Page 2 of 7
Re: Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant
Posted: 29 Oct 2008, 10:42
by DavidPayne
Terry D wrote:Sorry guys but good player or not from my perspective Henman was given the build-up each year and failed to win the big tournaments, which is what you expect. You could split hairs and say he won games so that makes him a loser but he sweet FA in the events that mattered, that makes him a loser in my book. He only got away with it because he is a Brit, if he was a Yank he would have been disregarded early on.
I think the point still stands. Henman failed in his biggest tests and was still given plaudits and support, Buckley helps bring fighters through and gets stick.
Personally I may give a little groan when Pete comes in the ring but that is because, as mentioned, they contests are not thrillers, on the other hand I recognise his role. Henman was built-up for a role he was never going to achieve. He also had the most misleading sporting nickname ever, he is about as tigerish as a dead fly.
In the final analysis both men will be remembered for losses, only with Peter we did not get the phoney hope of victory. A more constructive slant would have been that there are times when he gets an opening but does not pull the trigger. Not that he is the worst boxer around. I daresay there are a few unbeaten fighters who know less about defence and blocking shots than he does.
Henman was built up and exactly fulfilled his role. He was the plucky loser, difference was he had ability.
The only difference between Henman and Bruno was, Sampras never played Tiger Tim while smakecked up to the tits on coke.
Re: Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant
Posted: 29 Oct 2008, 11:07
by Shirow
Terry D wrote:Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:dbflex wrote:
"a man who should be remembered for ever as Britain’s most spectacular sporting loser."
ummm but Buckley didnt even try to win for 100's of fights
What else can you describe him as?
"plucky loser" maybe.....
I have been saying for years that people like Buckly are terrible for boxing
Who else is going to take these fights? Us lot?
I suppose the question is which is preferable a totally non-competive fight/sparring session/foregone conclusion or no fight at all. As has been said there are plenty of 'journeymen' who come and give it a proper go like Ernie Smith or Alex Spitko and a fighter who has no intention of winning removes the entertainment element of the fight. Shouldn't Buckley truly be travelling to gyms all over the country improving the skills of young boxers rather than stinking up undercards?
If a fighter's opponent drops out i would personally prefer to see a young boxer do a bit of training in the ring. Some skipping rope tricks, pads and 3 rounds of sparring with a couple of stablemates. I'd find that much more watchable than Peter Buckley going the distance with out engaging in a boxing match.
Re: Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant
Posted: 29 Oct 2008, 11:07
by Coco
I submitted a comment stating it was a poor piece of tabloid journalism, only to be told it would not be submitted due to the large volume of responses they have had.
Clearly they have cherry picked the comments they have published
Re: Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant
Posted: 29 Oct 2008, 11:14
by DavidPayne
Terry D wrote:The point is that Henman was plucked out the chorus line, coached for many years at a very good level, given huge support and was able to pursue his job without distractions. People had every right to expect success from him.
In his current role Buckley is part of a mass of guys who come in and lose fights, he is not given the level of coaching Tim had, he fights in front of crowds who want to see him laid out ASAP and he has not benefited from huge exposure and sponsorship.
On how many occasions did Tim get a call in the morning saying, "Hey Tigger. We have a free slot on a BBC televised tournament going. Why don't you nip in your Ford Ka and take a late-notice slot in the tournament? Everyone knows you will not win this one but you need the work right?"
Hueman had every advantage, Buckley did not, and in relative terms neither man won a big one. So who is the biggest let-down? How many future world Champions learned a few tricks from Henman?
Have to disagree Chambers and the rest. Henman is a waste of space in my opinion, as stated the Yanks would have tossed him aside yonks ago.
How can you slate Buckley when other losers are embraced? Bruno disgraced himself in the second Tyson fight but he got credit for it. This is a pop at an easy target in my opinion.
Khaosai, I would like to think so but two words spring to mind, Charlie Zelenoff.
I didn't compare Henman and Buckley, but I do reject the idea both are "losers". Henman was a winner and I'm sure Sampras exerted himself far more in defeating him than Freitas or Hamed did in beating Buckley.
Different horse, different course though.
Buckley's role is unrecognisable outside boxing, it doesn't exist because in all other sports its about discernible levels and structure. Only in a cup format would Buckley be able to draw a champion elect and even then what are the chances of drawing a major opponent 43 times out of 300 on that premise?
Re: Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant
Posted: 29 Oct 2008, 11:36
by black panther
stujones wrote:What I think is most wrong with the article is that the "loser" Tim Henman gets mentioned in the same bracket as Eddie the Eagle and Buckley. Tim was the fourth best player in the world at one stage, the same as "winner" Murray is now and was a semi finalists in Slams on the 3 different surfaces.
That comment from the author just shows he knows next to nothing about boxing
and tennis. Henman was a world class player - consistently in the worlds top ten and beating top players right until the end of his career. I know you could call it a stupid analogy but perhaps in boxing terms he was a good european champion who performed well in loosing efforts for a world title. Hardly comparable to Peter Buckley. How do these writers get these jobs?
Re: Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant
Posted: 29 Oct 2008, 11:52
by E
The headline is not the best, but the article is not too bad... better than the dogshit you and that half-wit Tris Dixon drum out every week.
Re: Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant
Posted: 29 Oct 2008, 11:54
by Coco
E wrote:
The headline is not the best, but the article is not too bad... better than the dogshit you and that half-wit Tris Dixon drum out every week.
You clearly buy BN to be in a position to make the comment, so i'd stop buying it if you hate it that much!
Re: Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant
Posted: 29 Oct 2008, 12:08
by dbflex
Well said, and E, if you have any evidence (i.e. stupid predicitions or comments I've/he's made in BN, shouldn't be too hard) to back up the half-wit comment. please share it with the group. We nearly made it through a whole thread without it getting personal. E, you know the drill, "you've let the forum down...
Re: Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant
Posted: 29 Oct 2008, 12:33
by rhino222
we have had this buckley debate many times, personally, whilst i admire his balls for getting in there, i think the 'going through the motions' bit and conning the public is absolutely spot on, im glad we see nobby less and less at big shows.
Re: Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant
Posted: 29 Oct 2008, 19:51
by kevin
When you speak to someone like Colin McMillan and he's honoured that Buckley says that McMillan hit him harder than anyone else, surely it speaks volumes of Buckley.
Everyone I have spoken to is absolutely gobsmacked that the Times have rated him "The World's worst boxer", Peter included!!!
Re: Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant
Posted: 29 Oct 2008, 21:48
by rhino222
buckley actually claims that duke mckenzie is the best he has ever faced.....ask him.
henman tried to win in every contest he was in, buckley has perhaps tried to win in 10%...im sorry but that is not a sporting match, he should be fined by the trading standards and the trade descriptions, all in all its a disgrace..
Re: Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant
Posted: 29 Oct 2008, 22:17
by stujones
Its massively different sports - Tim gets 4 opportunities a year to win his "world title", whereas you are talking about Buckley getting many opportunities to win a fight.
Also it would be like Nicky Cook fighting Pacquiao, Valero and Marquez for the Undisputed title and getting four chances to beat them all - would he do it? Would he heck as likely, but Nicky Cook is a winner. Sampras wasn't a bad player.
Herol Graham - is he a winner of a loser? Now he is comparible to Tim.
Re: Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant
Posted: 30 Oct 2008, 04:23
by kevin
rhino222 wrote:buckley actually claims that duke mckenzie is the best he has ever faced.....ask him.
henman tried to win in every contest he was in, buckley has perhaps tried to win in 10%...im sorry but that is not a sporting match, he should be fined by the trading standards and the trade descriptions, all in all its a disgrace..
Yes he does say Duke is the best he has faced, he also said McMillan hit him the hardest as I said above.
Re: Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant
Posted: 30 Oct 2008, 05:35
by rhino222
in my opinion its a very fair article....
Re: Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant
Posted: 30 Oct 2008, 05:36
by rhino222
kevin wrote:rhino222 wrote:buckley actually claims that duke mckenzie is the best he has ever faced.....ask him.
henman tried to win in every contest he was in, buckley has perhaps tried to win in 10%...im sorry but that is not a sporting match, he should be fined by the trading standards and the trade descriptions, all in all its a disgrace..
Yes he does say Duke is the best he has faced, he also said McMillan hit him the hardest as I said above.
yes, sorry kev, i mis read your original post, my mistake...
Re: Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant
Posted: 30 Oct 2008, 05:52
by dbflex
Sorry to be anal (leave it) Rhino but Buckley has WON over 10% of his fights so he must have tried to win over that amount, unless he won by accident.
Re: Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant
Posted: 30 Oct 2008, 07:30
by gobbles
So, if you only made an effort one day out of every ten you went to work, would you get fired or would people say "you can't criticise him, he's a great servant"?
And who made Danny Flexen the moral voice of boxing? I've seen him slag off boxers in Boxing News reports.
It's OK to slag off Amir Khan but not Peter Buckley - who has done more for boxing and why is Peter Buckley off bounds? He had his face on the cover of The Times and was on the BBC News. OK, they both slightly took the piss, but surely that is good coverage for boxing and better than a small "tribute" in Boxing News. He's not won in five years, he can hardly say he isn't a loser. It has been a long time since he was in with anyone who was any good.
Re: Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant
Posted: 30 Oct 2008, 07:52
by dbflex
Gobbles, where do I start? First off, I've never claimed to be the moral voice of my own family, let alone boxing. And of course I've criticised boxers in BN – that's part of my job. I'm not outlawing all criticism, just as I'm not panning all criticism of Buckley. I simply felt that the article in question was rude and disrespectful when most in the boxing industry appreciate the role Buckley plays. I'm not saying he isn't a loser (how could I?) in the strictest sense but he's certainly not the worst boxer in the world.
You mention Khan but a clear difference between the two (along with the obvious) is that Buckley knows his role and never pretends to be anything he is not. A great deal of the criticism levelled at Khan – both press and fan – came about because of all the big talk and bold predictions he made on the way up. He had, to an extent, made a rod for his own back. Also, the expectations for someone like Khan are far higher than for an admitted journeyman – it's not a fair comparison.
And do you seriously think showing Buckley as a joke and 'the world's worst' is "good coverage for boxing"? It's always good to get boxing on the front of the Times but not if it's a negative piece – surely that would have the opposite effect?
Re: Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant
Posted: 30 Oct 2008, 07:56
by tonyevs
It takes courage to step between the rope facing a youngster - who is expected to beat you - and wanting to take your head off to make a name, it takes alot more than many here think to survive for the 4 or 6 rnds he normally does -there is unappreciated tallent to do so .. how many hot prospects have been blown away when fighting somebody only slightly better tallented than themselves?
Sure he goes in there to survive and mess the prospect about - but if he did any more than he wouldn`t have been employed by the promoters 300times.
I do agree with the comment about too many one sided fights, but thats the promoters fault and probably the paying customer that tolerates and pays for it .. Peter is just earning money the best way he can.
Re: Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant
Posted: 30 Oct 2008, 08:03
by gobbles
I don't think he got panned. He looked like a guy who had done well to make a good living and had stuck at it despite the fact he kept losing. It showed people outside the very narrow circle that watches boxing that the sport goes beyond Hatton, Calzaghe and Khan. Do you expect they are going to do something reverential? "What a guy - he hasn't won in five years. He hasn't beaten anyone that people have ever heard of."
He's a guy who has turned losing into a lucrative business, that is of interest to people outside boxing's narrow mindset. It also now means that people who had never heard of Peter Buckley until this week, who probably hardly ever watch boxing, will be willing him on on Friday night to win a fight that is a pointless four rounder. Is that bad for boxing? Some people are very quick to point fingers.
Re: Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant
Posted: 30 Oct 2008, 08:14
by gobbles
"the authors burning desire to lay bare the disgraceful practices in boxing"
I don't think the piece made any such claims and what do you have to back up that the author is anti-boxing. The author is one of the few national writers who gets big boxing pieces in the national press and does a lot to stick up for the sport. Most papers just cover Khan, Hatton, Calzaghe.
Re: Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant
Posted: 30 Oct 2008, 08:26
by lowersmiths
some naive people think all boxers to go in the ring expecting, or trying, to win.
Re: Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant
Posted: 30 Oct 2008, 08:47
by Coco
The articles Terry posted are far more realistic pieces compared to the sensational tabloid muck the Times released the other day.
To any Buckley detractors, walk a mile in his shoes before you start shouting your mouth off
Re: Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant
Posted: 30 Oct 2008, 09:05
by Brian Moore
Coco wrote:The articles Terry posted are far more realistic pieces compared to the sensational tabloid muck the Times released the other day.
To any Buckley detractors, walk a mile in his shoes before you start shouting your mouth off
Alternatively, pay upwards of £30 a ticket to watch Buckley go through the motions and ask yourself if you've just received value-for-money Since when did Buckley's non-performances become acceptable in what is supposed to be a competitive sport? I've paid thousands of pounds to watch Buckley in action over the years and so find people lauding his lack of effort rather tiresome, as no doubt do the rest of the paying public who Boxing should have its best interests in appealing too.
Re: Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant
Posted: 30 Oct 2008, 09:27
by Brian Moore
An interesting theory regarding the partisan fans, Terry. As a neutral I've grown tired of Buckley but I guess if you're a supporter of one of his opponents you don't care how the wins are obtained.