BoxRec

Old bones Ian wrote:Is Fewkes v Murray not going to happen now?

Not yet. Murray boxed for the British title and Fewkes for the English.

Not quite sure how/why people are rating Murray over Fewkes though, bearing in mind the latter holds a win over Craig Watson.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Old bones Ian wrote:Is Fewkes v Murray not going to happen now?

Not yet. Murray boxed for the British title and Fewkes for the English.

Not quite sure how/why people are rating Murray over Fewkes though, bearing in mind the latter holds a win over Craig Watson.

i think its cause he isnt promoted as well on the internet i.e. wellington & BBN interviews

Fewkes could be Murray's Michael Watson.

DavidPayne wrote:Fewkes could be Murray's Michael Watson.

Watson could be Fewkes' Michael Murray.

Your move.

Queen b4 - c5 check!!

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:Fewkes could be Murray's Michael Watson.

Watson could be Fewkes' Michael Murray.

Your move.

Nah, you got me.

Old bones Ian wrote:Is Fewkes v Murray not going to happen now?

Fewkes has to beat Gethin for the English belt, then probably build himself up to British mandatory status.

Otherwise, he'll have to create demand for a Murray fight.


If Murray trounces/retires another top 10 Brit, it'll be hard to put Fewkes above him in the British top 10. Nice win over hot & cold Watson - very nice indeed - but Fewkes' performance dropped off vs Gary Reid, and now he's going for the English belt. Whereas Murray has the British title & wants to prove himself vs #1 and #2, Thaxton & Khan.

Would u still see limmond as Khans hardest fight? I would have KHAN 1 and Limmond 2 then thaxton then murray,

I really rate limmond and think this step up has done him really good, he wasnt ready for arthur and we all seen what he done to khan,, could have really finished off khan in that round and we all know the count was 13 seconds, but thats all in the best anyway, Limmond would hammer Gomez, Meager ect,,,,,,,,

Anyone else think Limmond vs Murray would be a belter???

Where would the other Murray, Irish Lightweight and Light welter champion Andy, rank against those boys?

I have to say, I rated him realy highly but having watch John Murray v Meager and then watched highlights of Andy outpointing Peter McDonagh, the Manchester man looks a good bit ahead at this stage...

Feewkes 22 and never been out of second gear, watched him once in the gym when He had to, and was very impressed. Also seen Him recently and Hes starting to wack a bit.

hitman_hatton1 wrote:i still think thaxton deserves the tag at the moment.

khan in 2nd.

Deserves it on paper, but quite simply isn't anywhere near as good as Khan. Still would be an excellent fight and Thaxton could clock him. I'd have Murray then Limond.

Shoud set this up for the same bill. Promotion is well easy.

Thaxton doesn't deserve it on paper.

1) He just got his arse handed to him.

2) Khan has beaten their common opponents in more convincing style.

3) Khan has the better wins.... Kristjansen drew with Zoff who ran Romanov to a SD out in the Ukraine in December. Limond is a top #5 Lightweight, Earl was ranked #1 or #2 at the time,

Earl, Limond and Kristjansen is much more daunting than Stewart, Lawton and Meager. 3 lower half top ten fighters.

And thats not mentioning St Clair.

1. Murray
2. Thaxton
3. Khan
4. Limond
5. Fewkes
6. Meager

I don't think Meager deserves to be in the top #6... he's 1-2-1 in his last 4 and those two defeats were pretty comprehensive.

Earl might be 0-2 in his last two - but holds better wins and he was competitive in one of them.

Also might consider Lee McAllister.

On form/British boxers beaten, Khan has the better results on paper :Limmond, Earl, Lawton:

1) Khan
2) Murray
3) Thaxton


Personal choice would be, because when crunch time has arrived Murray has absolutely smashed Hickman and Meager:

1) Murray
2) Khan
3) Thaxton

We need Murray and Khan to box so we're not playing guessing games...Murray wants it, so it's over to Khan!

Could you say the same with Khan... if you pick Khan's two most dangerous opponents - Earl and St Clair... well he beat them every bit as impresively as Murray did Hickman and Meager.

Okay, he had "bad" performances vs Limond and Gomez (I disagree that the latter was a bad performance)... but then so has Murray.

Plus its all about levels... I'm sorry but Earl and St Clair are much more dangerous than Meager and Hickman.

stujones wrote:Could you say the same with Khan... if you pick Khan's two most dangerous opponents - Earl and St Clair... well he beat them every bit as impresively as Murray did Hickman and Meager.

Okay, he had "bad" performances vs Limond and Gomez (I disagree that the latter was a bad performance)... but then so has Murray.

Plus its all about levels... I'm sorry but Earl and St Clair are much more dangerous than Meager and Hickman.

There is so much more money to bring opponents in for Khan, though isn't there?

Murray's had about 4 fights that weren't short(ish) notice - and one of those opponents pulled out - and has had to plead for big fights while Thaxton was British champ. This shows how differently their careers have been handled.

St Clair's OK but didn't fight like he wanted to win. More like he was resigned to the fact that another light welter/considerably bigger man (take your pick, ala Corrales, Harris).

Certainly, it is all systems go for Murray now. Hickman fight showed he was ready, Meager fight a long overdue reward, and - Khan aside - they all have to come to Murray now. I'd prefer to judge him by what he does in the next few fights, as Khan has had a head start (though hasn't perhaps made as much of it as he could).

To use a Hennessy word, I don't reckon Murray will "swerve" Thaxton, Melero, a European title fight, and Romanov (should Yuri pick up some kind of nice prize).

Terry D wrote:St Clair was not a particularly dangerous SFW. At lightweight he was about as dangerous as a non-punching super-featherweight dragged up in weight to 'test' a fighter with huge question marks over his chin.

Not a particularly dangerous Super Feather - the man was a world champion. Something Meager and Hickman are not remotely close to getting.

St Clair would beat the pair of them at Lightweight, so would Kristjansen - easy.

But because its the SN "golden boy" he gets rediculously lambasted for no reason. I mean its alright to condem the likes of Kristjansen and Gomez as unworthy - but when the older Murray fought Hickman its like an "acid test"... Its Dean Hickman! Never been in the top #10.

If Murray fought Gomez do you think there would have been the thread after thread of criticism... let alone Kristjansen. If Murray would have fought Kristjansen I would think a few posters would have called it a 50:50 fight and a true acid test.

Sure I am dissapointed in the fact that I think this country has the naturally talented fighter who I think if guided correctly could be a geniune world champion by now and a long reigning one that could have the potential to fulfil the potential that Naz never fulfilled (if that made sence). BUT, I don't think this bias should not account for the fact that he has beaten better fighters than Murray has in as equally clinical fashion.

As I said, if Murray had fought some of these "lesser" Khan opponents... like Gomez, Kristjansen, etc - there would be many a fight fan masterbating at the prospect of an acid test... but Khan is held in a different light, and because of this - these opponents are considered worthless and therefore Khan gets criticised.... rightfully maybe, but don't think Murray's opponents are any better.

Lets be honest, if SN announced that Khan was fighting Meager (or Hickman LOL) and not Gomez last time. How many would have been satisfied. A proven non-punching Lightweight who hasn't had a meaningful win in a long time, is damaged goods and wasn't particularly good a champion in the first place. or a non-proven (in terms of power) bulked up Super Feather, hasn't had a meaningful win in a long time, damaged goods, but was a good champion in his prime and a proven puncher at Super Feather.

There would have been the equal outrage... possibly more. But because Murray smashed him all of a sudden he is better?

There is a massive difference. There has been a process of selection visible whenever Khan has fought. As I've just said, Murray didn't know who he was even fighting, a week or 2 before most of his fights.

Khan was a main event fighter from the beginning, whereas Murray has only just started topping bills. I don't think your comparison if fair, or funny.

It was an excellent performance that beat Meager. That is what a lightweight prospect is supposed to do.

If you want to talk about shot Stu, look at Gomez and Earl, who had been pummeled in very recent fights. These bouts are chosen weighing up the risks, whereas Murray's was a long overdue big fight.

Autobarn wrote:There is a massive difference. There has been a process of selection visible whenever Khan has fought. As I've just said, Murray didn't know who he was even fighting, a week or 2 before most of his fights.

Khan was a main event fighter from the beginning, whereas Murray has only just started topping bills. I don't think your comparison if fair, or funny.

It was an excellent performance that beat Meager. That is what a lightweight prospect is supposed to do.

If you want to talk about shot Stu, look at Gomez and Earl, who had been pummeled in very recent fights. These bouts are chosen weighing up the risks, whereas Murray's was a long overdue big fight.

So essentially you are saying because Khan is a "golden boy" who did well in the Am's that we should hold him all together in a different light and have a completely different expectations?

Well maybe, but it shouldn't influence a fighters ranking - Khan's beaten the better fighters by some way and done it every bit as impressively. If you want to condem the struggles he had against Gomez and Limond - fine, but Murray had struggles against fighters any prospect shouldn't have a problem with - irrespective of the time situation.

And lets not forget St Clair was a late replacement also.

As I said - gets notice and beats Meager and its wow, wow, wee wow - how brilliant was he.

Khan smashes Earl and it was mis match.

As I'll repeat - if Khan beat Meager, no matter what the fashion there would have been more critcisms than praise based on the opponent. Meager would not be a Big fight for Khan, just cause it was for Murray doesn't mean he should be considered the better man.

stu there is no point arguing in a pro khan fashion, us brits dont like winners

we like nearly men, and the good old runners up medal

i wish tim henman hadnt retied, wimbledon just wasnt the same this year

stujones wrote:

Autobarn wrote:There is a massive difference. There has been a process of selection visible whenever Khan has fought. As I've just said, Murray didn't know who he was even fighting, a week or 2 before most of his fights.

Khan was a main event fighter from the beginning, whereas Murray has only just started topping bills. I don't think your comparison if fair, or funny.

It was an excellent performance that beat Meager. That is what a lightweight prospect is supposed to do.

If you want to talk about shot Stu, look at Gomez and Earl, who had been pummeled in very recent fights. These bouts are chosen weighing up the risks, whereas Murray's was a long overdue big fight.

So essentially you are saying because Khan is a "golden boy" who did well in the Am's that we should hold him all together in a different light and have a completely different expectations?

Well maybe, but it shouldn't influence a fighters ranking - Khan's beaten the better fighters by some way and done it every bit as impressively. If you want to condem the struggles he had against Gomez and Limond - fine, but Murray had struggles against fighters any prospect shouldn't have a problem with - irrespective of the time situation.

And lets not forget St Clair was a late replacement also.

As I said - gets notice and beats Meager and its wow, wow, wee wow - how brilliant was he.

Khan smashes Earl and it was mis match.

As I'll repeat - if Khan beat Meager, no matter what the fashion there would have been more critcisms than praise based on the opponent. Meager would not be a Big fight for Khan, just cause it was for Murray doesn't mean he should be considered the better man.

Khan could have got a Meager fight any time and would have gotten credit for winning. It would have been a nice test on the way up. The "impressive" win over Gomez (stopped in a 130-lb British ttile fight) is below guys like Meager (winning & losing the British 135-lb crown).

Definitely, Khan would have beaten Meager, and Murray would have beaten Earl. Meager wasn't in his prime, but Earl was coming off serious beatings that had ppl wanting him to retire.

Khan has had opportunity on his side so I just think his career should have been a bit more satisfying. Murray's career hasn't been satisfying, as he has been on the backburner while his stablemates were all getting title fights (Meager, Stewart, Thaxton) which allowed Murray to get fed up with boxing, his performances falling off.

It does look like Khan is going to continue fighting smaller men. Gainer was offered - a sign of things to come. Cook-Arthur winner - hopefully Arthur wins, as he is naturally a lightweight at least.

Murray has indicated that he is gunning for big names. Wants Khan (natural 140), Thaxton (former British 135 champ, former challenger at 140), Melero (former EBU champ, fights for vacant title v Thaxton); Fewkes will probably earn a British title shot - he's won fights at 140. At least Meager's a natural lightweight, and Hickman a fairly tough light welter.

It just looks a bit weird, a natural light welter like Khan racing around the ring vs much smaller men. It almost feels like the rug has been pulled from under Khan, like he was tricked into thinking he's better than he is (Earl), so that when he considers making it on his own, Warren can show him where he's really at (the Gomez fight), so that Khan will let Warren "look after" him.

I think Khan and Murray are two of our brightest hopes in this country. They have been brought along in very different ways. It doesn't look like they'll fight any time soon, so threads like this are going to carry on.

sweetscience wrote:stu there is no point arguing in a pro khan fashion, us brits dont like winners

we like nearly men, and the good old runners up medal

i wish tim henman hadnt retied, wimbledon just wasnt the same this year

There is winning. And there is equivocating.

Dictionary definition of equivocate:

to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead; prevaricate or hedge

This is what is happening having a natural 140 kid, who drains down to 135, beat natural 130-pounders.

You say Meager would have been applauded had he faced Khan instead of Gomez. Sorry no way... just look at the threads and threads, post after post of people criticising Kistrjansen.

Here you have a geniune prime Lightweight..... who held a former World champion to a draw. Was Steffano Zoff shot... maybe - but then he WENT on to hold Ramanov to a VERY close decision in the Ukraine. This is the Ramonov who is now being hyped, cause he beat the British "underdog" Thaxton, as the all conquering EBU champion who has the world at his feet.

What was the post and post about... the fact that he won a MD against a Journeyman in a 6 rounder last time out. So its okay for Meager to look sloppy in his winning efforts post Thaxton, and okay for Murray to look mediocore in mark time fights. But for Khan opponents, its a big no no.

Kristjansen has deservedly been in the EBU ranking for a good while, he is a very good fighter. Sure his #1 status with the WBO was very inflated... but IMO he is a different class to Meager, he would have battered Meager. Earl and St Clair were probably Khan's best wins on paper, but Kristjansen is probably the one fighter in which its hard to make any "excuses" for.. he is what he is, a solid EBU level opponent. But yet, the criticisms are there. You can call Earl old, and St Clair small - but you really can't do that with Kristjansen.

Sure, if Khan fought Romanov at ANY time there would have been no criticisms. But if Khan beat Romanov then it would have been "well Graham Earl beat him", Steffano Zoff who is past it held him close.. the excuses would have been there.

Also, with regards to Murray's management. You make it sound like he has had no hype at all. He won the Young boxer of the year, and Hennessey has always been glowing of him. I definately don't think Hennessey would have given Stewart, Meager and all preferential treatment. Surely he knew that this fighter was better than them. Alot of Murray's activity problems have been his fault - you know that dispute with VIP and Gallagher... plus I think it is a little concerning that 22 year old fighter is saying he has motivation problems. He should just be enthusiastic just to be lacing on the gloves at this stage. I am sure Khan has thought at some stage "god, this guy is going to be a walk over" - do you see him not put his all into his training and effort in the ring?

Well, Murray was not going to be as enthusiastic as Khan, when Khan is getting big money, good opponents (Limond, Earl), while Murray was frustrated, waiting for a British title shot. For whatever reason, he was no longer enthusuiastic just to lace on gloves - see the massive difference in his performances vs spoiling fighters Ramogoadi (KO4) and Hamidi (W8). Murray certainly did not have the build up that Khan has.

Whatever it takes for a young fighter to be happy, developing, etc, should be done. Murray has all he needs right now - British title. Should be lots of good performances, lots of improvement. As he said to me last weekend, they all have to come for him now (if a Khan fight doesn't happen soon). The lad's basically not had the events (fighting very early, with little crowd, on some bigger shows), or the opponents, to make him feel inspired recently. Much different now.

Murray definitely did have setbacks - the time he fell off his bike, hit his head, and had to pull out of a Showtime date. Basically, it seems Thaxton upsetting Meager for the British title kept Murray on the backburner - Jono had his own idea where he wanted to take his career, and though Sky wanted Thaxton-Murray, Thaxton wanted a European title fight.

Well, I always wanted Khan to fight Meager. As a decent test. The fact is, there has been a massive amount of care in the choice of Khan's opponents. Whereas there hasn't really with Murray.

Murray was looking average vs opponents he's never seen before, when he was undermotivated. Bottom of the bill, about 5 ppl in the crowd, etc etc. Khan looking bad, on the top of the bill, on ITV1 (!), getting dropped by a shot Gomez (whom Carl Johanesson had already ground down). There is no comparison to the circumstances. Murray gets his British title fight, and his performance raises dramatically.


Kristiansen average, limited, can't fight coming forward. Didn't he get lucky vs Zoff?