Page 3 of 6

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Posted: 27 Sep 2010, 14:21
by SexySouthPaw
Murray will have a short lived career,Fridays fight looked like 2 cars in a head on collision Murray hit the other guy with everything and never really troubled him.He wasnt exactly finished when the ref stepped in.

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Posted: 27 Sep 2010, 14:42
by Deserter
Fair enough, I know where you're coming from. I guess my concern is that even if he gets that break and reaches those levels, he'll still languish in relative obscurity due to his (lack of) promotional team.

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Posted: 28 Sep 2010, 06:18
by whiskey
People are trying to compare John Murray's career with Amir Khan or summat.

Bottom line is, the likes of John Murray and Rendall Munroe are bloody good British fighters with a bit of a local and national following.

They are both on the cusp of world titles, yet regulary fight in leisure centres, because that's just the way boxing is, unless your fortunate to have medalled at the Olympics.

Even Frankie Gavin, who has a world amateur medal, didnt receive half the media coverage that Degale has - and Degale hasn't received nearly as much as a silver medal winner from Bolton has.

If were gonna make comparisons then we need to compare apples for apples.

And Mitchell is the nearest.

Mitchell's opportunity arrived and he got squashed, perhaps due to lack of experience. Maybe the same fate awaits John Murray, but one things for sure, his steady progression through the ranks has been on merit. No WBO favours have been called in - and therefore even if he falls short at the top where it's tough, he will not be embarrassed and will continue to operate at that level for a long time.

Mitchell was harvested too early and fought too many bums. He fought a guy who was 2-2-0 just 4 fights before Michael Katsidis who himself had fought Juan Diaz 4 fights earlier.


No wonder Kevin got 'hammered' at the hammers. It's like playing a pub football team and then playing Real Madrid.

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Posted: 28 Sep 2010, 06:26
by Deserter
G0mez wrote: They are both on the cusp of world titles, yet regulary fight in leisure centres, because that's just the way boxing is, unless your fortunate to have medalled at the Olympics..
Sorry Gomez, you normally post a lot of sense, but that's rubbish. There are plenty of fighters, Hatton being an obvious recent example, who have been able to build a following without having been to the Olympics, let alone won a medal.
The reality is that most promoters, despite their job title, don't know how to PR and market a fighter in the modern era. That's why some of these fighters don't enjoy a higher public profile.
Look at the UFC if you want to see how it's done properly.

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Posted: 28 Sep 2010, 06:31
by Autobarn
boxing is far different for the murrays and munroes, to the khans and degales. the gulf in money, opportunity and publicity is massive. does this really need pointing out? isn't it daft to compare by the same standards.

ricky hatton built his following on the back of farnell's and gomez's, when manchester was the "fight capital" of britain. hatton did not pass on the torch to anyone else, sadly.

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Posted: 28 Sep 2010, 06:33
by Dioufy
Barn, Murray's been offered the Ortiz fight - I bet he doesn't take it. And then we'll read posts from "Joe G" stating how frustrated Murray actually is. If he waits for a WBC shot then I feel he could be waiting a long time - them crooks over there are capable of anything.

Smash up Ortiz then the WBC are way more likely to give John a chance, a chance I hope to God he would take.

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Posted: 28 Sep 2010, 06:37
by Dioufy
Also, if Murray beat Ortiz then I bet we'd see Murray vs. Katsidis/Marquez very soon.

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Posted: 28 Sep 2010, 06:39
by Counter-puncher
dioufy i've no idea why you think Murray would step up to 140 for Ortiz- against a bloke who's reputedly 150lbs+ in the ring- to get a wbc ranking at 140 when Muz has worked hard & long to get one at 135?

re him being offered the fight- if i was cynical I may think Amir was trying to get someone else to take care of Murray for him.

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Posted: 28 Sep 2010, 06:40
by Dioufy
Counter-puncher wrote:dioufy i've no idea why you think Murray would step up to 140 for Ortiz- against a bloke who's reputedly 150lbs+ in the ring- to get a wbc ranking at 140 when Muz has worked hard & long to get one at 135?

re him being offered the fight- if i was cynical I may think Amir was trying to get someone else to take care of Murray for him.
Fine, wait for a WBC shot that may never happen.

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Posted: 28 Sep 2010, 06:43
by Dioufy
Get ready for Murray vs. McAllister/Mezaache or Watson boys. Rees if we're very lucky. If.

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Posted: 28 Sep 2010, 06:57
by Autobarn
Dioufy wrote:
Counter-puncher wrote:dioufy i've no idea why you think Murray would step up to 140 for Ortiz- against a bloke who's reputedly 150lbs+ in the ring- to get a wbc ranking at 140 when Muz has worked hard & long to get one at 135?

re him being offered the fight- if i was cynical I may think Amir was trying to get someone else to take care of Murray for him.
Fine, wait for a WBC shot that may never happen.
he was put foward for a final elim.

the WBC need to come up with a new opponent.

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Posted: 28 Sep 2010, 06:59
by Autobarn
Dioufy wrote:Get ready for Murray vs. McAllister/Mezaache or Watson boys. Rees if we're very lucky. If.
mezaache gave up the title and then got knocked out in mexico.

mitchell and rees are thankfully above mcallister in the EBU rankings.

wasn't carl froch about 30 when he was at the stage murray is currently at - waiting for WBC title elim?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Posted: 28 Sep 2010, 07:01
by Counter-puncher
Dioufy wrote:
Counter-puncher wrote:dioufy i've no idea why you think Murray would step up to 140 for Ortiz- against a bloke who's reputedly 150lbs+ in the ring- to get a wbc ranking at 140 when Muz has worked hard & long to get one at 135?

re him being offered the fight- if i was cynical I may think Amir was trying to get someone else to take care of Murray for him.
Fine, wait for a WBC shot that may never happen.
he is aged- what? - 24/25?

its not as though he's got to rush before the aging process gets to him, is it? he has enough time, IMO, on his side, that he doesn't need to go for the kind of out-of-weight matchups that could go badly wrong and derail him worse than his (mis)management has managed to do.

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Posted: 28 Sep 2010, 07:03
by Dioufy
I like Murray, and I feel passionately about this. Murray, IMO, can beat the shite out of Ortiz, regardless of how much Ortiz weighs in the ring. The guy has no heart, and Murray is relentless.

CP, fighting Ortiz at 140lbs isn't about getting him ranked there, it's about getting him recognised. If he did beat Ortiz, then doors would open up all over. He could have Soto, Katsidis at the MEN or Marquez in Vegas. Of course it's a risky fight, but I get the feeling Murray isn't scared about that.

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Posted: 28 Sep 2010, 07:05
by Autobarn
i also feel ppl are being very overanxious.

if he wants to do things at 135, why go to 140?

if he fights on the terms of golden boy, then a promotional outfit who probably have no interest him whatsoever may control his career for who knows how many fights?

also, there are rumours that GBP are thinking of putting khan in with mayweather. they already used marquez to get a piece of mayweather and now it seems they are perhaps ready to exploit khan.

i would not fight on the terms of these snakes. but they do get you the TV dates.

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Posted: 28 Sep 2010, 07:05
by Dioufy
CP, he's 27 next year. To me, that's pointless, as his career is going to be short because of the way he fights. Almost every fight is turned into a war of attrition. By the time Murray's 30/31 I think he'll be done. A bit like Ricky Hatton.

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Posted: 28 Sep 2010, 07:07
by Counter-puncher
^^^ agree, barn

dioufy i don't think Murray is that far away from a Katsidis-type fight at 135 hence why i don't think he should step up for the recognition

adit oh okay he's older than i thought, still not so old he needs to make desperate moves IMO

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Posted: 28 Sep 2010, 07:08
by Dioufy
Autobarn wrote:i would not fight on the terms of these snakes. but they do get you the TV dates.
Exactly; and that's why I feel he should take on Ortiz - to "get him a higher profile."

Barney and CP, answer this with a one word answer please - do you believe Murray would beat Ortiz?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Posted: 28 Sep 2010, 07:09
by Dioufy
Counter-puncher wrote:
dioufy i don't think Murray is that far away from a Katsidis-type fight at 135 hence why i don't think he should step up for the recognition
The only way Murray would fight Katsidis was if Katsidis lost, then it wouldn't be for the WBC belt.

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Posted: 28 Sep 2010, 07:09
by orbtastic
I get the impression that Khan would rather Murray fought Ortiz because they (Khan and Ortiz) have strong promotional ties, plus Khan would much rather face the winner of Marquez/Katsidis, despite the fact that they're both lightweights.

(I realise JMM is GBP but he's seen as someone who doesn't need building and is on the serious wind-down to retirement and looking for a couple of mega paydays before bowing out).

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Posted: 28 Sep 2010, 07:10
by Dioufy
I also get the impression that GDP want Murray on the same bill as Khan because they could potentially match them in future.

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Posted: 28 Sep 2010, 07:12
by orbtastic
You think? They seem poles apart in every aspect these days.

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Posted: 28 Sep 2010, 07:12
by Deserter
orbtastic wrote:Khan would much rather face the winner of Marquez/Katsidis, despite the fact that they're both lightweights.
If it wasn't for the impending Maidana fight I'd be tempted to suggest you substitute the word 'because' for 'despite'!

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Posted: 28 Sep 2010, 07:13
by Glyn Leach
For what it's worth, Boxing Monthly's two lowest selling issues so far this year had Murray on one cover and Khan on the other — and the Murray issue outsold Khan

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Posted: 28 Sep 2010, 07:14
by orbtastic
Deserter wrote:
orbtastic wrote:Khan would much rather face the winner of Marquez/Katsidis, despite the fact that they're both lightweights.
If it wasn't for the impending Maidana fight I'd be tempted to suggest you substitute the word 'because' for 'despite'!
Hm well, that too...although I'm being less cynical about his matchmaking. that said, would they really be making this fight if Maidana hadn't looked less than stellar against someone supposedly washed up in Corley?