BoxRec

not at all, if you read my thread at the start of this debate then you will see that i do respect what he has achieved in terms of appearances and people he has been in the ring with.....

but..

his current mode of performance and his innability to put in a performance that reflects his undoubted ability is shocking !!

yogi wrote:

Max Molyneux wrote: Limond came to win and he tought Khan quite a bit.

I don't really see where Limond fits in this thread Max. He is not a journeyman and still considers himself a contender.

It fits Into this thread regardless of level.

Limond was suposed to be a step up and record padder for Khan but unlike Buckley, he wanted to win.

Been really thinking about Rhino's post concerning Buckley.

There is a big problem here. On one hand you have to say Buckley has saved many a show, and there is also no doubt he has been a fantastic servant to boxing, absolutely.

However, what is it with people around here just because an unpopular statement is made does that mean that person is wrong in what he has stated.

Rhino has brought out points about Buckley's record, you have to say there is a clear trail of defeats.

Lets be honest here, how many boxers fight Buckley nowadays and think, f uck me I have got a fight on my hands here. How many boxing fans who know their sport have gone into a show and thought bloody hell, Buckley stands a chance here.

Very unpopular questions and just because its not what people want to see does that mean it is necessarily disrespectful?, this very point is being made on the "Boxing News" thread, the great Harry Mullen was not frightened of stating some supposed taboo areas or pointing out areas of possible weakness.

It is a f ucking farce that in boxing you cannot say anything that could possibly upset someone otherwise you get the lawyers on you, publications like Boxing News has become weaker because it is shit scared of stating some home truths. Forums like this are shit when all the posters are brave enough to do is slag off each other, the moment they slag off a personality in boxing out comes the lawyer.

It's b ollocks and I for one for a change actually side with what Rhino has stated. It might hit a nerve but so f ucking what it needs to be said.

He is good for someones first three or so fights I maintain, they learn more than they will against a novice in terms of tricks of the trade the promoters don't risk there new charge.

For me it would be better than Audley Harrison fighting mike middleton or Amir Khan fighting David Baily, both first round KOs against people without terribly much experiance which taught them little, and nether of them are fighters one can say had any realistic chance of winning