BoxRec

Spud wrote:There was an article on here pal that documented it - I remember speaking to Pat Magee when the idea was first thought of about fighting Paul Smith - I remember then him disagreeing with me concerning the money issue - he was more than happy to compromise on the money issue if there was a compromise on the venue for the fight - as there was a question whether it would be Belfast or Liverpool. However there was going to be very little discussion on the "options" issue which was proposed as something like 3 or 5 fights if Magee won!!!

Horse wrote:

Spud wrote:There was an article on here pal that documented it - I remember speaking to Pat Magee when the idea was first thought of about fighting Paul Smith - I remember then him disagreeing with me concerning the money issue - he was more than happy to compromise on the money issue if there was a compromise on the venue for the fight - as there was a question whether it would be Belfast or Liverpool. However there was going to be very little discussion on the "options" issue which was proposed as something like 3 or 5 fights if Magee won!!!

Why didn't they let it go to purse bids?

Dioufy wrote:To pretty much finish my initial point; I really don't know why anyone would begrudge Smith fighting someone like McDermott or Quigley, and then allowing him to move on to the European scene. As I have stated before, I believe Smith isn't as good as some people think, but at least he's going about his career in the best way possible. Fighting in the Contender is awesome, and winning the belt and defending it against Liverpudlian rivals isn't bad either. I find it quite irrational that people will heap scorn on him for wanting to win the belt outright - I personally would love to have that belt on my fireplace at home, as he probably does. Fighting someone who isn't entirely deserving would not sit right with me if Smith wasn't going to move onto better things, which I believe he will. Two gruelling fights deserves an 'easier' night, as long as he then goes after the best possible opponents thereafter.

oliverc wrote:

Dioufy wrote:To pretty much finish my initial point; I really don't know why anyone would begrudge Smith fighting someone like McDermott or Quigley, and then allowing him to move on to the European scene. As I have stated before, I believe Smith isn't as good as some people think, but at least he's going about his career in the best way possible. Fighting in the Contender is awesome, and winning the belt and defending it against Liverpudlian rivals isn't bad either. I find it quite irrational that people will heap scorn on him for wanting to win the belt outright - I personally would love to have that belt on my fireplace at home, as he probably does. Fighting someone who isn't entirely deserving would not sit right with me if Smith wasn't going to move onto better things, which I believe he will. Two gruelling fights deserves an 'easier' night, as long as he then goes after the best possible opponents thereafter.

He needs to win a further two fights to win the belt outright.
I can't think of two available fighters more deserving of mandatory status than Groves.
Groves may be inexperienced but if he were to fight for a British title it would hardly set a precedent.
Magri fought for the British title in his third fight.
Spencer Oliver won the European title in his eleventh fight having claimed the Southern Area title in a barnstormer the fight before.

More recently Rendall Munroe won the European title in his fifteenth fight, having failed in a challenge for the British in his 11th fight at featherweight.
Broadhurst fought for the British title in his twelfth fight.
Ashley Sexton fought for the British title in his tenth fight.
Both Broadhurst and Sexton were competing in weak divisions light on top tier talent, and both failed in their attempts to wrench the title away from the holder, but both were deemed the most deserving contenders despite their aforementioned inexperience.
Whether or not Groves can defeat Smith at this stage of his career is a different issue.

DavidPayne wrote:If you're good enough, you're old enough.

DavidPayne wrote:Fighters sometimes take too long getting there in the bid for a perfect, set-back free path.

Dioufy wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:If you're good enough, you're old enough.

Yes, I agree, but beating Samuels and the black dude who just about beat Carl Dilks isn't exactly the definition of being "good enough" in my view. Groves most certainly has the potential, but that doesn't mean he's good enough to beat Paul Smith at the moment.

billy bessey wrote:

Dioufy wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:Fighters sometimes take too long getting there in the bid for a perfect, set-back free path.

Again, I agree, but Groves' mentality is far different from some of the pompous money-grabbers. He fought Samuels in his third fight and has a 'major-ish' belt in under ten fights, but Paul Smith is far superior for him for the time being, and Smith's battle-hardened experience will be the difference, IMO.

He is only 22 and has had less than ten fights, remember.

i dont see a world of difference between smith v groves compared to simpson v smith battle hardened been there done it v up and comers if that fight can be made why cant smith v groves?

DavidPayne wrote:

Dioufy wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:If you're good enough, you're old enough.

Yes, I agree, but beating Samuels and the black dude who just about beat Carl Dilks isn't exactly the definition of being "good enough" in my view. Groves most certainly has the potential, but that doesn't mean he's good enough to beat Paul Smith at the moment.

I like Paul Smith, and I might end up marking him on Sunday, so he'll get a chance to kick me if I step out of line before then but I think Groves would be competitive with him right now.

Dioufy wrote:

Dioufy wrote:

And you saying there isn't anyone more deserving; I disagree. Quigley deserves another go and Magee, but those fights are unlikely to happen next, even more so with Groves.

I don't think Magee should be described as 'deserving' a shot at Paul Smith. At this minute he is beyond Smith. Magee's the European champion - I don't think he'll be particularly bothered about chasing the British title.

Meanwhile I can accept that some might think that Quigley deserves a shot at the British ahead of Groves. I personally think an eliminator between the two for the right to fight Smith would be the best scenario.

So at worst there is only one fighter in the queue who could claim that he 'deserves' to be ahead of Groves. I think we can agree on this.

There's a very good reason why he's fighting an unknown with a record of 11(5)-7(3)-1 in his next fight.

The only reason Groves is fighting Contreras is so that he can acquire a highlight reel knockout and begin the lengthy process of ingratiating himself to the American audience.

You have no idea how Groves will react when under big pressure and when somebody can take some of his shots, and come back with just as good.

Similarly how many punchers has Smith faced? I doubt he's faced many, (if any), who hit as hard as Groves. Renda may have proved destuctive against area level opposition, but I don't think he's as big a puncher as some make out.

I'll concede that there are many questions as regards Groves's durability, power etc, but I think Smith has yet to confirm Billy Graham's claims & prove that his much vaunted power is anything above the ordinary.

It's an unnecessary risk, one that if he failed in could halt his progress ten-fold.

If Booth believes Groves is ready then let them push for the fight. And early career losses needn't be fatal.

Just let Groves develop into the talent that he has the potential to be. He's only 22 and has under ten fights, with two good wins, against figthers who aren't in the same league as Smith. Then in a years' time, he will be ready for big fights against proven British-level fighters.

Tommy Gunn13 wrote:groves would were him down within 10rounds..any takers....oh no smigga needs 2 man up....brittish champ,but his arse nip up wiv a proper fight.....bigger fights ur waiting for....wot fights? u know groves will do ya.....u r one off thr poorest champs in my eyes..........

Tommy Gunn13 wrote:groves would were him down within 10rounds..any takers....oh no smigga needs 2 man up....brittish champ,but his arse nip up wiv a proper fight.....bigger fights ur waiting for....wot fights? u know groves will do ya.....u r one off thr poorest champs in my eyes..........