BoxRec

Posted: **28 Sep 2010, 07:14**

orbtastic wrote:You think? They seem poles apart in every aspect these days.

If Murray beat Ortiz then the clamour for Khan/Murray would reach a new level and if Khan dodged him again it would be massively glorified. He got a way with it once, I can't see him being able to do it twice. But again, I may be stupidly wrong, mate.

Posted: **28 Sep 2010, 07:18**

Glyn Leach wrote: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

bought every issue of that magazine since march 99.

sad ain't it.

bet some on here have bought virtually every issue since 89.

Posted: **28 Sep 2010, 07:21**

MachoMan09 wrote:John is a top bloke. It's frustrating that some people have him down as lacking personality. His lack of exposure is the obvious reason for this. I think John should probably look to try and secure a deal with Warren or perhaps and American outfit - if they are interested. I think Hatton would be the wrong move and believe that whilst Hennessey has manoeuvred John into a decent ranking he has clearly failed to market him to the general public.

i think hatton would be good for improving that local support.

and his ties to goldenboy would make getting a title shot a bit easier.

up to murray if he's happy or not of course.

seemed sound enough with hennessy on saturday tbh.

Posted: **28 Sep 2010, 07:22**

Dioufy wrote:
orbtastic wrote:You think? They seem poles apart in every aspect these days.
If Murray beat Ortiz then the clamour for Khan/Murray would reach a new level and if Khan dodged him again it would be massively glorified. He got a way with it once, I can't see him being able to do it twice. But again, I may be stupidly wrong, mate.

Can you not see the disparity in the matchmaking though?

Khan, the legit 140lber with a 3rd defence looming seems set to face one of two lightweights, one of whom isn't really particularly big.

Murray, the career lightweight with the longest unbeaten run in British boxing should face a light welter?

I don't see why Murray has to face Khan? Why? It was a fight mooted when they were roughly at the same level and weight but it doesn't really make much sense now. Tehre's no real clamour for it, the way there's zero for Thaxton any more (albeit there are good reasons for that now)...but I'm talking about the way that people said Khan was ducking legit fighters at his own weight like Thacko and Murray and feasting on super feathers with no punch etc etc.

Posted: **28 Sep 2010, 07:25**

Khan's going to get fed a lightweight after Maidana - I say that's a given. Khan's next fight is in England he says, and Murray will be the fight that sells more tickets. A battle of Britain, between Khan and Britain's "longest unbeaten" record would be immense for the general public.

GBP know that too, IMO.

Posted: **28 Sep 2010, 07:27**

Dioufy wrote:Khan's going to get fed a lightweight after Maidana - I say that's a given. Khan's next fight is in England he says, and Murray will be the fight that sells more tickets. A battle of Britain, between Khan and Britain's "longest unbeaten" record would be immense for the general public.

GBP know that too, IMO.

Sadly, so could I

Posted: **28 Sep 2010, 07:31**

I think Marquez can beat Katsidis, which would set-up a fight both would relish.

Marquez is under appreciated, he would come here to fight and I think it'd do very well.

I really don't like the idea of a Khan fight for Murray...I think it stinks of low ambition for Khan, despite Murray's run/skills.

Posted: **28 Sep 2010, 07:34**

orbtastic wrote:I think Marquez can beat Katsidis, which would set-up a fight both would relish.

Marquez is under appreciated, he would come here to fight and I think it'd do very well.

It was a cert that Marquez was fighting Khan is December but Marquez pulled out because he felt that GBP were feeding him to the wolves, so to speak. I don't think a fight between these two would be easy to make, especially when Khan wants to fight in England next.

Posted: **28 Sep 2010, 07:36**

I might be wrong, but I thought I read something from Marquez along the lines of he would be happy to fight here as he knows he has fans here etc etc.

Can see why he would rather he top the bill in Vegas again though, rather than play second fiddle in a cold and rainy Manchester.

Posted: **28 Sep 2010, 07:43**

orbtastic wrote:I think Marquez can beat Katsidis, which would set-up a fight both would relish.

Marquez is under appreciated, he would come here to fight and I think it'd do very well.

I really don't like the idea of a Khan fight for Murray...I think it stinks of low ambition for Khan, despite Murray's run/skills.

Agreed on all points. GBP could sell Khan-Marquez on an 'our boy vs the Mexican legend' premise, despite Marquez being old and a lightweight. Also Khan-Katsidis could be sold on the strength of the Mitchell fight. Given that Murray drew only 1000-odd the other night, Marquez or Katsidis might be seen as a more marketable opponent than Murray. In that sense, we might be in luck — Murray might not get the Khan fight and could go on to establish himself in his own weight category. Murray's low profile might work in his favour. Khan-Marquez they could definitely sell as a pay per view, Khan-Katsidis or Murray are only maybes in my book

Posted: **28 Sep 2010, 07:51**

Dioufy wrote:Khan's going to get fed a lightweight after Maidana - I say that's a given. Khan's next fight is in England he says, and Murray will be the fight that sells more tickets. A battle of Britain, between Khan and Britain's "longest unbeaten" record would be immense for the general public.

GBP know that too, IMO.

i don't agree with this. Joe G posted a while back that Khan - Murray was 'the fight the public wanted to see' and i said at the time I thought he was either barking, or playing the fight up way beyond its real import, interest-wise.

no bugger 'on the street' has heard of Murray. nobody. the 'general public', jesus mate. you really think the good old general public know anything about Murray?

RE Corley and Maidana looking bad- bearing in mind Corley is such a spoiler nowadays i don't think its *that* much of a knock against Maidana.

Posted: **28 Sep 2010, 07:52**

Dioufy wrote:Khan's going to get fed a lightweight after Maidana - I say that's a given. .

a particular lightweight like JMM, or just any lightweight will do?

Posted: **28 Sep 2010, 07:56**

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

possibly but i wouldn't bet on it

Ortiz beat an old Nate Campbell 5lbs north of Muzza, who the eff has Murray beat to even compete with that?

Posted: **28 Sep 2010, 07:56**

are you trying to compete with barnie as to who can climb furthest and fastest up Muzza's keister?

Posted: **28 Sep 2010, 07:57**

Yes, that's exactly why I'm knocking his opposition since McAllister.

Posted: **28 Sep 2010, 07:58**

Dioufy wrote:I also get the impression that GDP want Murray on the same bill as Khan because they could potentially match them in future.

jesus, now GBP have designs on Murray. dude i think you're off on this one.

Posted: **28 Sep 2010, 07:58**

Counter-puncher wrote:
Dioufy wrote:I also get the impression that GDP want Murray on the same bill as Khan because they could potentially match them in future.
jesus, now GBP have designs on Murray. dude i think you're off on this one.

Yep, that's why they offered him a 50/50 fight with one of their own fighters.

Posted: **28 Sep 2010, 08:00**

Dioufy wrote:
If Murray beat Ortiz then the clamour for Khan/Murray would reach a new level

from a near-inaudible whisper, to a polite murmur?

i think GBP may have offered muz to Ortiz because- maybe i am taking a flier here- they think Muz is easy pickings for their boy?

Posted: **28 Sep 2010, 08:01**

GBP definitely are NOT looking to get Ortiz beat

Posted: **28 Sep 2010, 08:02**

Counter-puncher wrote:
Dioufy wrote:
If Murray beat Ortiz then the clamour for Khan/Murray would reach a new level
from a near-inaudible whisper, to a polite murmur?

i think GBP may have offered muz to Ortiz because- maybe i am taking a flier here- they think Muz is easy pickings for their boy?

Silly, mate, just silly. Murray is a relentless pressure fighter with a good chin. Ortiz is a fast starter with a shocking heart. If anyone from 135lbs can break down Ortiz then Murray can. It would be an immensely good win for Ortiz if he beat Murray. Too much risk, too little reward for Ortiz/GBP there.

Posted: **28 Sep 2010, 08:04**

Glyn Leach wrote:GBP definitely are NOT looking to get Ortiz beat

I'm not saying that, I'm saying that if Murray were to win then obviously GBP would have options on him. Now considering where Murray has gone in 2 years, or not gone shall we say, being with Oscar wouldn't be a bad thing. It'd be a win-win for GBP.

Posted: **28 Sep 2010, 08:19**

Dioufy wrote:
Glyn Leach wrote:GBP definitely are NOT looking to get Ortiz beat
I'm not saying that, I'm saying that if Murray were to win then obviously GBP would have options on him. Now considering where Murray has gone in 2 years, or not gone shall we say, being with Oscar wouldn't be a bad thing. It'd be a win-win for GBP.

Except that they have already invested an awful lot of money in Ortiz, rehabilitated him after a bad defeat and believe that he could become a big seller in the Hispanic market. Yes, they'd have options on Murray, but the marketing potential in the U.S. is far less for a British fighter. In America the main body of boxing fans are Hispanic. I really can't imagine them matching Ortiz with someone they thought could beat him, the record doesn't suggest that. They slipped up with Maidana though, maybe they'd make the same mistake with Murray. But I think it's a horrible fight for Murray and a good fight for Ortiz.

Also, it's not as though GBP haven't had links with Mick Hennessy, who has been tight with Oscar for years. They could have given Murray fights at any time if they'd wanted him. But now he has the "Britain's longest undefeated run" tag, he has become marketable. Yet they don't consider matching him in his own division, where they have champions, but insist on matching him at a weight disadvantage. That, to me, says they see Murray as an opponent.

Posted: **28 Sep 2010, 08:24**

G0mez wrote: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.

I somewhat disagree on Mitchell - not that part where you say his "favours" did him no favours against Katisdis I completely agree there. What I disagree with is your analogy that Mitchell had it easy where as Murray hasn't?

Murray it should be noted hasn't beaten a defending champion in his career so far. He has the lonsdale belt outright by contesting in 3 VACANT British title fights (surely a record). Meager, Lawton and Thaxton were all for vacant titles. Buckland for the vacant EBU title.

Murray has fought some decent names - but then you cite the 2-2 opponent in a tune up for Gomez. What about Johannson (defending British champion), what about Prescott (world ranked) what about Estrada (former world title challenger)... I think Mitchell was as deserving as his title fight as Murray. Lee McCallister or Gary Buckland is probably Murray's best opponent (in terms of freshness and everything) - is that ideal prep for Marquez, is that a deserving opponent?

BOTH need to have bridging fights from domestic to world class.

Posted: **28 Sep 2010, 08:32**

Dioufy wrote:
Silly, mate, just silly. Murray is a relentless pressure fighter with a good chin ALL OF IT UNPROVEN ANYWHERE ABOVE 135 AND ANYWHERE ABOVE BRITISH LEVEL. Ortiz is a fast starter with a shocking heart. If anyone from 135lbs can break down Ortiz then Murray can. It would be an immensely good win for Ortiz if he beat Murray. Too much risk, too little reward for Ortiz/GBP there.

^^^ fixed

so now, Murray is the most beast-like 135lber in the world. no wonder the general public clamour so much for him to fight Khan. must be all those endorsements Murray gets, his high profile, and so on.

you tell me where this apparent clamour is coming from. you show me a man on the street or member of the general public who has even heard of Murray and i will concede that the clamour for a murray - khan fight really could actually reach the level of an audible murmur or maybe even the odd quiet exclamation.

dude i think you're barking on this one, EG Murray is the man above all other at 135 to take Ortiz out? ahead of say Katsidis? It would be an immensely good win for Ortiz if he beat Murray. beating a lightweight, yeah, cos when Khan does that as a 140lber everybody gives him massive praise and nobody criticises him at all

i am sad to say it seems barnie has hacked your account for the day, either that or you have swapped with him as amazingly he has been a comparative voice of reason on this thread

come on now fellas own up you've had your little joke, normal service to resume please.

Posted: **28 Sep 2010, 08:34**

^^ all of which intended in the nicest possible way, of course.

BoxRec

Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?

Re: Why isn't John Murray higher profile?