guzman fighting away and some fighters fold in a hostile crowd.

sweetscience · Post by **sweetscience** » 21 Mar 2008, 04:55

defo arthur, he is closer to world class than locket and he is naturally bigger than guzman

but......both are going to get whooped

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 21 Mar 2008, 13:58

like i said, a lockett win is more credible

dragons · Post by **dragons** » 21 Mar 2008, 14:31

Lockett has a heart of a lion .... He can punch, he can box, and YES! it will be hard

but he's going to win.

Alex Arthur, dont know .. But wish the lad all the luck in the world ... and really hope he can pull it off as well.

Come on Gary !

StepinFetchit · Post by **StepinFetchit** » 21 Mar 2008, 17:15

Arthur has the better chance because he has some skills, Gary Sockett has none.

chris_23 · Post by **chris_23** » 22 Mar 2008, 07:30

StepinFetchit wrote:Arthur has the better chance because he has some skills, Gary Sockett has none.

What a ridiculous thing to say, clearly you are a numpty and know very little about boxing...

"Lockett has no skills" you absolute clown... If you came out with something remotely realistic or constructive people would take your comments seriously but as it stands people just think you are a biased tit head, or American, or both.....