BoxRec

What I cannot understand (perhaps worthy of a seperate thread) is how fighters likes Rhodes, Michael Gomez etc are considered shot and "had a tough career" when you compare their record/activity level to fighters such as Jack Johnson BEFORE Jack won the world Heavyweight title. They are both younger than him aswell.

You would think advances in Nutritional knowledge and training aswell as the bigger rewards and longer layoffs would result in a longer career yet it seems to be more and more frequent that fighters in their TWENTIES with one or two hard(ish) fights are labelled shot. Ryan has had ONE hard fight vs a relative non puncher, two quick KO defeats and one tough(ish) fight vs Lockett (a fight with Ryan lost as opposed to Gary winning). I'm sorry but in the grand scheme of things that is not a hard career.

Not meaning to have a go Ryan, just at the public in general who seem to like to wrap fighters in Cotton wool and say they have had a long HARD career when you can count on one hand the number of setbacks they have had.

By rights if you campare Rhodes and Gomez to the fighters of my Grandparents generation then they have had it easy and would never be considered SHOT, maybe just not good enough.

Arturo Gatti is a fighter who no one can deny has had a tough career and people are calling him the walking wounded and Brain damage in waiting because of it. Yet, even he has had it easier compared to the greats of pre World War 2.

Grow up Hook.
I have no vested interest in Rhodes be it financial or otherwise.
My only "interest" if you want to put it that way, is as a friend.
The comment regarding match making was a factual one, based around being a close friend of his and knowing boxing on a general basis and all the crap that surrounds it.
Ther are several posters who know who I am from posting regularly on several sites over the years.
I am nothing more than a boxing fan who supoprts all boxers from Sheffield.
Dean Powell is his Matchmaker allegedly and Dave Coldwell are his joint Manager / Promotor Mark Willey is his Conditioner.
You're the touchy one - I made the joke about you and Fennell because you always seem to need him to back up your pesonal statements.
You got it wrong plain and simple.
You called the guy shot it's a matter of public record and you got it wrong.

When have I always needed him to back up my personal statements?

He made one statement and I agreed with him!

You're a mate of Ryan Rhodes so you are loyal to him, I don't know him and am saying what I see.

I'm not touchy, what made you think that? I won't respond again in case you set Ryan on me....

I'd put up more of a fight than Buchanan though

We'll call a truce, send him my love....

twenty six wrote:Hook,
I used the words keep in perspective. I'm not getting carried away.
I'm just glad that he has made a statement to anyone who considers him shot.
When are you and Fennell getting engaged ?

Come on, let's keep this discussion mature. We've disagreed about something and it's good to keep things civil and respect each others' opinions.

Now, remember I said I would congratulate Ryan if he proved us wrong. Well, beating Buchanan, even in such emphatic style, does not in itself suggest a career turn-around, but you may have it on record that while I expected Ryan to win this one, I didn't think he would win so quickly and impressively, and as such, my congratulations go out to him. It certainly whets the appetite for bigger domestic clashes.

And Stu makes some good points there, not just applicable to Rhodes but a lot of fighters today.

Definitely worth a seperate thread Mr Jones..

PS I still think he's shot, you stamping your feet won't change that.

If he fights somebody half decent and beats them then I'll be more than happy to give him a pat on the back and say well done.

Well done Oli ....

The ring is in the post....

Twentysix is just jealous but i've promised him a candlelit dinner if he's ever in Wales...

But modern fighters TYPICALLY (certain topical examples excluded ;) ) do enjoy greater longevity in terms of years, if not number of fights. It used to be a big deal for a boxer to win a world title at 34 (for example Ali) but now we think nothing of it.

Is "twenty six" Ryan himself?

Isnt Rhodes' lucky number 26? Didnt he have 26 in big numbers on his shorts yesterday?

Good win btw.

No it's not.

twenty six wrote:No it's not.

Coincidence that your username is 26, or is that linked?

He's answered that on the other link mate, about Rhodes returning with "a bang"

Wales - does that mean Captain Hook is just a cartoon character who has to be careful picking his nose ?

I don't have to pick my nose, I have a servant do it for me.... 8)

oliverfennell wrote:But modern fighters TYPICALLY (certain topical examples excluded ;) ) do enjoy greater longevity in terms of years, if not number of fights. It used to be a big deal for a boxer to win a world title at 34 (for example Ali) but now we think nothing of it.

I'm not sure I entirely agree. Mainly because it is easier to win a world title this day and age.

I'm sure had there been 4 recognised version of the World title that many fighters would have been world champion at 40+ in days gone by.

I think 10 years ago (when Foreman won the title), there seemed to be a glutch of fighters going strong into their late 30's (likes of Azumah Nelson)... However, I'm not sure why but it seems that appears to have been faced out and the latest trend is of fighters to be deemed past his prime in his late 20's early 30's.

De La Hoya, Jorge Arce, Ricky Hatton, Tito Trinidad, Gatti, The Late Diego Corrales... Just some of the elite level fighters who have been labelled past his prime recently and in most cases before their 30th birthday.

Joe Calzaghe and Jose Luis Castillo are a little older but these two are mentioned in the braket that they could "go" at anytime and showing definate signs.... again Chronilogically wise and (especially in Calzaghe's case) career hardness wise should they be.

Now, I obviously wasn't around in the 20's/30's... but I haven't read of a world champion fighter considered shot before his 30th birthday. Yes, might not be able/capable of winning a world title (due to the difficulty in getting one) but still relatively in the mix. Of course a generation back we had the likes of Wilfredo Benitez, but I am sure in Wilfredo's case there was some neuroligcal damage anyway and he was perhaps prone to having a short career.

Personally, I have always disliked the term ‘shot’ (as I dislike the term ‘exposed’) because it is way overused by people.

It seems to be used for any fighter that falls away from their peak, picking up a few unexpected losses and losing a bit of direction in their career.

For me, the designation describes fighters that can no longer hold a punch like they used to, and are getting stopped or KO’d because of it..

I'd say if you wanted to see an example of a 'shot' fighter, then watch Colin Dunne's final fight against Kevin Bennett, he just couldn't hold a shot of any kind that night , and was wiped out in 2 rounds.

Rhodes isn't 'shot'