BoxRec

My apologies mate you're right, badly worded.
But you get my drift.
I want to see Martin with a World title but the GGG route isn't the right one.
I'd back Martin all day against Barker or Geale.
I just think he will lose against GGG and regardless of whether he puts on a great show it will be another negative on the record.
The record is king not the performance.

Parson Cross wrote:My apologies mate you're right, badly worded.
But you get my drift.
I want to see Martin with a World title but the GGG route isn't the right one.
I'd back Martin all day against Barker or Geale.
I just think he will lose against GGG and regardless of whether he puts on a great show it will be another negative on the record.
The record is king not the performance.

Good post

Murray is good enough to seize a belt but will not take Golovkins who went through Macklin like a breeze; he's been jobbed twice already and doesn't need to be the 'nearly man'; none of our top middles would last a combined 12 rounds v Golovkin but Murray can win a title.

Parson Cross wrote:My apologies mate you're right, badly worded.
But you get my drift.
I want to see Martin with a World title but the GGG route isn't the right one.
I'd back Martin all day against Barker or Geale.
I just think he will lose against GGG and regardless of whether he puts on a great show it will be another negative on the record.
The record is king not the performance.

The problem with that approach is it advocates ducking fights to an extent and not fighting the best. I agree with the general sentiment though. It's unlikely he'll be able to beat Golovkin though.

Maybe I've been around boxing too long mate, but since when have our fighters ever simply fought the best ?
Get real mate.
Boxing is like snakes and ladders.
Sometimes that means turning left instead of right at the junction.
You call it ducking - I call it good management.

Parson Cross wrote:Maybe I've been around boxing too long mate, but since when have our fighters ever simply fought the best ?
Get real mate.
Boxing is like snakes and ladders.
Sometimes that means turning left instead of right at the junction.
You call it ducking - I call it good management.

Carl Froch?

Are you telling me that at every stage of Carl's career he simply took on the best ?
I hope you dont want me to post a list of UK fighters who didn't fight the best - I can't afford to waste hour upon hour typing.
Maybe it's me just getting old.
I wish I had a fiver for every press conference I've been to when politically correct answers were given for fights not taking place when we all knew the reason why.

Parson Cross wrote:Are you telling me that at every stage of Carl's career he simply took on the best ?
I hope you dont want me to post a list of UK fighters who didn't fight the best - I can't afford to waste hour upon hour typing.
Maybe it's me just getting old.
I wish I had a fiver for every press conference I've been to when politically correct answers were given for fights not taking place when we all knew the reason why.

No im not saying he's fought the best at every stage of his career. However when he's got to world level, more often that not he has. I dont disagree with your general sentiment it's just that maybe the fact that the best isnt fighting the best, is part of the reason boxing isnt a mainstream sport anymore. For instance in football you wouldnt be able to get away with being Manchester united and playing cardiff in every match.

columbo wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:Are you telling me that at every stage of Carl's career he simply took on the best ?
I hope you dont want me to post a list of UK fighters who didn't fight the best - I can't afford to waste hour upon hour typing.
Maybe it's me just getting old.
I wish I had a fiver for every press conference I've been to when politically correct answers were given for fights not taking place when we all knew the reason why.

No im not saying he's fought the best at every stage of his career. However when he's got to world level, more often that not he has. I dont disagree with your general sentiment it's just that maybe the fact that the best isnt fighting the best, is part of the reason boxing isnt a mainstream sport anymore. For instance in football you wouldnt be able to get away with being Manchester united and playing cardiff in every match.

But a football team plays maybe 60 games over a season; a boxer maybe 3 bouts. There just aren't that many top flight names or television dates for more. If Man United plated 100 games a season thy'd be packed out and have the pubs packed with people watching on TV.

palooka wrote:

columbo wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:Are you telling me that at every stage of Carl's career he simply took on the best ?
I hope you dont want me to post a list of UK fighters who didn't fight the best - I can't afford to waste hour upon hour typing.
Maybe it's me just getting old.
I wish I had a fiver for every press conference I've been to when politically correct answers were given for fights not taking place when we all knew the reason why.

No im not saying he's fought the best at every stage of his career. However when he's got to world level, more often that not he has. I dont disagree with your general sentiment it's just that maybe the fact that the best isnt fighting the best, is part of the reason boxing isnt a mainstream sport anymore. For instance in football you wouldnt be able to get away with being Manchester united and playing cardiff in every match.

But a football team plays maybe 60 games over a season; a boxer maybe 3 bouts. There just aren't that many top flight names or television dates for more. If Man United plated 100 games a season thy'd be packed out and have the pubs packed with people watching on TV.

Yeah I know it's not exactly the same in that sense. I just mean general nature of competition of other sports vs boxing.

Columbo,
I suspect from your response that you're a youngish lad.
I don't say that in patronising way but you've summarised the situation that has been and will be forevermore. The best rarely fight the best and that's why boxing is marginalised.
Now is that right or wrong ?
Depends upon your role I guess.
As a fan ? - No its not right.
As a fighter ?
As a Manager ?
As a Promotor ?

Parson Cross wrote:Columbo,
I suspect from your response that you're a youngish lad.
I don't say that in patronising way but you've summarised the situation that has been and will be forevermore. The best rarely fight the best and that's why boxing is marginalised.
Now is that right or wrong ?
Depends upon your role I guess.
As a fan ? - No its not right.
As a fighter ?
As a Manager ?
As a Promotor ?

I do understand where you're coming from. What is your role in boxing by the way? That isnt meant in a patronising way either.

For what it's worth and going against my argument, Murray is probably better off waiting to see the result of Barker vs Geale. If Barker wins then he has a potential big domestic world title fight. It's a risky game though as the opportunity with Golovkin might not be there and Barker could lose.

Parson Cross wrote:My apologies mate you're right, badly worded.
But you get my drift.
I want to see Martin with a World title but the GGG route isn't the right one.
I'd back Martin all day against Barker or Geale.
I just think he will lose against GGG and regardless of whether he puts on a great show it will be another negative on the record.
The record is king not the performance.

It will take someone special to derail GGG on his recent performances.

Murray is good enough to win a title he's proved that but I think your right right it won't be against GGG. Saying that I suppose if the offer is right for him he'll take it.