BoxRec

Horse wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:I scored the fight for him. So yeah he's the Heavyweight Champion. That's all the credit either of them deserve for that joke of a fight.

It was a good fight, very underrated.

Fantastic performance from Fury.

It was an interesting fight. I couldn't take my eyes off it but I wouldn't say it was a good fight. I enjoyed it regardless and it was a fantastic performance.

gilgamesh wrote:

mullenman wrote:Pacman would easily beat Kell brook

In his prime yeah. Now...I doubt it very much. It's not out of the question he'd still beat him, but there's no way in hell it'd be easy.

Yeah I don't think Pac beats Brook easy. It would be a good fight and a 50/50 for me. I'd fancy Brook against Thurman and Bradley.

gilgamesh wrote:What would you consider a bad fight if that wasn't one?

Liam Smith vs Predrag Radosevic.

rossij8 wrote:I always think fights that have (BBC) Radio 5 Live as a broadcaster for our boxers is a yardstick on whether you are in an elite class or popular (the two could be different)

Off the top of my head from last year onwards, Fury, Crolla, Khan, Frampton v Quigg (UK unification), Frampton v Santa Cruz and Brook have been given big commentaries on their world title fights

Liam Smith hardly got a mention last night and I don't think Degale or Groves got a slot either with their world title fights

Joshua is also covered on 5 Live, although obviously for popularity reasons rather than class reasons.

Stuarty30 wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

mullenman wrote:Pacman would easily beat Kell brook

In his prime yeah. Now...I doubt it very much. It's not out of the question he'd still beat him, but there's no way in hell it'd be easy.

Yeah I don't think Pac beats Brook easy. It would be a good fight and a 50/50 for me. I'd fancy Brook against Thurman and Bradley.

50/50 for me as well

Boxerbeetle wrote:

rossij8 wrote:I always think fights that have (BBC) Radio 5 Live as a broadcaster for our boxers is a yardstick on whether you are in an elite class or popular (the two could be different)

Off the top of my head from last year onwards, Fury, Crolla, Khan, Frampton v Quigg (UK unification), Frampton v Santa Cruz and Brook have been given big commentaries on their world title fights

Liam Smith hardly got a mention last night and I don't think Degale or Groves got a slot either with their world title fights

Joshua is also covered on 5 Live, although obviously for popularity reasons rather than class reasons.

And AJ sorry

Really obvious - they would be doing a whole week of build up as well

Degale-Dirrell was on five live, I think?

Stuarty30 wrote:It was an interesting fight. I couldn't take my eyes off it but I wouldn't say it was a good fight. I enjoyed it regardless and it was a fantastic performance.

The stakes were very high, one punch could change everything and it was very tense.

They weren't slugging it out, but it was competitive and important.

Some people would prefer to watch a prospect beat up a no-hoper journeyman.

Personally I'd say the term 'elite' should be used for the absolute best of the best and that's it (certainly not for anyone outside of the P4P top 10). It's a phrase which is bandied about far too often in sport, as is 'world class', which is increasingly meaningless with each passing year in boxing due to the proliferation of titles.

Off the top of my head, I'd say Ward, Golovkin, Kovalev, Crawford, Lomachenko, Gonzalez are elite fighters. I'm not sure if any current British boxers deserve to be called elite, tbh.

Counter-puncher wrote:Degale-Dirrell was on five live, I think?

I hope they did but not sure - I always have radio on at night, helps me sleep

Elite for me is those at the absolute top of the game. The only Brit that possibly ticks that box for me is Frampton.

Gonzales, Kovalev, Ward, Canelo, GGG. They are elite fighters. Is Frampton in that class? Maybe.

Boxerbeetle wrote:Personally I'd say the term 'elite' should be used for the absolute best of the best and that's it (certainly not for anyone outside of the P4P top 10). It's a phrase which is bandied about far too often in sport, as is 'world class', which is increasingly meaningless with each passing year in boxing due to the proliferation of titles.

Off the top of my head, I'd say Ward, Golovkin, Kovalev, Crawford, Lomachenko, Gonzalez are elite fighters. I'm not sure if any current British boxers deserve to be called elite, tbh.

Fury and Frampton both have solid claims for being in the P4P top 10.

Lomachenko has done nowhere near enough to be getting called elite as a pro.

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:It was an interesting fight. I couldn't take my eyes off it but I wouldn't say it was a good fight. I enjoyed it regardless and it was a fantastic performance.

The stakes were very high, one punch could change everything and it was very tense.

They weren't slugging it out, but it was competitive and important.

Some people would prefer to watch a prospect beat up a no-hoper journeyman.

I'd rather watch evenly matched fights but for me 'good fights' are the type I'd watch again and again and the Fury v Wlad fight doesn't fall in to that category. I enjoyed it at the time because of the tension etc as you said but it's not a fight I'd rush to watch again in hindsight.

Stuarty30 wrote:

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:It was an interesting fight. I couldn't take my eyes off it but I wouldn't say it was a good fight. I enjoyed it regardless and it was a fantastic performance.

The stakes were very high, one punch could change everything and it was very tense.

They weren't slugging it out, but it was competitive and important.

Some people would prefer to watch a prospect beat up a no-hoper journeyman.

I'd rather watch evenly matched fights but for me 'good fights' are the type I'd watch again and again and the Fury v Wlad fight doesn't fall in to that category. I enjoyed it at the time because of the tension etc as you said but it's not a fight I'd rush to watch again in hindsight.

These are the casuals, I can actually quote a couple of them I know 'I just want to see knockouts'

Horse wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:Personally I'd say the term 'elite' should be used for the absolute best of the best and that's it (certainly not for anyone outside of the P4P top 10). It's a phrase which is bandied about far too often in sport, as is 'world class', which is increasingly meaningless with each passing year in boxing due to the proliferation of titles.

Off the top of my head, I'd say Ward, Golovkin, Kovalev, Crawford, Lomachenko, Gonzalez are elite fighters. I'm not sure if any current British boxers deserve to be called elite, tbh.

Fury and Frampton both have solid claims for being in the P4P top 10.

Lomachenko has done nowhere near enough to be getting called elite as a pro.

Loma's resume is clearly still lacking depth, although I think Russell would have a good chance of beating LSC and I consider GR better than Quigg. Rocky Martinez was also probably around the same level as Kiko.

rossij8 wrote:These are the casuals, I can actually quote a couple of them I know 'I just want to see knockouts'

Is it legal to set up a boxing ring in a nightclub and allow drunk revellers to get in the ring and batter each other?

I can imagine most people would probably enjoy watching that more than a proper professional boxing match.

mullenman wrote:Don't let the paper titles fool you..
There is three world elite level brits.....
Frampton
Fury
Degale..

Crolla joins the list of he beats linares

It's harsh to leave out Joshua at HW and Brook WW, I'd say – though I do like the polemic approach to this topic. It sure has been a bad couple of weeks for british fighters.

Horse wrote:

rossij8 wrote:These are the casuals, I can actually quote a couple of them I know 'I just want to see knockouts'

Is it legal to set up a boxing ring in a nightclub and allow drunk revellers to get in the ring and batter each other?

I can imagine most people would probably enjoy watching that more than a proper professional boxing match.

I can Horse

crusader wrote:Loma's resume is clearly still lacking depth, although I think Russell would have a good chance of beating LSC and I consider GR better than Quigg. Rocky Martinez was also probably around the same level as Kiko.

Lomachenko is slowly building a solid record, but he's not there yet.

I think only having 7 fights in 3 years is a bit daft.

Horse wrote:

rossij8 wrote:These are the casuals, I can actually quote a couple of them I know 'I just want to see knockouts'

Is it legal to set up a boxing ring in a nightclub and allow drunk revellers to get in the ring and batter each other?

I can imagine most people would probably enjoy watching that more than a proper professional boxing match.

Sounds a good pub

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:It was an interesting fight. I couldn't take my eyes off it but I wouldn't say it was a good fight. I enjoyed it regardless and it was a fantastic performance.

The stakes were very high, one punch could change everything and it was very tense.

They weren't slugging it out, but it was competitive and important.

Some people would prefer to watch a prospect beat up a no-hoper journeyman.

I'd prefer to see both fighters throwing punches instead of one fighter throwing 3 or 4 punches every minute and the other fighter trying to win a staring contest.

Horse wrote:

rossij8 wrote:These are the casuals, I can actually quote a couple of them I know 'I just want to see knockouts'

Is it legal to set up a boxing ring in a nightclub and allow drunk revellers to get in the ring and batter each other?

I can imagine most people would probably enjoy watching that more than a proper professional boxing match.

I'm no casual fan, but if Fury vs Wlad wasn't a suck ass fight to you, then there must no such thing as a boring fight. If I was a casual fan I'd have changed the channel after 2 rounds of that crap. Instead I suffered through it, getting sicker and sicker along the way at the complete lack of effort from Wladimir.

gilgamesh wrote:I'm no casual fan, but if Fury vs Wlad wasn't a suck ass fight to you, then there must no such thing as a boring fight. If I was a casual fan I'd have changed the channel after 2 rounds of that crap. Instead I suffered through it, getting sicker and sicker along the way at the complete lack of effort from Wladimir.

Uncompetitive, low-level garbage is far more boring to me.

Fury vs Klitschko was one of the best fights of the year as far as I'm concerned.

Horse wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:I'm no casual fan, but if Fury vs Wlad wasn't a suck ass fight to you, then there must no such thing as a boring fight. If I was a casual fan I'd have changed the channel after 2 rounds of that crap. Instead I suffered through it, getting sicker and sicker along the way at the complete lack of effort from Wladimir.

Uncompetitive, low-level garbage is far more boring to me.

Fury vs Klitschko was one of the best fights of the year as far as I'm concerned.

Is Fury related to you?

gilgamesh wrote:

Horse wrote:

rossij8 wrote:These are the casuals, I can actually quote a couple of them I know 'I just want to see knockouts'

Is it legal to set up a boxing ring in a nightclub and allow drunk revellers to get in the ring and batter each other?

I can imagine most people would probably enjoy watching that more than a proper professional boxing match.

I'm no casual fan, but if Fury vs Wlad wasn't a suck ass fight to you, then there must no such thing as a boring fight. If I was a casual fan I'd have changed the channel after 2 rounds of that crap. Instead I suffered through it, getting sicker and sicker along the way at the complete lack of effort from Wladimir.

As a Fury / UK boxing fan was a brilliant fight to watch - couldn't take my eyes off it

I'm sure it was the same for most true boxing fans even the fringe ones, maybe a few of the casuals as at any point one punch could have changed it

It didn't so I can see why people were disapointed after