Page 2 of 3

Re: Paul Smith

Posted: 09 Oct 2013, 12:37
by mickey1975
hurlock wrote:
mickey1975 wrote:Blackledge is a decent fight and ten times harder than Buglioni would be.
Too small for 12st not even a big middle he could do l.middle!!
Luke or Paul?

Re: Paul Smith

Posted: 09 Oct 2013, 14:20
by thatllbeme
groves and degale both decided to hand the belt back rather than fight this Ndiaye fella so if they both decided to do this as they thought it was a tricky fight not worth risking losing then smiths in for a very hard fight!

Re: Paul Smith

Posted: 09 Oct 2013, 15:07
by palooka
I thought that Smith decided he would do better at middleweight after Groves chinned him; I think I read that he was to vacate the title to allow his brother to box for it? Presumably he wants to carry on and that means boxing for a 'higher' belt/title - he does not deserve a world title shot, he has been at domestic level for years - he looked fantastic last time out but I'm not sure if he only gets 'up' for local derbys. I'd watch Smith v DeGale again but I don't think it'd be fair on DeGale to go over old ground. Smith has to be worth a Euro shot though I'm not sure I've sen the champion box.

Re: Paul Smith

Posted: 09 Oct 2013, 15:14
by lefty
palooka wrote:I thought that Smith decided he would do better at middleweight after Groves chinned him; I think I read that he was to vacate the title to allow his brother to box for it? Presumably he wants to carry on and that means boxing for a 'higher' belt/title - he does not deserve a world title shot, he has been at domestic level for years - he looked fantastic last time out but I'm not sure if he only gets 'up' for local derbys. I'd watch Smith v DeGale again but I don't think it'd be fair on DeGale to go over old ground. Smith has to be worth a Euro shot though I'm not sure I've sen the champion box.
Yeah but I think a part of that was also the fact that Dodson is somewhat shot now. That wasnt a prime Dodson, we have to be honest.

Re: Paul Smith

Posted: 10 Oct 2013, 05:41
by stujones
columbo wrote:
stujones wrote:Successfully defend against Brian Magee and then possibly, maybe, talk about being a voluntary for world guys.

I still do believe that Smith can mix it with the likes of Barker, Macklin and Murray.... but just don't think he has the strength at Super Middle.
Magee is shot to poo now I think.
Maybe but there are a few levels between Kessler and Smith, particularly in terms of power.

Re: Paul Smith

Posted: 10 Oct 2013, 06:16
by JimStone
I'm not sure if he's deep in training yet but maybe Paul should fly out to Leipzig next week and put his face about. On the proviso that Stieglitz beats Ekbo a week on Saturday, he's almost certainly going to have a rubber match with Abraham. Whoever wins that will then look for at least one (perceived) soft voluntary. Paul is well inside the WBO's top 15 and I'm sure he'd get approval from the committee. Scousers should be having a provisional look at their calendars for May/June next year.

Re: Paul Smith

Posted: 10 Oct 2013, 07:41
by rpms
Smith`s always had talent but it`s his dedication that bothers me.After the Groves defeat he should be doing whatever he can to dedicate himself to the last of his career at Middleweight and give it all he`s got to make that work.Even in the recent Smith Brothers article in Boxing Monthly,Stephen and Callum mentioned Paul as the Brother least dedicated to training and that tells you all you need to know about that.

Re: Paul Smith

Posted: 10 Oct 2013, 14:48
by palooka
rpms wrote:Smith`s always had talent but it`s his dedication that bothers me.After the Groves defeat he should be doing whatever he can to dedicate himself to the last of his career at Middleweight and give it all he`s got to make that work.Even in the recent Smith Brothers article in Boxing Monthly,Stephen and Callum mentioned Paul as the Brother least dedicated to training and that tells you all you need to know about that.


Paul has been boxing for a lot longer than the others though, he's had ups and downs, injuries, losses and has had other interests as well - it'd be normal for someone 10 years into a job to be a bit jaded with the day to day grind than someone just starting out - Paul was a top amateur as well before turning pro so will have been training hard and keeping weight etc for probably 15 years - a long time.

Re: Paul Smith

Posted: 10 Oct 2013, 14:52
by lefty
palooka wrote:
rpms wrote:Smith`s always had talent but it`s his dedication that bothers me.After the Groves defeat he should be doing whatever he can to dedicate himself to the last of his career at Middleweight and give it all he`s got to make that work.Even in the recent Smith Brothers article in Boxing Monthly,Stephen and Callum mentioned Paul as the Brother least dedicated to training and that tells you all you need to know about that.


Paul has been boxing for a lot longer than the others though, he's had ups and downs, injuries, losses and has had other interests as well - it'd be normal for someone 10 years into a job to be a bit jaded with the day to day grind than someone just starting out - Paul was a top amateur as well before turning pro so will have been training hard and keeping weight etc for probably 15 years - a long time.
True but that's probably what seperates the top guys from the nearly men. I mean look at Hopkins and how long he's been boxing. The guy eats a very strict diet, most days is in bed by 9pm, etc. He's incredibly dedicated. By all accounts *though Gomez could answer this better* Froch is quite similar. Not the being in bed by 9 but the way he lives his life.

Re: Paul Smith

Posted: 10 Oct 2013, 14:58
by palooka
Yes, I think that is an element that separates the very top boxers from the next league - there is a thin line between being ultra disciplined and being obsessive - Hopkins is pretty much a one off and there won't be anyone like him for a long long time; Smith has other interests and has done well doing things his way - if he'd trained like Hopkins he wouldn't have had his career.

Re: Paul Smith

Posted: 12 Oct 2013, 05:37
by TJ77
Personally I think the Paul should hang em up.He has clawed back his "dignity" and cemented the Smith Bros

never to be repeated legacy.

He is one of the best pundits Sky use and has a good respect from all in the game.

No need risking his health.

Let his brothers have there time and work towards forging a successful career on TV.

Paid your dues nothing left to prove capitalise while you've still got it about you.

Re: Paul Smith

Posted: 12 Oct 2013, 06:12
by SteveDow
Decent domestic level fight but no more for me. He just doesn't do anything exceptionally. He punches fairly hard but not concussively, his chin is ok but not great, his speed is decent but not blinding, he's small at the weight and technically he's again decent but not exceptional.

Re: Paul Smith

Posted: 12 Oct 2013, 06:25
by baron_otto
SteveDow wrote:Decent domestic level fight but no more for me. He just doesn't do anything exceptionally. He punches fairly hard but not concussively, his chin is ok but not great, his speed is decent but not blinding, he's small at the weight and technically he's again decent but not exceptional.
I'd generally agree with that. Smith may have a couple of Euro level fights in him though and hopefully gets a shot at Sieglitz or Bika even if likely to lose.

Re: Paul Smith

Posted: 12 Oct 2013, 07:19
by lefty
SteveDow wrote:Decent domestic level fight but no more for me. He just doesn't do anything exceptionally. He punches fairly hard but not concussively, his chin is ok but not great, his speed is decent but not blinding, he's small at the weight and technically he's again decent but not exceptional.
Hoe tall is he do you think? He's listed as being 5'11 but he's always looked smaller than that to me!

Re: Paul Smith

Posted: 12 Oct 2013, 07:42
by Superheavy
TJ77 wrote:Personally I think the Paul should hang em up.He has clawed back his "dignity" and cemented the Smith Bros

never to be repeated legacy.

He is one of the best pundits Sky use and has a good respect from all in the game.

No need risking his health.

Let his brothers have there time and work towards forging a successful career on TV.

Paid your dues nothing left to prove capitalise while you've still got it about you.
Good shout :TU:

Re: Paul Smith

Posted: 12 Oct 2013, 10:39
by chiggsy
He posted something on twitter along the lines of ''boxing is full of sly bastards'' which looked like it might be a sign of him about to jump ship.

I reckon he'll do the blackledge fight and then head to fast carville.

Re: Paul Smith

Posted: 12 Oct 2013, 10:41
by lefty
chiggsy wrote:He posted something on twitter along the lines of ''boxing is full of sly bastards'' which looked like it might be a sign of him about to jump ship.

I reckon he'll do the blackledge fight and then head to fast carville.
Only sly now that his brother has jumped ship though..... didnt seem to mind the commentating gig and what have you he's had on allegedly.

Re: Paul Smith

Posted: 12 Oct 2013, 10:44
by palooka
chiggsy wrote:He posted something on twitter along the lines of ''boxing is full of sly bastards'' which looked like it might be a sign of him about to jump ship.

I reckon he'll do the blackledge fight and then head to fast carville.
Every way of making a living is full of sly bastards - there are 2 faced twats in every area of life - least he can smack em :OhYes:

Re: Paul Smith

Posted: 12 Oct 2013, 11:31
by Bard of Boxrec
Black Sam Bellamy wrote:Dont see Smith in the same light as some of the most recent posts. When was the last time he produced a performance that tells us he's anything more than a good domestic fighter ?
x2

Re: Paul Smith

Posted: 12 Oct 2013, 17:04
by hurlock
mickey1975 wrote:
hurlock wrote:
mickey1975 wrote:Blackledge is a decent fight and ten times harder than Buglioni would be.
Too small for 12st not even a big middle he could do l.middle!!
Luke or Paul?
Thought you meant blackwall :oops:
The lad who fought bjs!!

This blackedge has won 2 of his last 5 is he really title level?

Re: Paul Smith

Posted: 12 Oct 2013, 18:18
by mickey1975
He's only lost once though. In a close decision abroad against a 15-0 home fighter.

Re: Paul Smith

Posted: 12 Oct 2013, 18:19
by lefty
mickey1975 wrote:He's only lost once though. In a close decision abroad against a 15-0 home fighter.
Ive never seen him fight. Is he good enough to trouble Smith, Mickey?

Re: Paul Smith

Posted: 12 Oct 2013, 18:44
by jameswilson
danconnollyeire wrote:
mickey1975 wrote:
danconnollyeire wrote:
What? Both stopped Smith
That is his point.
It sounds like he's saying DeGail and Groves was scared to fight Smith abd they would've had a hard night? None of which is true...
They meant Ndiaye is the guy Groves and Degale chose not to face when mandated to face him for the European title.

Re: Paul Smith

Posted: 13 Oct 2013, 00:24
by mickey1975
columbo wrote:
mickey1975 wrote:He's only lost once though. In a close decision abroad against a 15-0 home fighter.
Ive never seen him fight. Is he good enough to trouble Smith, Mickey?
He's very tough. Can't see Smith knocking him out.

Re: Paul Smith

Posted: 13 Oct 2013, 07:37
by saturday_kid
Benelio wrote:I'd love to see Smith have another go at Degale. I know he got his backside handed to him in the first fight, but I have a feeling he'd have a lot more success in a rematch, and I suspect he'd prepare properly given the opportunity. I don't think Degale's impressive win (probably the best we've seen him) was purely down to speed, of which he will still be far superior.

There would be nothing in it for Degale though, so I guess it's a complete non-starter.

So he didn't prepare properly in the first fight? A fight in his hometown against a big media name and infront of thousands of his people.

If he didn't then he doesn't deserve any sort of 2nd shot.