Page 6 of 6
Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?
Posted: 29 Sep 2010, 05:05
by Autobarn
they all get there in the end, though, don't they?
ringtv.com, ratings update, short piece on murray:
advances from #7 to #6 in the rankings (basically trading places with paulus moses)
http://www.ringtv.com/blog/2367/ring_ratings_update/
Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?
Posted: 29 Sep 2010, 05:09
by Dioufy
Murray's gonna be waiting awhile more if he doesn't get a biggish fight - jeez, take on DeMarco in Mexico or someone like that. If Murray is as good as I believe him to be then he will win these fights. If he finally does get a shot then he will have to travel anyways.
Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?
Posted: 29 Sep 2010, 05:16
by Autobarn
demarco would be interesting. certainly worthy of a TV date such as ShoBox.
i wonder if a WBC elim could take place on the same PPV, murray v some guy like demarco?
is murray's eye a problem?
Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?
Posted: 29 Sep 2010, 05:19
by Dioufy
Barn, how the hell did Antillon get a title shot anyway? Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't his last fight an eliminator for the IBF or WBA belt. Plus he's lost - a fight or so ago I think. If Antillon was to beat Soto, which I do doubt, then that belt's going to be locked up in Mexico for the next 18 months. If Antillon won then expect a mandatory against DeMarco and if he beat him expect a voluntray against another Mexican. You're showing a lot of faith with the WBC, and please stop comparing Murray with Froch/Munroe. Froch got a shot against Inkin, then Pascal because he had the ITV money. Munroe has a solid, near enough impossible task of going and winning in Japan. Murray is not in a good position, IMO. Technically he's up there and due a fight, realistically I fear it's the opposite. I might even be willing to wager a bet with you that Murray's next opponent is Lee McAllister. Again.
Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?
Posted: 29 Sep 2010, 06:06
by Autobarn
probably because he's mexcian
same reason daniel estrada was nominated for the WBC elim v murray (before losing to reyes sanchez on the morales-limond card)
that is the horrible fear isn't it? being stuck with lee mac again. however, mitchell, rees and probably arthur will be ahead of him in the EBU rankings. it does leave the possibility IF oe of those guys fancies it.
Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?
Posted: 29 Sep 2010, 08:34
by Joe G
Does not help when the trade paper after a great win cant give him main front page yet other euro champions get it !
Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?
Posted: 29 Sep 2010, 08:57
by J
Dioufy wrote:I believe Murray will get a two-way blow-job off my mam and dad before he gets a WBC title shot.
will that be on ppv if so how much?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?
Posted: 29 Sep 2010, 15:22
by goldbird
Glyn Leach wrote:
Take your point Dioufy but it's a big risk. In your ideal worst-case scenario, Murray could emerge beaten but unscathed and with a heightened reputation from an Ortiz fight. But supposing he gets his arse kicked by a light-welterweight and is never the same again, in the way that Pavlik wasn't after he stepped up in weight to fight Hopkins
I think Pavlik had clear limitations that we all knew about. Hopkins was good enough to exploit them. I had a big bet on hopkins in that fight. Pavlik then lost to Martinez later.. another slick fighter. I don't think he "isn't the same" since Hopkins beat him.. it's just a case of styles making fights. Put K-Pav in against a different style, a la Brian Vera which is happening next, and you will see Pavlik looking spectacular.
Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?
Posted: 29 Sep 2010, 15:42
by Autobarn
it did leave a dead division though, which hasn't picked up until new blood like martinez (fresh from jr middles) and pirog made big statements.
brian vera isn't very good. hopkins had the style and the weight on pavlik who i have to say carried 170-odd pounds with no grace, looking like a lump of lard. if it was at 160, where pav was champ, and where hopkins would be weaker, which is how it always used to be, then hopkins wouldn't have had enough in the tank, he'd have been outworked most likely.
Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?
Posted: 29 Sep 2010, 15:44
by goldbird
Autobarn wrote:it did leave a dead division though, which hasn't picked up until new blood like martinez (fresh from jr middles) and pirog made big statements.
brian vera isn't very good. hopkins had the style and the weight on pavlik who i have to say carried 170-odd pounds with no grace, looking like a lump of lard. if it was at 160, where pav was champ, and where hopkins would be weaker, which is how it always used to be, then hopkins wouldn't have had enough in the tank, he'd have been outworked most likely.
Hop would have killed himself making weight at that age. Pavlik put on 19 pounds after the weigh in for his last fight. He is really struggling to make 160. Obviously he sees whats happening north of 160 and has decided to keep boiling himself down to 160.
Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?
Posted: 30 Sep 2010, 02:05
by elias caiana
tou com vocĂȘ

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?
Posted: 30 Sep 2010, 04:17
by Autobarn
goldbird wrote:Autobarn wrote:it did leave a dead division though, which hasn't picked up until new blood like martinez (fresh from jr middles) and pirog made big statements.
brian vera isn't very good. hopkins had the style and the weight on pavlik who i have to say carried 170-odd pounds with no grace, looking like a lump of lard. if it was at 160, where pav was champ, and where hopkins would be weaker, which is how it always used to be, then hopkins wouldn't have had enough in the tank, he'd have been outworked most likely.
Hop would have killed himself making weight at that age. Pavlik put on 19 pounds after the weigh in for his last fight. He is really struggling to make 160. Obviously he sees whats happening north of 160 and has decided to keep boiling himself down to 160.
good. that's the way it would have been before the catchweights became attractions.
boxing used to favour te young guys, not the old guys who can't make the weight any more.
Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?
Posted: 30 Sep 2010, 06:56
by Glyn Leach
Disagree about Pavlik not being the same after Hopkins. That was a throughly demoralising beating with big psychological damage to the loser, Pavlik's camp have said as much. Even Hopkins looked as though he felt a bit guilty about having done "that" to Pavlik, if you watch the post-fight footage - very "paternal", old B-Hop was. Anyway, was just using that fight as an example of what can happen when a big-at-the-weight fighter, like Pavlik at middle and Murray at light, has that advantage taken away from him. Murray is a better boxer than Pavlik, for sure, but there's no guaranteeing he will have natural size and strength enough to use his skill to its best advantage vs Ortiz at light-welter. I think Lennie's choice of example, Hatton at welterweight, is probably more apt to Murray's case specifically than the one I chose.