John Fewkes

danfoster
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 651
Joined: 02 Feb 2009, 05:07

Re: John Fewkes

Post by danfoster »

Think he boxed Kell twice in the amateurs, won one lost one. Could be wrong though.

Definitely a decent kid but i'd go as far to say if that he was really on it he'd be down at lightweight. I've stood next to the kid in the flesh and he's really not a big lad.

Anyway, by all accounts he's a really nice and genuine lad and he's obviously got plenty of talent so i sincerely wish him all the best :TU:
Old bones Ian
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 11810
Joined: 13 Jul 2004, 07:33

Re: John Fewkes

Post by Old bones Ian »

I'm trying to remember his fight against Craig Watson, was Fewkes on the floor in that one?

If he get's his weight right then John can do something on the domestic front, has good skills and punch variation.
James Harte
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 71
Joined: 02 Jul 2012, 18:05

Re: John Fewkes

Post by James Harte »

Brook was ahead 2-1 in their three amateur fights.

Watson didn't floor Fewkes, but did momentarily hurt him when Fewkes was showboating and got caught by a silly shot.

If he gets his weight down, he could make some noise. But I think the fluctuations in his weight are going to hamper him. I remember him struggling to get down for simple four rounders, where makign weight wasn't even essential - he would still be massively over. Think he put on weight an awful lot faster than was capable of losing it.

I hope he does it though. One of my favourite domestic fighters in recent years, real throwback with a style rarely seen by one of our own fighters. Bristling aggression, with nice head and upper-body movement. Always felt he would have beaten John Murray had they met in May 2008.
Pugilist-specialist
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1632
Joined: 11 Jul 2008, 04:37

Re: John Fewkes

Post by Pugilist-specialist »

fizzjambo wrote:
Pugilist-specialist wrote:I was told recently he weighed about 16 stone - can anyone say whether this was true or not?

:TU:
If that's true (which sounds extreme) he shouldn't be thinking of going anywhere near a ring after a 5/6 stone crash diet!!!!!
He's only admitting to 15stone!

http://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/boxing/f ... -1-5204505

:TU:
fizzjambo
Cruiserweight
Posts: 1283
Joined: 22 Sep 2010, 10:36

Re: John Fewkes

Post by fizzjambo »

Pugilist-specialist wrote:
fizzjambo wrote:
Pugilist-specialist wrote:I was told recently he weighed about 16 stone - can anyone say whether this was true or not?

:TU:
If that's true (which sounds extreme) he shouldn't be thinking of going anywhere near a ring after a 5/6 stone crash diet!!!!!
He's only admitting to 15stone!

http://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/boxing/f ... -1-5204505

:TU:
Our bad! He's coming back at light-middle which confirms all my fears of this. He's only ever fought there once, in his last fight when he has already admitted he had long lost interest.

As I've already said he should be competing at 135/140 max. The fact that he can't even get himself in shape to make Welter for his comeback fight when you would hope he'd be in a dedicated and determined frame of mind speaks volumes. Why doesn't he just fight in Jan/Feb and make a sensible weight? I find myself even doubting he'll make 152 - complete waste of time IMO
Parson Cross
Super Middleweight
Posts: 1991
Joined: 03 Dec 2012, 18:57

Re: John Fewkes

Post by Parson Cross »

I thnk that a bit OTT mate.
It would be suicidal to lose one third of your body weight and that's if you believe he was 15 stone.
I think he was a bit more.
Cut him some slack. 11 st is an achievement in itself.
Hope he does well then stay in the gym and maybe then we'll see him at Welter next time.
The Insider
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 2581
Joined: 26 Mar 2012, 11:21

Re: John Fewkes

Post by The Insider »

Fewkes has just weighed in at 11-4-2
15829
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3505
Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 13:26

John Fewkes

Post by 15829 »

See he made a winning comeback beat Steve Spence at light middleweight that's not a typo he fought at light middleweight :o
15829
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3505
Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 13:26

Re: John Fewkes

Post by 15829 »

Shocking
dondada
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 8872
Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 10:55

Re: John Fewkes

Post by dondada »

Well, he's lost five stone. Obviously, I'd prefer him to be back at welter at the most. So would he and that's the aim.

From where he, his life, his head and his belly was, it's an achievement to get back in there and I hope he continues to work hard and get a little more weight off.

Well done, Fireball :TU:
JamesH
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1897
Joined: 08 Aug 2008, 09:16

Re: John Fewkes

Post by JamesH »

dondada wrote:Well, he's lost five stone. Obviously, I'd prefer him to be back at welter at the most. So would he and that's the aim.

From where he, his life, his head and his belly was, it's an achievement to get back in there and I hope he continues to work hard and get a little more weight off.

Well done, Fireball :TU:
Exactly my view :TU: , good to have him back and hopefully its onwards and upwards from here.
The Insider
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 2581
Joined: 26 Mar 2012, 11:21

Re: John Fewkes

Post by The Insider »

He did well, he sustained a nasty cut in the second but continued for a shut out win. He also looked good at the weight and didnt seem to be carrying too much shed.
Parson Cross
Super Middleweight
Posts: 1991
Joined: 03 Dec 2012, 18:57

Re: John Fewkes

Post by Parson Cross »

Good one to get out of the way.
Cut him some slack. Let's see where he is for the next fight.
Well done Fewkey.
fizzjambo
Cruiserweight
Posts: 1283
Joined: 22 Sep 2010, 10:36

Re: John Fewkes

Post by fizzjambo »

JamesH wrote:
dondada wrote:Well, he's lost five stone. Obviously, I'd prefer him to be back at welter at the most. So would he and that's the aim.

From where he, his life, his head and his belly was, it's an achievement to get back in there and I hope he continues to work hard and get a little more weight off.

Well done, Fireball :TU:
Exactly my view :TU: , good to have him back and hopefully its onwards and upwards from here.
Sorry, just could not disagree more. If the post above of his weight is to be believed he weighed in at 158 pounds!!!! That is almost criminal, he never look an especially well defined lightweight and in my opinion (not saying it should count for much) he shouldn't be competing at an even half decent level above 140.

I'm not having a pop but in his last fight prior to this he was 150lbs. He has since admitted that at this time his heart was out of the game, he wasn't training properly and he was overweight. Now he's made his come back, where in press reports he has talked of being re-dedicated and made all the right noises of giving his second effort a serious go, and has come in as a near middleweight! Why? If he wanted to do this properly and wasn't just looking for a few quid for xmas (not saying this is the case, I don't know the guy) at least come back at 147-149ish and look to get to light-welter, if it takes another few months hard graft on the road and gym then so be it.

Look I don't know him and I appreciate people who like him have posted on this thread so I'm not trying for a wind-up but given that those who know him or at least train/see him are at best predicting he can make 147 I just can't see this going well. To fight like he does and win he's got to have a good engine, he's a cracking wee boxer but the key word there is 'wee' not 'bloated'.

Maybe he's come back like Jeff Thomas and is at least well defined, I don't know TBH - no use that type of extreme weight gain for a boxer either in my opinion but at least Jeff was fit and had prepared himself physically. He was never going to do at 154 what he may have 2/3 divisions lower down but at least he was a fit man.
Parson Cross
Super Middleweight
Posts: 1991
Joined: 03 Dec 2012, 18:57

Re: John Fewkes

Post by Parson Cross »

I think you are having a pop pal, or at least that's how you are coming over, but this is a forum, and everyone has a view so I respect that.
Think its best to just agree to disagree but for the record, knowing where you've been, and how you've been Fewkey fuckin well done for achieving what you did in tems of weight loss and prep, and hopefuly its given you a new focus.
fizzjambo
Cruiserweight
Posts: 1283
Joined: 22 Sep 2010, 10:36

Re: John Fewkes

Post by fizzjambo »

Parson Cross wrote:I think you are having a pop pal, or at least that's how you are coming over, but this is a forum, and everyone has a view so I respect that.
Think its best to just agree to disagree but for the record, knowing where you've been, and how you've been Fewkey fuckin well done for achieving what you did in tems of weight loss and prep, and hopefuly its given you a new focus.
Not having a pop mate, never met the bloke so no reason other than just being a p***k to do so. Since I don't know him I don't know what he's been through (or not) of late so I'm not fit to comment on that. All I'm saying is that when I've seen him he didn't look a big lightweight, though he impressed me with his skills, combinations and style.

My concern in a nutshell is he looks like a fighter who, not having much pop and with his style and height, needs to fight at his optimum weight to be succesful - not his fault IMO. He needs to be able to throw a good volume of punches per round, maintain his work rate throughout and keep sharp - fighting at your 'fit' weight is key to these traits.

Earlier in this thread I've praised his wins over Watson and Tonchev, they were excellent. I wish him all the best but I don't see this going well above 140. I actually think this is a real shame as he's a skilled kid, but any welter/light-middle who can punch a bit and is fit will, I fear, produce a result I do not want to see.
Parson Cross
Super Middleweight
Posts: 1991
Joined: 03 Dec 2012, 18:57

Re: John Fewkes

Post by Parson Cross »

He's put himself through the mill mate outside the ring. Simple as.
Let's see what he weigh for the next one.
It'll say it all I guess.
dondada
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 8872
Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 10:55

Re: John Fewkes

Post by dondada »

fizzjambo wrote: He needs to be able to throw a good volume of punches per round
He never did this when he was 10st. He probably has the lowest punch rate/win round ratio I've ever seen.

He's still boxing over where he should be, that's true.
fizzjambo
Cruiserweight
Posts: 1283
Joined: 22 Sep 2010, 10:36

Re: John Fewkes

Post by fizzjambo »

Parson Cross wrote:He's put himself through the mill mate outside the ring. Simple as.
Let's see what he weigh for the next one.
It'll say it all I guess.
100% mate. Best luck to the kid anyway, I just hope he acheives his full potential from this point :TU:
fizzjambo
Cruiserweight
Posts: 1283
Joined: 22 Sep 2010, 10:36

Re: John Fewkes

Post by fizzjambo »

dondada wrote:
fizzjambo wrote: He needs to be able to throw a good volume of punches per round
He never did this when he was 10st. He probably has the lowest punch rate/win round ratio I've ever seen.

He's still boxing over where he should be, that's true.
True but I never felt I saw him in really outstanding shape and I do feel him upping his punch volume, though obviously still picking them, and keeping his style would help him a lot.

Like I've said above good luck to him, I just think he'll get the most out of this come back at 135 maybe 140 that's all :TU:
saturday_kid
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 847
Joined: 14 May 2009, 04:05

Re: John Fewkes

Post by saturday_kid »

dondada wrote:
G0mez wrote:I was ringside for Gethin vs Fewkes. Whilst no doubt Fewkes had issues , it was a good performance by Gethin.

I spoke to John afterwards and he was pretty jovial about it, I think he'd lost the hunger for it at that point.
Fewkey was knackered. He only had about three rounds in him and he won every one easily. Gethin couldn't touch him. Then John predictably imploded and Gethin took advantage.

Despite a lack of pop, John should have got to Euro level.
Bollocks, Gethin starts slow sometimes - people use that as an excuse for Fewkes about this fight all the time it winds me up. Gethin was great that night (same with Gethins victory over Siddique that was a great fight)
dondada
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 8872
Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 10:55

Re: John Fewkes

Post by dondada »

saturday_kid wrote:
dondada wrote:
G0mez wrote:I was ringside for Gethin vs Fewkes. Whilst no doubt Fewkes had issues , it was a good performance by Gethin.

I spoke to John afterwards and he was pretty jovial about it, I think he'd lost the hunger for it at that point.
Fewkey was knackered. He only had about three rounds in him and he won every one easily. Gethin couldn't touch him. Then John predictably imploded and Gethin took advantage.

Despite a lack of pop, John should have got to Euro level.
Bollocks, Gethin starts slow sometimes - people use that as an excuse for Fewkes about this fight all the time it winds me up. Gethin was great that night (same with Gethins victory over Siddique that was a great fight)
John collapsed on the scales the day before because he'd f**ked his weight up. Gethin hardly landed a glove on him, if at all, until John's arse gave out and then Gethin, quite rightly, pounced on him and finished him. Well, I say pounced but it wasn't really like that. Gethin took a little while to get him out of there, from memory, even though Fewkes was knackered after about two and a half rounds.

Gethin is a model pro, always fit and raring to go. He did what he had to do - I'm not knocking the lad at all.

He might start slowly but had Fewkes been fit and right, he would have stood him on his head. Point is, he wasn't and didn't - fair play to Gethin.
Parson Cross
Super Middleweight
Posts: 1991
Joined: 03 Dec 2012, 18:57

Re: John Fewkes

Post by Parson Cross »

Sounds like Fewkey out again next February.
Chambers2
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6499
Joined: 24 Feb 2004, 07:24

Re: John Fewkes

Post by Chambers2 »

I was a fan of Fewkeys back in the day, you couldn't hit him with a bag of rice at his best. It'll be interesting to see what a fully focused fireball can do, there are some good domestic fights for him at 147 if he can get in title contention.

Fizzjambo, you've got issues. You've wrote the bloke off without him throwing a punch
JamesH
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1897
Joined: 08 Aug 2008, 09:16

Re: John Fewkes

Post by JamesH »

dondada wrote: John collapsed on the scales the day before because he'd f**ked his weight up. Gethin hardly landed a glove on him, if at all, until John's arse gave out and then Gethin, quite rightly, pounced on him and finished him. Well, I say pounced but it wasn't really like that. Gethin took a little while to get him out of there, from memory, even though Fewkes was knackered after about two and a half rounds.

Gethin is a model pro, always fit and raring to go. He did what he had to do - I'm not knocking the lad at all.

He might start slowly but had Fewkes been fit and right, he would have stood him on his head. Point is, he wasn't and didn't - fair play to Gethin.
That is chapter and verse of that fight. I didn't know about the day before at the time of the fight, and half way through round two Fewkes was like a balloon that just sudden burst out of nowhere. Gethin rightfully got credit at the time, but the fact is that a fit Fewkes would have got the win that night.
Post Reply