BoxRec

Personally speaking I thought Barker had pretty much the perfect game plan and took the play away from Martinez for several rounds.

It was pretty clear throughout that when Barker employed the tight guard he blocked pretty much everything that Sergio threw, but when he let his hands go he was open to being countered and someone that is as good as Martinez at spotting and exploiting gaps is going to take advantage.

There's more than one way to skin a cat, after all.

I think the performance vindicated their decision to take this particular fight, and as DiBella said - he knew how good Barker was, hopefully it can lead to further opportunities down the line, and makes a mockery of the ''let's wait for a weak champion'' policy that so many British promoters (and fans) seem to prefer.

The shot that scrambled him at the end perforated his ear drum.

It looked fairly innocuous, but shows he has heavy hands.

I think Tony Simms deserves a heads-up. Both men were very calm and set about their game plan from the off.

Just seen the scores for after 10 rounds -

96-94, 97-94, 99-91

Bit harsh if you ask me the guy who scored all to Martinez.

LeedsLad wrote:Personally speaking I thought Barker had pretty much the perfect game plan and took the play away from Martinez for several rounds.

It was pretty clear throughout that when Barker employed the tight guard he blocked pretty much everything that Sergio threw, but when he let his hands go he was open to being countered and someone that is as good as Martinez at spotting and exploiting gaps is going to take advantage.

There's more than one way to skin a cat, after all.

I think the performance vindicated their decision to take this particular fight, and as DiBella said - he knew how good Barker was, hopefully it can lead to further opportunities down the line, and makes a mockery of the ''let's wait for a weak champion'' policy that so many British promoters (and fans) seem to prefer.

Like the Dibella line! End of the day he lost to the best in the division can come back stronger

LeedsLad wrote:

foxwoods wrote:martinez had a real off night.
barker can't punch, didn't want to punch, almost lost every round and then looked to have bailed out at the end. what's so good about that?

Log out FFS.

So Barker blocking Martinez's shots, walking forward behind a high guard and landing accurate jabs and right hands didn't happen then?

Barker wasn't exhausted and out on his feet before Martinez landed the final combination?

I suppose you'd rather him throw bombs from the first bell and get KTFO, eh?

blocking shots doesn't win fights. he lost almost every round (some thought every round). he bailed out at the end. those are the cold hard facts, even if you are a fan and looking at it with rose-tinted glasses on. it was no better than rhodes against alvarez.

foxwoods wrote:

LeedsLad wrote:

foxwoods wrote:martinez had a real off night.
barker can't punch, didn't want to punch, almost lost every round and then looked to have bailed out at the end. what's so good about that?

Log out FFS.

So Barker blocking Martinez's shots, walking forward behind a high guard and landing accurate jabs and right hands didn't happen then?

Barker wasn't exhausted and out on his feet before Martinez landed the final combination?

I suppose you'd rather him throw bombs from the first bell and get KTFO, eh?

blocking shots doesn't win fights. he lost almost every round (some thought every round). he bailed out at the end. those are the cold hard facts, even if you are a fan and looking at it with rose-tinted glasses on. it was no better than rhodes against alvarez.

You're right in saying that blocking shots doesn't win fights, but neither does throwing plenty and missing.

Martinez was flashy but didn't really land anything of note in the first half of the fight, and was well in it until about the 8th/9th before Martinez took over.

As for ''not being better than Rhodes against Alvarez'', that's clearly wrong. Barker was competitive pretty much throughout, unfortunately Ryan was thrashed.


It's all about opinions I guess, but I'm not one that thinks going the distance and losing every round is any better than being competitive and eventually taken out. You could hardly say that Clottey, Margarito and Mosley did better against Pacquiao than Cotto did, can you?


Cotto was the only one of the four who was stopped.....

you thought he was competitive, but a lot of observers thought he lost every round - and that is not competitive.

rhodes got stopped in the 12th, barker in the 11th so no big difference there.

in my book, i can't really get that excited purely for someone getting in there and lasting a few rounds while getting soundly beaten and then stopped (and it looked like he bailed to me).

im a darren barker fan, believe it or not, but he is euro level, that's all. he earned a lot of money from the martinez fight so good luck to him but it wasnt a fight i will be watching over and over or one of the best performances by a brit overseas. in fact, like i said, it was no better than rhodes (or hatton) v alvarez..nothing more, nothing less. gallant losers bore me, i prefer winners.

foxwoods wrote: gallant losers bore me, i prefer winners.

Well, why are you in the British forum?

well ian you are right. someone goes out, gets widely outboxed blah blah blah and then everyone says he is a hero. hardly. if he had won he would have been.

foxwoods wrote: well ian you are right. someone goes out, gets widely outboxed blah blah blah and then everyone says he is a hero. hardly. if he had won he would have been.

Yes, we love plucky losers.

I do think you're being a bit harsh, but it's all about opinions.

I thought he did well, you know, considering most said he would be blown away by half way. He boxed nicely whilst being conservative. As you saw, when he did open up a bit (and, at least he did when he knew he had to, IMO) he ended up in bother.

The manner of the loss will open doors for him, ironically.

foxwoods wrote:

LeedsLad wrote:

foxwoods wrote:martinez had a real off night.
barker can't punch, didn't want to punch, almost lost every round and then looked to have bailed out at the end. what's so good about that?

Log out FFS.

So Barker blocking Martinez's shots, walking forward behind a high guard and landing accurate jabs and right hands didn't happen then?

Barker wasn't exhausted and out on his feet before Martinez landed the final combination?

I suppose you'd rather him throw bombs from the first bell and get KTFO, eh?

blocking shots doesn't win fights. he lost almost every round (some thought every round). he bailed out at the end. those are the cold hard facts, even if you are a fan and looking at it with rose-tinted glasses on. it was no better than rhodes against alvarez.

Have to agree with foxwoods on this, I only gave Barker rounds 3, 4 and maybe one other if i was being very generous but after the 6th round Martinez took over and started to dominate the fight. Darren boxed a bit too negatively for me, sure he caught Sergio with some decent jabs each round but his offense was pretty much sacrificed for his defence and just keeping his hands up for most of the rounds without throwing anything back.

He may have made Martinez look ordinary at times in order to survive longer but in the end does it matter if you get knocked out in the 6th round or the 11th?

Froch and Khan have shown how to go to your opponents country and win a fight. You have to be aggressive and show whose boss from round 1. Nigel benn had the right idea too against Doug dewitt and Barkley and Honeygan had a massive first round against Curry.

Not been a good year for other British boxers travelling abroad to win fights: Haye, Hatton, Rhodes although Macklin did put up a good effort and may have done enough to win.

Excellent effort from Darren against an exceptional fighter. Darren gave everything, but he couldn't maintain the required workrate to pull off a massive upset. Hopefully Darren will get another title shot or eliminator off the back of that performance

He def deserves credit,i backed Martinez to win in first 3 rounds @5/1.
But at end of day he lost most rounds and got ko'd,but a few months off and back against someone handy to defend European and maybe a clash with McEwen would be good.

we probbaly shouldn't be too surprised that martinez "was made to look ordinary." barker is a capable, tidy boxer who raised his game. martinez, meanwhile, usually raises his game the greater his opponent's reputation.

i hope macklin gets the next crack at martinez. macklin's aggression should bring the best out of martinez and we have seen that macklin raises his game for the occasion (as proven in the narrow/controversial defeat away to sturm).

Autobarn wrote:we probbaly shouldn't be too surprised that martinez "was made to look ordinary." barker is a capable, tidy boxer who raised his game. martinez, meanwhile, usually raises his game the greater his opponent's reputation.

i hope macklin gets the next crack at martinez. macklin's aggression should bring the best out of martinez and we have seen that macklin raises his game for the occasion (as proven in the narrow/controversial defeat away to sturm).

Do ya really think macklin has the boxing skills of barker to trouble martinez my opinion is no a think Macklin would be made for Martinez. I think that barker did so well was because of them slick boxing skills and excellent guard imo