BoxRec

Thurman vs Khan right now would be a good fight to watch. Khan with an early lead until he gets caught, lol. Khan won't even mention Thurman's name though when talking about potential bouts.

Thurman vs Brook would be good, or even see how he can do vs Porter, or try to get Guerrero again.

Badhusker wrote:Thurman vs Khan right now would be a good fight to watch. Khan with an early lead until he gets caught, lol. Khan won't even mention Thurman's name though when talking about potential bouts.

Thurman vs Brook would be good, or even see how he can do vs Porter, or try to get Guerrero again.

Keith vs any top ten guy save for Floyd would be pretty interesting imho cuz he needs to take on better guys plus he's the most fun to watch guy @ 147.

ReggieDiggs wrote:

Badhusker wrote:Thurman vs Khan right now would be a good fight to watch. Khan with an early lead until he gets caught, lol. Khan won't even mention Thurman's name though when talking about potential bouts.

Thurman vs Brook would be good, or even see how he can do vs Porter, or try to get Guerrero again.

Keith vs any top ten guy save for Floyd would be pretty interesting imho cuz he needs to take on better guys plus he's the most fun to watch guy @ 147.

The funny thing is though that whilst he's a puncher and he's fun to watch.... he's also cerebral with it. He's not a face first brawler like a rios or provodnikov. I like guys that have decent boxing skills but can punch and are entertaining with it. Rare breed.

At times like this it almost kinda makes me wonder if keith would have been better off on the "other side". Top rank is so thin at welterweight that Chris Algieri is getting a shot at pac man. Had keith been on that side he surely would have gotten a shot at least at Bradley or marquez by now. Consider that Brandon rios got a shot a pac man in his first fight at 147 and coming off of a loss.

Enough with the fantasy, I was really surprised that kell brook even mentioned Thurman after the fight the other night. it could just be posturing, but I wouldn't mind seeing keith going across the pond to try and take that belt. I think for now, that's his best opportunity.

Thurman has an interim belt, and that should be okay for now. Next step is to wait for Mayweather to fight Maidana again, and then wait for Mayweather to fight Brook. Then, after that, Thurman will get his opportunity to lose to Mayweather in September 2015. Then, Thurman can start picking-up the pieces and position himself for a winnable title shot somewhere around early 2017.

Thurman is stuck out in no mans land and no one wants to fight him.

Evander wrote:Thurman is stuck out in no mans land and no one wants to fight him.

Brook is one of the very few that publicly said he wanted to fight him. It would be a more dangerous option than Khan, but with Khan's ego he would come much cheaper, and Thurman already said he would go to the UK to fight.

ReggieDiggs wrote:
This is that GGG thing ("too good for his own good"). He doesn't have the resume yet, but obviously he's a talented guy, but he's still gonna need to fight the elite guys to become truly elite himself. It'll happen eventually just like it has for GGG in getting & winning the Geale fight.

columbo wrote: I think it's because a lot of them know that he'd take them out!

Do we really think he's that good?
Do we believe he has a chance against Mayweather.

He's good and clearly a dangerous puncher. I do think people will avoid him because the risk of fighting him doesn't outweigh the reward.
But i don't think he has a real chance against the top 3 or 4 guys.

I put him in a bracket with Maidana/khan/brook/guerrero/porter/alexander

Badhusker wrote:Thurman vs Khan right now would be a good fight to watch. Khan with an early lead until he gets caught, lol. Khan won't even mention Thurman's name though when talking about potential bouts.

Thurman vs Brook would be good, or even see how he can do vs Porter, or try to get Guerrero again.

This.

I liked the look of Porter vs Thurman before and still think it makes sense.

If Thurman's that good, this is the perfect fight to take to prove it.
Should generate good interest and after a defeat, Porter would probably fancy it too as a springboard back to the top.

I'd lean towards Thurman and wouldn't be surprised if either man found the stoppage

Jay-z should've saved his money to bid high for Thurman's next fight. Thurman is a far more exciting fighter than Quillin and Korobov (sp?).

davie wrote:

ReggieDiggs wrote:
This is that GGG thing ("too good for his own good"). He doesn't have the resume yet, but obviously he's a talented guy, but he's still gonna need to fight the elite guys to become truly elite himself. It'll happen eventually just like it has for GGG in getting & winning the Geale fight.

columbo wrote: I think it's because a lot of them know that he'd take them out!

Do we really think he's that good?
Do we believe he has a chance against Mayweather.

He's good and clearly a dangerous puncher. I do think people will avoid him because the risk of fighting him doesn't outweigh the reward.
But i don't think he has a real chance against the top 3 or 4 guys.

I put him in a bracket with Maidana/khan/brook/guerrero/porter/alexander

When I said that, I should of said bar mayweather to be fair.

High risk with low reward.

He brings nothing to the table other than potentially KO you out.

CheckHook wrote:

columbo wrote: I think it's because a lot of them know that he'd take them out!

I doubt many if any of the top welters think Thurman would beat them, that's not how fighters think, especially ones at the top of the sport. Its just a risk vs reward thing. Thurman is largely unknown so you aren't just going to give him a shot at your belt in a fight that makes no money if you can get more money for fighting guys who's limitations have already been exposed. Thurman is just going to have to get lucky and hope to find a decent fight for himself that puts him on the map or bide his time and keep racking up the KO's.

Is this why Floyd won't fight Manny?

Does he think Manny isn't well known or can't bring in his share of the PPV buys?

Risk vs reward is the coward's argument for a sport which prides itself on the courage of it's practitioners.

hulkmaniac wrote:Jay-z should've saved his money to bid high for Thurman's next fight. Thurman is a far more exciting fighter than Quillin and Korobov (sp?).

I don't think he has ran out of money. He could have both if he wanted.

G.McClellan wrote:

CheckHook wrote:

columbo wrote: I think it's because a lot of them know that he'd take them out!

I doubt many if any of the top welters think Thurman would beat them, that's not how fighters think, especially ones at the top of the sport. Its just a risk vs reward thing. Thurman is largely unknown so you aren't just going to give him a shot at your belt in a fight that makes no money if you can get more money for fighting guys who's limitations have already been exposed. Thurman is just going to have to get lucky and hope to find a decent fight for himself that puts him on the map or bide his time and keep racking up the KO's.

Is this why Floyd won't fight Manny?

Does he think Manny isn't well known or can't bring in his share of the PPV buys?

Risk vs reward is the coward's argument for a sport which prides itself on the courage of it's practitioners.

I'm not saying its the best thing about the sport, in fact, its what stops most good fights from being made, but you have to be realistic too. Fighters get a handful of big paydays at the top of the sport and if they can get $1 million + for fighting a limited, but well known fighter they are going to take that over $500k for a relatively unknown, unproven talent.... The whole Floyd vs Manny thing, I really don't care about anymore. They both had their chance to make a ton of money and give the fans the fight they wanted and for reasons I don't care about decided to do other things with their careers.

Risk vs reward is the coward's argument

No it isn't.
It can be used as an excuse by a coward, but any top level fighter that doesn't consider risk vs reward is a stooge.
You're going to fight that lion over there for this one dollar bill in my hand.
Go!

uptconnect wrote:

Risk vs reward is the coward's argument

No it isn't.
It can be used as an excuse by a coward, but any top level fighter that doesn't consider risk vs reward is a stooge.
You're going to fight that lion over there for this one dollar bill in my hand.
Go!

An absurd analogy, unrelated to boxing. I suspect you had to do that to hide the fact sport is about competition. If every fighter could do a risk v reward assessment on an opponent, you'd have every champion fighting a boxer of Rod Salka's calibre. This is why we have mandatories to force competition upon boxers and stop the sport turning into a complete farce.
The risk vs reward argument circumvents the need to face a credible opponent. The word 'coward' is defined in the dictionary as: a person who lacks courage in facing opposition.

An absurd analogy, unrelated to boxing. I suspect you had to do that to hide the fact sport is about competition.

You act as if the sport of boxing is only about competition, and not about business.
This isn't the olympics. These are guys who are damaging themselves to earn a living, while competing.
If fighter A is somewhat of a recognizable beast and guarantees a large purse, and fighter B is of the same caliber but has no recognition and brings a small purse, you don't think it's reasonable from a business standpoint to choose fighter A as the opponent? That's obvious risk vs reward assessment, my friend.
Fighter B claims to have been ducked, but oh well.
A fighter can apply risk vs reward to his choices and still wind up taking on all of those he's supposed to fight.

Intelligent risk Vs reward management doesn't involve fighters like Salka.
Salka was a simple soft touch to stay busy. There was no risk or reward for Garcia in that fight.

I say again, any fighter/manager that doesn't at least consider risk v reward, is an idiot or a stooge, or both.

I would like to see the risk vs reward in other sports as well. Team A does not play team B because....
Athlete A won't compete in the same competition as Athlete B because...
It would be great.
I don't watch boxing because of the business part of the sport, or any sport for that matter.

Emil wrote:I would like to see the risk vs reward in other sports as well. Team A does not play team B because....
Athlete A won't compete in the same competition as Athlete B because...
It would be great.
I don't watch boxing because of the business part of the sport, or any sport for that matter.

Boxing is and always has been big business and that part's not going anywhere.
Sorry. Keep watching though. The sport is great, and my favorite by far.
I accept my boxing broken because otherwise what? No boxing? No thanks.

uptconnect wrote:

Emil wrote:I would like to see the risk vs reward in other sports as well. Team A does not play team B because....
Athlete A won't compete in the same competition as Athlete B because...
It would be great.
I don't watch boxing because of the business part of the sport, or any sport for that matter.

Boxing is and always has been big business and that part's not going anywhere.
Sorry. Keep watching though. The sport is great, and my favorite by far.
I accept my boxing broken because otherwise what? No boxing? No thanks.

Then you as a consumer could have bigger say than you think.
Unfortunately, it seems many fans are defending the business part over the actual sport and seems to have a deeper interest in the business part than the actual sport of boxing.

davie wrote:

Badhusker wrote:Thurman vs Khan right now would be a good fight to watch. Khan with an early lead until he gets caught, lol. Khan won't even mention Thurman's name though when talking about potential bouts.

Thurman vs Brook would be good, or even see how he can do vs Porter, or try to get Guerrero again.

This.

I liked the look of Porter vs Thurman before and still think it makes sense.

If Thurman's that good, this is the perfect fight to take to prove it.
Should generate good interest and after a defeat, Porter would probably fancy it too as a springboard back to the top.

I'd lean towards Thurman and wouldn't be surprised if either man found the stoppage

They're friends that talked of fighting a big money fight against each other. No way they fight soon after Porter's loss.

Emil wrote:

uptconnect wrote:

Emil wrote:I would like to see the risk vs reward in other sports as well. Team A does not play team B because....
Athlete A won't compete in the same competition as Athlete B because...
It would be great.
I don't watch boxing because of the business part of the sport, or any sport for that matter.

Boxing is and always has been big business and that part's not going anywhere.
Sorry. Keep watching though. The sport is great, and my favorite by far.
I accept my boxing broken because otherwise what? No boxing? No thanks.

Then you as a consumer could have bigger say than you think.
Unfortunately, it seems many fans are defending the business part over the actual sport and seems to have a deeper interest in the business part than the actual sport of boxing.

Its not about defending anything. I love boxing and business is a part of that.
And as for consuming, sure, I watch boxing wherever and whenever I can and I have done so for 35 years now.
And at one point in time, I paid for every PPV. But as of today? I don't pay for boxing outside of my isp.
They don't get my money. They just get my interest and time.
Boycott? The only thing left is to stop watching boxing altogether, and I'd bet you anything that even if myself and a million other people stopped watching boxing in protest, the sport would continue and I would be missing all of the great fights I enjoy so much.

No thanks. Again.
I'll take my boxing how it comes.
Funny how everyone has the answer to fix boxing in a forum, yet they aren't doing sh*t either but whining about how much it sucks.

It's hysterical how little Boxing fans understand about the business side. From tallying up money using 100% of PPV sales all the way down the line. It's even funnier that understanding and accepting the business side is shunned and makes you a substandard fan.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:It's hysterical how little Boxing fans understand about the business side. From tallying up money using 100% of PPV sales all the way down the line. It's even funnier that understanding and accepting the business side is shunned and makes you a substandard fan.

Do you feel substandard?
I just say that I have personally no to extremely low interest in PPV sales in the US and such. Same goes for other sports.
And I don't accept the best not fighting the best. I guess it is what it is, but it is getting worse. I wonder if those who take a deep interest in the business part of boxing, do the same with other professional sports.