Page 3 of 3
Re: Political Reasons? Mitchell vs. Murray
Posted: 21 Feb 2011, 11:59
by palooka
I've no axe to grind at all; I think it's a shame that the fight is not to happen. It would have been madness for Kevin to take the fight without a warm up at least. Murray is on fire and looks to be heading for the top. Mr Wrarren always seems to come across as the villain of any piece but he helped support Kevin when he was at a low ebb and helped him to the top of the rankings. He didn't do this entirely from the goodness of his heart I understand but still, some involved in boxing (and in life) are all business and they wouldn't help out even if they could.
Kevin has to rebuild before he gets in with Murray; no doubt John Murray is upset; he would've earned well for steamrollering a match unfit and unsharp Mitchell. He'd have made a statement.
There's no reason that the 2 can't box in a year or 2; there's no reason for Mitchell to be cut loose. He is still a class boxer and a handful for almost anyone on his day. There's no disgrace in losing to Katsidis surely; (the build up was a bit naff but they do all sorts to build a bout).
That's my 2 pence worth :)
Re: Political Reasons? Mitchell vs. Murray
Posted: 21 Feb 2011, 12:47
by jessi
winkveron wrote:I don't see the problem here. He's been offered half of the purse he got for the Katsidis fight, to fight Murray. That makes sense for a few reasons-
a) it's for the European, not world title like against Katsidis.
b) he's not topping the bill in a major stadium event.
c) he's coming off a loss
d) he was acting like an idiot in the build up to his previous fight regarding the booze and his mrs. if I'm not mistaken.
Basically, I think Frank's done well offering him this fight straight after a defeat. He could've been dumped into a obscure 6 rounder for his comeback but he's got a high-profile fight in which a win could catapult him back onto the world scene. In my opinion he just doesn't fancy the job.
the katsidis fight wasent for a world title, and murrays been offered double what kevin has for a fight with him, thats not very loyal mate, mitchells been there from the start, warrens still pissed he got beat by katsidis.
Re: Political Reasons? Mitchell vs. Murray
Posted: 21 Feb 2011, 13:05
by orbtastic
He was in the bar on Saturday, he was explaining to someone who asked why the fight didn't come off but I could barely hear what he was saying.
Re: Political Reasons? Mitchell vs. Murray
Posted: 21 Feb 2011, 13:48
by winkveron
jessi wrote:winkveron wrote:I don't see the problem here. He's been offered half of the purse he got for the Katsidis fight, to fight Murray. That makes sense for a few reasons-
a) it's for the European, not world title like against Katsidis.
b) he's not topping the bill in a major stadium event.
c) he's coming off a loss
d) he was acting like an idiot in the build up to his previous fight regarding the booze and his mrs. if I'm not mistaken.
Basically, I think Frank's done well offering him this fight straight after a defeat. He could've been dumped into a obscure 6 rounder for his comeback but he's got a high-profile fight in which a win could catapult him back onto the world scene. In my opinion he just doesn't fancy the job.
the katsidis fight wasent for a world title, and murrays been offered double what kevin has for a fight with him, thats not very loyal mate, mitchells been there from the start, warrens still pissed he got beat by katsidis.
Interim title then, my point is it was a more high-profile fight than the Murray one. I hate this 'he's getting paid more than me' nonsense. Go out there and show everyone why it should be YOU who gets paid more. I think if Mitchell truly believed in himself, he would take the fight, regardless of the money.
Re: Political Reasons? Mitchell vs. Murray
Posted: 21 Feb 2011, 14:05
by hurlock
exactly.i bet it's 3x more then the average yearly salary :!:
reading mitchells side, he seem's to be looking at his familys security which dont really tell's you he is confident of winning. ok he aint had ideal preperation which might be down to injury or being disheartened or a bit of both, but wazza has got him 31 wins & he's had the luxury of being a fulltime pro. so wazza has to trade off him, he aint a charity. he's built the kid up & mitchell let him down plain & simple, so he wont waste another load of build up's on him if he's talking retirement.
Re: Political Reasons? Mitchell vs. Murray
Posted: 21 Feb 2011, 14:12
by jessi
winkveron wrote:jessi wrote:winkveron wrote:I don't see the problem here. He's been offered half of the purse he got for the Katsidis fight, to fight Murray. That makes sense for a few reasons-
a) it's for the European, not world title like against Katsidis.
b) he's not topping the bill in a major stadium event.
c) he's coming off a loss
d) he was acting like an idiot in the build up to his previous fight regarding the booze and his mrs. if I'm not mistaken.
Basically, I think Frank's done well offering him this fight straight after a defeat. He could've been dumped into a obscure 6 rounder for his comeback but he's got a high-profile fight in which a win could catapult him back onto the world scene. In my opinion he just doesn't fancy the job.
the katsidis fight wasent for a world title, and murrays been offered double what kevin has for a fight with him, thats not very loyal mate, mitchells been there from the start, warrens still pissed he got beat by katsidis.
Interim title then, my point is it was a more high-profile fight than the Murray one. I hate this 'he's getting paid more than me' nonsense. Go out there and show everyone why it should be YOU who gets paid more. I think if Mitchell truly believed in himself, he would take the fight, regardless of the money.
you can hate his getting paid more then me nonsence all you like, at the end of the day his a father who needs to provide for his family, and boxing is his living, he always played second to hatton, then khan, and now degale and murray, he deserves a 50/50 split with murray if they fight, if he looses its nearly all over for him, if murray looses its not as bad ! i believe kevin can beat him, but i also agree its risky buisness and he needs more then his been offered. its his career and not warrens.
![[icon_shame.gif] :shame:](./images/smilies/icon_shame.gif)
Re: Political Reasons? Mitchell vs. Murray
Posted: 21 Feb 2011, 14:14
by fasteddie
jessi wrote:winkveron wrote:I don't see the problem here. He's been offered half of the purse he got for the Katsidis fight, to fight Murray. That makes sense for a few reasons-
a) it's for the European, not world title like against Katsidis.
b) he's not topping the bill in a major stadium event.
c) he's coming off a loss
d) he was acting like an idiot in the build up to his previous fight regarding the booze and his mrs. if I'm not mistaken.
Basically, I think Frank's done well offering him this fight straight after a defeat. He could've been dumped into a obscure 6 rounder for his comeback but he's got a high-profile fight in which a win could catapult him back onto the world scene. In my opinion he just doesn't fancy the job.
the katsidis fight wasent for a world title, and murrays been offered double what kevin has for a fight with him, thats not very loyal mate, mitchells been there from the start, warrens still pissed he got beat by katsidis.
warren isnt pissed he got beat he is pissed at the fact mitchell didnt train as hard as he could of and his own trainer blabbed on him in the post match ringside interview,personally i thought mitchell was well out of his depth against katsidis remember he was super featherweight 2 fights previous and bredis prescott was tailor made for the way michell boxed that night. i think fw should treat the men who make him his millions with abit of loyalty and respect cause without the boxers he would be little more than a fish eyed fish monger lol
![[icon_e_biggrin.gif] :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
Re: Political Reasons? Mitchell vs. Murray
Posted: 21 Feb 2011, 14:24
by bripez
jessi wrote:winkveron wrote:jessi wrote:
the katsidis fight wasent for a world title, and murrays been offered double what kevin has for a fight with him, thats not very loyal mate, mitchells been there from the start, warrens still pissed he got beat by katsidis.
Interim title then, my point is it was a more high-profile fight than the Murray one. I hate this 'he's getting paid more than me' nonsense. Go out there and show everyone why it should be YOU who gets paid more. I think if Mitchell truly believed in himself, he would take the fight, regardless of the money.
you can hate his getting paid more then me nonsence all you like, at the end of the day his a father who needs to provide for his family, and boxing is his living, he always played second to hatton, then khan, and now degale and murray, he deserves a 50/50 split with murray if they fight, if he looses its nearly all over for him, if murray looses its not as bad ! i believe kevin can beat him, but i also agree its risky buisness and he needs more then his been offered. its his career and not warrens.
![[icon_shame.gif] :shame:](./images/smilies/icon_shame.gif)
I have got a lot of sympathy on this one - for FW.
He carefully managed Mitchel for 7 years, and if reports are to be believed Mitchel did alright money wise.
He was then given a great opportunity on home turf and didn't (or wasn't able) to take advantage. However, instead of coming back and showing his credentials he hasn't boxed for a year. As has been said earlier, what did he expect coming off a defeat - a European title shot is surely better than most would expect ?
This stuff about being a father and providing - what other options does he have ? Instead of getting what he considers to be a low purse, he is going to get no purse !
Re: Political Reasons? Mitchell vs. Murray
Posted: 21 Feb 2011, 14:39
by jessi
mitchells never done well money wise, his been labouring for british rail and building sites on and off for nearly 4 years !
his reason for another year off have been down to two operations, hands and eyes !
he had an off night against katsidis, i agree the training and domestics at home dident help and his 100% to blame for that, i also agree a first fight back for a european title isnt bad, but it looks to me warren has no faith in him and is paying accordingly, i hope mitchell has a long hard think and does fight murray next, i hope he wins and i would love to see warrens face, because warren thinks otherwise.
Re: Political Reasons? Mitchell vs. Murray
Posted: 21 Feb 2011, 15:08
by palooka
I'm not too sure that a straight European Title shot after nearly 12 months out against a fighter like Murray is such a great gift.
I know that in the scheme of things John Murray has been only a little more active; fight wise. He has gone from strength to strength in the last 12 months and really seems to be working hard in the gym, he seems to be chomping at the bit for a big fight.
Mitchell had a mauling, his dreams dashed and a couple of operations. Boxing can be a cruel sport and business; Mitchell is not a bad fighter for the sake of 1 good hiding. He still has a fan base, still has good skills, power and class but surely needs bringing on, not throwing in at the deep end.
Re: Political Reasons? Mitchell vs. Murray
Posted: 21 Feb 2011, 15:52
by IRLangmaid25
I too would like to see John Murray go with Kevin Mitchell, but I do feel that Mitchell might have to have 1-2 fights a couple of 10 rounders to get his confidence and ring sharpness back after being smashed utter senseless by Michael Katsidis at Upton Park because it sounds like allegedly wants to throw him in headfirst with the Murray fight. I did read the write up on that fight Mitchell did elude to rows with his missus and how sometimes was either at his mother's house or the flat and it was really unsettling him and he was also supposedly cutting corners which was caused his trainer Jimmy Tibbs to read him the riot act and a few late nights as well. But allegedly did sound like after the fight that he wanted drop Mitchell off his books as he felt that Mitchell was not taking it seriously and was fed up of the excuses that he was hearing.