Ryan Rhodes returns

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 30 May 2007, 12:00

This Sunday Rhodes takes on Paul Buchanan, which is a decent comeback opponent for Rhodes. Will be good to see how much he has left.
Buchanan won't be coming to lay down either, he'll be looking to get into the British title mix.

TerribleTerry · Post by **TerribleTerry** » 30 May 2007, 12:16

Buchanan looked a little out of his depth in that Contender match up but here is a great chance to re-establish his credentials.

Glad to see Rhodes back in the ring - he silenced quite a few doubters with the effort he put forth against Lockett, he needs a few back to back wins now though and to stay active in somewhere near championship class..

I will look out for this result with some interest.

rhino222 · Post by **rhino222** » 30 May 2007, 12:46

ryan should take care of business easily if he is on his game, the ryan rhodes that lost to lockett had good skills and a big heart.

i have knocked ryan in the passed but im big enough to pat him on the back for the lockett performance, i hope the rest of his career follows similar pathway with the same obvious dedication and focus.

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » 31 May 2007, 04:55

I saw Ryan box at the MEN two years ago and he looked shot, he didn't seem to have it anymore but I'd love to be proven wrong....

You guys think he could get back in the mix?

oliverfennell · Post by **oliverfennell** » 31 May 2007, 04:57

Like the Marcellus Wallace monologue in Pulp Fiction: "If you were gonna make it, you woulda made it by now."

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » 31 May 2007, 05:27

And you were sat next to me, he didn't have it then did he?

He hasn't since his early twenties

rhino222 · Post by **rhino222** » 31 May 2007, 06:12

but his performance against lockett suggested he still has it, not many go the full distance with 'the rocket'

or is lockett not up to much ??

oliverfennell · Post by **oliverfennell** » 31 May 2007, 07:41

Going the distance in a losing fight against Lockett is a far cry from what was predicted of Rhodes in his early 20s.

TerribleTerry · Post by **TerribleTerry** » 31 May 2007, 07:46

The Spice Boy seemed to undergo a crisis of confidence after racing to the Lonsdale belt in record time.

Holding his own against the Otis Grant was a decent accomplishment looking back but his humbling at the hands of ‘Method Man’ Matthews just seemed to take away something from his game.

He has never really been right since that point in my eyes. Shame, because I always liked him as a fighter.

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » 31 May 2007, 07:50

Very true, he was a nice kid and everyone had high hopes for him, especially as he was like a middleweight Naz. He had good power...

Rhino - Lockett's not a bad fighter, European level at best probably, though there was talk of a WBO shot earlier this year when I spoke to the guy....

Nice bloke, tough too and avenged his only defeat...

twenty six · Post by **twenty six** » 31 May 2007, 12:45

Captain Hook,
I assume you are referring to the fight against Craig Lynch.
He won by TKO in the third but you describe him as shot ?
I hate the use of that word for any current fighter, let alone retired fighters.
How would you describe the defeated fighter ?
Both fighters were messed around terribly that night, not fighting until after midnight, having been told to be ready for 8.30pm.
Mr Fennell - Lockett is Euro maybe WBO standard right ?
When Rhodes fought Lockett he was 70% having sustained a serious back injury.
Due to the ridiculous shouts of bottler / shot etc from people who should know better, when he had to postpone the original date, he was determined to go ahead.
I maintain that a 100% Rhodes would have won.
That back injury is one reason he has had a further period of inactivity - apart from Messrs Lockett (rematch) Alexander and K9 Bundrage turning down offers.
This return bout is at Rhodes request because Warren bills are few on the ground at the moment and he didn't want to wait any longer.
Rhodes has 35 wins 23 by ko and 4 defeats.
He dismantled Tsarenko, giving him a weight advantage of a stone - the very man who gave Lockett a serious beating - subsequently avenged.
He is only 30 - and has not been involved in any career damaging beatings.
He intends to be back at LM where he remains undefeated.
Enough of my soap box - now please reconsider your statement of "shot" or let me have your reasoned arguement for doing so, which I will happily debate with you.
Rhino - thanks for your comments mate, I'll make sure he is made aware.
I think he's finally turned your view of him around.
Oh and as for your movie critique comment Fennell that probably says stick to movie reviewing not boxing.
Never heard of a boxer with Rhodes record still doing the business at 30 ?

twenty six · Post by **twenty six** » 31 May 2007, 13:09

TT,
How's it going mate ?
You've probably sussed who I am but I had to change my sign on as someone was stirring using beagleboy - without the s and making out some seriously misleading posts were mine.
I'll pm you sunday evening and let u know how it goes.

emma · Post by **emma** » 31 May 2007, 13:26

Hopefully ryan will win and then he can get his career back on track.

twenty six · Post by **twenty six** » 01 Jun 2007, 04:54

Thought so - the silence is deafening Captain Hook and Co.

oliverfennell · Post by **oliverfennell** » 01 Jun 2007, 05:14

Hey, it's nothing personal, just my own observations. I'd be happy for Ryan to succeed, and the fact I don't think he will doesn't mean my opinions/knowledge are at fault. It's just my opinion, and if everybody thought the same things, the world would be pretty boring!

You are right to say he is "only" 30 and many boxers succeed at that age and well beyond, but also every boxer is different. Some, like Tyson and Benitez, peak when they're barely past adolescence. Others, like Lennox and Glen Johnson, do their best work in their 30s.

It looks for all the world like Ryan had a very young prime. He hasn't beaten a title class opponent for a very long time and has sometimes failed to shine against journeyman opposition.

You mention the reasons for him not beating Lockett, and they may well be valid, but to be fair, just about every boxer in history has excuses after a defeat, and there's no way to tell who's telling the truth and who isn't.

So, in conclusion, there's no need to take offence because some people have a different opinion/prognosis about Ryan's future. They are opinions by neutral observers. Regardless of what you think, the majority of BoxRec users know their stuff, and should you/Ryan prove the doubters wrong, I know we'll be the first to give the appropriate praise where it's due.

But, as ever, actions speak louder than words, so over to Ryan, who I'm sure will relish the challenge of getting one over on the critics.

twenty six · Post by **twenty six** » 01 Jun 2007, 05:51

Be specific.
You are a writer on the subject of boxing. I don't know if Hook is or not.
You have agreed with Hook's observation that 2 years ago Rhodes was shot.
Please justify that comment.

Manos de Oro · Post by **Manos de Oro** » 01 Jun 2007, 05:51

TerribleTerry wrote:The Spice Boy seemed to undergo a crisis of confidence after racing to the Lonsdale belt in record time.

Holding his own against the Otis Grant was a decent accomplishment looking back but his humbling at the hands of ‘Method Man’ Matthews just seemed to take away something from his game.

He has never really been right since that point in my eyes. Shame, because I always liked him as a fighter.

But he might end up one of those fighters with a two-pronged legacy: young career and old career. Sometimes, in fact often, you get a pro being able to find a new lease and build a sturdy, if less glamorous than 'predicted' footnote. Rhodes in the interview after fighting Gary Lockett gave a hint he could become one of those fighters. Time will tell I guess, it's all up to him.

twenty six · Post by **twenty six** » 01 Jun 2007, 05:55

By the way, I have no problems in everyone having an opinion leading to healthy debate, but when someone makes a comment ie the word shot, I feel entitled to ask for it to be justified.
I've given my justification to argue against that comment.
As you can tell, I despise the use of that word to describe any boxer past or present.

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 01 Jun 2007, 06:03

Maybe the Lockett fight will give Rhodes more belief in his self, before that one he seemed to be a bit gunshy to me, not willing to get involved as he did before.

As for the level of Lockett and co? gary does need to get a big fight soon, otherwise he's going to find himself at the end of his career asking 'What if'

oliverfennell · Post by **oliverfennell** » 01 Jun 2007, 06:19

OK, I didn't say shot, I just used that film example of "if he would have made it, he would have made it by now", meaning I don't believe he can, at 30 and after a long career, do what he couldn't do in his 20s.

The word "shot" is controversial but it can in the right circumstances be valid. Just because it can cause offence does not mean it doesn't apply to certain situations. I actually agree it's a little strong to use the word about Ryan at this stage, because shot fighters don't go 12 competitive rounds with Gary Lockett, but I do think a Ryan in his early 20s would have beaten Lockett fairly comfortably. That's my point. Regardless of how you want to phrase it, he's not the same force as he was when he was younger.

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » 01 Jun 2007, 06:32

Sorry "twenty six" I was off having a life, I do apologise....

you obviously weren't at the fight, or were you? Possibly not because there was hardly anyone left in the arena.

He looked slow, he lacked power and he was ponderous.

If you think that performance against a man who's lost 18 and won 6 of his fights was up to scratch trhen we have differing standards.

He was mediocre that night.

DavidPayne · Post by **DavidPayne** » 01 Jun 2007, 06:33

Or was he well matched when he was younger?

He had a shrewd match-maker capitalising on his youth, style and good looks back then and tagging him on the Hamed phenom.

He's got quality and heart, but as Ollie says his principle advantage of speed has to have ebbed away.

I genuinely would love to see him regain a British title though.

Perhaps if Moore vacates and Rhodes can do 154 he could fight Michael Jones?

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » 01 Jun 2007, 06:39

And as I've mentioned, I'd love to see Ryan back in the mix but he hasn't got it anymore, plain and simple....

He was peaking around the time he fought Otis, he put up a good performance that night but experience had the edge.

His style was based on speed and he hit hard. Against Lynch he looked robotic and ill at ease.

Maybe he can turn it around and he's just had a bad few years, he might train hard, feel 100% healthy and get his second wind. He might have had problems as you mentioned..

But I doubt it. I don't like to see any boxer go on longer than they have to. He's never going to get another title shot and could end up getting hurt against fighters he would have battered 10 years ago.

And what does it matter whether we write or not? They're our opinions and everyone on this site is entitled to them.

If you don't like the word SHOT I'll retract that...

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » 01 Jun 2007, 06:41

I meant world title shot by the way, British title might be more like it ......fingers crossed

twenty six · Post by **twenty six** » 01 Jun 2007, 06:44

Hook,
I was at the fight, as I have been for al his pro fights.
Generally speaking, in my many years (30 in total) of following this sport across the world, I have never heard of a boxer being described as shot when winning inside three rounds by TKO, regardless of the opponent and standard of performance.
Do you write about boxing, same as Mr Fennell ?
It's an honest question now asked a few times but not answered properly - justify describing him as shot two years ago.