BoxRec

MightyWarrior wrote:Did Joe really think Liam would win ?

Flying over on Sunday would suggest not.

For two years Smith has been pitted against vastly over-matched fighters - the bouts against Zoltan Sera and Jimmy Kilrain must have really helped him get to grips with someone of Canelo's quality.

I'm not suggesting he'd ever have beaten him, but it seems like he's not been given the opportunity to improve by gradually fighting better and better opposition until he got such an elite fighter. His world title opposition makes Brook's IBF reign look like hall of fame stuff.

Horse wrote:

Rexob wrote:Well thats the difference between British world champion and a proper world champion!

Nonsense.

Smith was the weakest world champion that we had by far.

Flanagan ain't much either

gilgamesh wrote:Flanagan ain't much either

Flanagan is a far more proven fighter.

Horse wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:Flanagan ain't much either

Flanagan is a far more proven fighter.

There's not the kinda talent at 135 to test him against like there is at 154, but I think Zlaticanin would mop the floor with him. I'd take every Lightweight titleholder to beat Flanagan comfortably. Flanagan is the low hanging fruit of the division...and it's a weak division.

gilgamesh wrote:There's not the kinda talent at 135 to test him against like there is at 154, but I think Zlaticanin would mop the floor with him. I'd take every Lightweight titleholder to beat Flanagan comfortably. Flanagan is the low hanging fruit of the division...and it's a weak division.

He's still miles ahead of Liam Smith.

Horse wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:There's not the kinda talent at 135 to test him against like there is at 154, but I think Zlaticanin would mop the floor with him. I'd take every Lightweight titleholder to beat Flanagan comfortably. Flanagan is the low hanging fruit of the division...and it's a weak division.

He's still miles ahead of Liam Smith.

He may be, but winning the title on a flukish shoulder injury of your opponent and going the distance with a 42 year old opponent who was stopped in 2 rounds by Marco Antonio Barrera 12 years at a lower weight class doesn't exactly lead one to believe he's all that impressive of a talent.

I'd consider him and Smith to be on about the same level for now until Flanagan clearly establishes himself as something more than I think he is.

gilgamesh wrote:He may be, but winning the title on a flukish shoulder injury of your opponent and going the distance with a 42 year old opponent who was stopped in 2 rounds by Marco Antonio Barrera 12 years at a lower weight class doesn't exactly lead one to believe he's all that impressive of a talent.

I'd consider him and Smith to be on about the same level for now until Flanagan clearly establishes himself as something more than I think he is.

Terry Flanagan's (black) & Liam Smith's (red) top 10 results:

Diego Magdaleno
Jose Zepeda
Derry Mathews II
Stephen Ormond
Mzonke Fana
Nate Campbell
Martin Gethin
John Thompson
Saul Alvarez - (Lost)
Erick Ochieng

Steve O'Meara
Barrie Jones
Gary Sykes
Derry Mathews I
Troy James
Predrag Radosevic
'Jimmy' Kilrain Kelly
Jason Welborn
Mark Thompson
Gary McMillan


The exact placements might be a bit off, but the point is that Flanagan's record is much better than Smith's and I don't rate Flanagan as highly as a lot of people do either.

Horse wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:He may be, but winning the title on a flukish shoulder injury of your opponent and going the distance with a 42 year old opponent who was stopped in 2 rounds by Marco Antonio Barrera 12 years at a lower weight class doesn't exactly lead one to believe he's all that impressive of a talent.

I'd consider him and Smith to be on about the same level for now until Flanagan clearly establishes himself as something more than I think he is.

Terry Flanagan's (black) & Liam Smith's (red) top 10 results:

Diego Magdaleno
Jose Zepeda
Derry Mathews II
Stephen Ormond
Mzonke Fana
Nate Campbell
Martin Gethin
John Thompson
Saul Alvarez - (Lost)
Erick Ochieng

Steve O'Meara
Barrie Jones
Gary Sykes
Derry Mathews I
Troy James
Predrag Radosevic
'Jimmy' Kilrain Kelly
Jason Welborn
Mark Thompson
Gary McMillan


The exact placements might be a bit off, but the point is that Flanagan's record is much better than Smith's and I don't rate Flanagan as highly as a lot of people do either.

Flanagan's definitely got more recognizable names on his record. Most of them are blasts from the past like "That guy is still fighting?" kinda names, but yeah he's got the better resume. The 2 round destruction of Diego Magdaleno is definitely his standout win on that we agree.

Smith was much of a paper champ as it gets. He hadn't even faced an EBU level opponent...

crusader wrote:Smith was much of a paper champ as it gets. He hadn't even faced an EBU level opponent...

He was the least credible world champion in world boxing.

He is also one of Britain's least credible world title holders of all time.

A creditable showing from Smith, but outclassed and outgunned. Back to Euro level for him and try and build him back from there, I honestly don't think there's any shame in getting beat by a prime looking Canelo. Main thing is he had absolutely zero preparation for this level with his previous bouts. Just a typical Fwank fighter, fed bums and then try and cash out at the top level with a big fight gamble.

I remember seeing the footage of him sparring Kell Brook and it looked like Kell was getting the better of him for what that was worth, so I guess that causes some concern about his size/power at the weight against any sort of world level opponents.

TheCobra wrote:Back to Euro level for him and try and build him back from there,

English title level.

magnus wrote:For two years Smith has been pitted against vastly over-matched fighters - the bouts against Zoltan Sera and Jimmy Kilrain must have really helped him get to grips with someone of Canelo's quality.

I'm not suggesting he'd ever have beaten him, but it seems like he's not been given the opportunity to improve by gradually fighting better and better opposition until he got such an elite fighter. His world title opposition makes Brook's IBF reign look like hall of fame stuff.

Are u serious??? Their opponents were as bad as each others,jo jo dan? Wtf is he,frankie gavin got beat by bundu then gets brook. Liam put up a brave effort and, imo done better than brook did against GGG

Jo Jo Dan clearly got the better of top 20ish Selcuk Aydin for about 9 rounds in their first bout (one of the worst robberies of recent years), which is significantly more impressive than anything Smith's world title victims did. I'd also say that Gavin and Bizier had stronger resumes (Skeete, Vassel, Witter for Gavin; Lawson, Campbell, and Tyner for Bizier) than Kelly, Radosevic, and Thompson did.

thechump wrote:Are u serious??? Their opponents were as bad as each others,jo jo dan? Wtf is he,frankie gavin got beat by bundu then gets brook. Liam put up a brave effort and, imo done better than brook did against GGG

Brook has a far superior record to Smith.

Horse wrote:

thechump wrote:Are u serious??? Their opponents were as bad as each others,jo jo dan? Wtf is he,frankie gavin got beat by bundu then gets brook. Liam put up a brave effort and, imo done better than brook did against GGG

Brook has a far superior record to Smith.

As champions no they dont sorry

I think the worst fighter Brook defended his title against is better than the best fighter Smith defeated in a world title fight.

crusader wrote:I think the worst fighter Brook defended his title against is better than the best fighter Smith defeated in a world title fight.

Correct.

crusader wrote:I think the worst fighter Brook defended his title against is better than the best fighter Smith defeated in a world title fight.

They both have poor defences of their titles,the governing bodies should make their top ten abit more tougher instead of having sh1te stacking the rankings

thechump wrote:They both have poor defences of their titles,the governing bodies should make their top ten abit more tougher instead of having sh1te stacking the rankings

Brook was still a far more credible world champion with much better title defences.

Horse wrote:

thechump wrote:They both have poor defences of their titles,the governing bodies should make their top ten abit more tougher instead of having sh1te stacking the rankings

Brook was still a far more credible world champion with much better title defences.

Brook shouldnt of won that fight with porter in the first place,if it was judged on hugging brook won but as a champion he didnt defend against anyone credible imo. Smith defended against sh1te too

They both have poor defences of their titles,the governing bodies should make their top ten abit more tougher instead of having sh1te stacking the rankings[/quote]

THIS it does say it all really , Governing bodies allowing anyone to fight for titles .

On a side note ,, watched it very carefully , and besides the obvious , Canelo to tough , hit too hard and to often , Man against a Boy and all that

The one thing that stood out for me was his footwork , He closed gaps , opened gaps and used his feet like a dancer compared to a slow footed , almost ackward clumsy like Smith ,, That was the difference in why Canelo could T off at will and smith could;nt ,, Smith looked uncomfortable throwing punches unless Canelo stood still right in front of him ,,, I've noticed it with a couple of Gallaghers fighters , , lousy footwork ..

Brook will do a lot better against Canelo than Smith , and he will beat Smith easy , based on footwork , or lack of from Gallaghers camp

You're right on the footwork, Quigg and John Murray to name another couple of Gallagher fighters, also had awful plodding footwork IMO

Canelo looked huge in there.

Smith did well and showed heart but the gulf in class was huge.

If he does stay with FW I can see a eliminator against Williams becoming a big possibility.

If Canelo moves up again next September I wouldn't be surprised to see the fight for the vacant WBO title. Both ranked and Frank has a great relationship with the WBO.