BoxRec

wesshaw1985 wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUgHsbOKlXg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7HcKRcgQTs

Taylor looks the sharper and more athletic in those two pad sessions. I think he'll stop Davies.

If Taylor smashes Davies up in style he goes into my top three or even 2 favourite British fighters.

That being said I can't call this fight as neither has been significantly tested.

Though I have said time and time again on here Davies was awful and one paced against Scarpa and people are forgetting that.

If Davies wins I will be a bit gutted as I think he is a bellend ( though he is playing the heel role excellently ) but I will give Davies a lot credit as he could have fought wasters on matchroom undercards building to a vacant title shot.

Way too soon for josh i dont understand them taking this fight. For what is probably a small purse. Hats off to the mcguigans for taking this but josh is still a relative pro novice and davies beat derry matthews at a canter last time out.
davies by ko for me

Matthews was blown up and past it. It was a wise move to retire immediately after the fight...

crusader wrote:Matthews was blown up and past it. It was a wise move to retire immediately after the fight...

I agree derry was past his best but was way better than anybody josh has faced. Its a massive leap from beating up journeymen to fighting davies

I don't think Matthews had anything, plus he was undersized at the weight. Taylor wipes him out too IMO...

I think Matthews-Davies and Matthews-Campbell were made to flatter the eventual winners.

crusader wrote:I don't think Matthews had anything, plus he was undersized at the weight. Taylor wipes him out too IMO...

I think Matthews-Davies and Matthews-Campbell were made to flatter the eventual winners.

Ofcourse they were thats what pro boxing is all about. Josh hasnt had these types of fights yet though. And i think he will come up short against davies. Just my opinion kid

I really don't think it will make much of a difference that Taylor hasn't beaten up undersized, shopworn, hadn't won in 2 years and retired straight after Derry Matthews.

Is that the fight which most people are rating Davies on?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_tfLPuZJsg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH7PHQyNSH0

crusader wrote:I really don't think it will make much of a difference that Taylor hasn't beaten up undersized, shopworn, hadn't won in 2 years and retired straight after Derry Matthews.

Is that the fight which most people are rating Davies on?

Mostly yes. Because its the type of fight that josh hasnt had yet. Josh is untested as a pro . And whilst he had a decent amateur career that often doesnt mean a great deal when you turn pro. Ask the lad who kept beating him in the ams ( tom stalker )

What exactly did Davies get out of that fight though? The experience of fighting in an opponent's hometown, but with the lack of meaningful work from Derry I don't think it was much of a test.

Davies was rightfully a big favourite entering that bout even though he'd hardly fought anyone; the trajectories said it all.

crusader wrote:What exactly did Davies get out of that fight though? The experience of fighting in an opponent's hometown, but with the lack of meaningful work from Derry I don't think it was much of a test.

I thought derry was a scouser mr crusade. Didnt know he was a londoner. ( the matthews v davies fight was at the o2 in london kid ) come on catch up now

Right, I mixed up the location, so scratch out the bit of experience I'd given Davies credit for.

Davies was 1/7 for that fight

crusader wrote:Right, I mixed up the location, so scratch out the bit of experience I'd given Davies credit for.

Davies was 1/7 for that fight

if you have mixed something as important as the location does that maybe suggest that you have mixed other things up. Such as your rating of josh. Im not trying to bait you mt crusade ( love the name by the way ) . But cant we just agree to disagree kid.
I think davies and you think taylor. Its cool mate.

I think mixing up a location is very different from inaccurately assessing the abilities of a fighter and the significance of their previous bouts

I'm not even that confident in Taylor and I haven't been arguing with you about who will win. The issue for me is simply that I don't think people should read much into Davies beating a well-worn and undersized Derry Matthews.

crusader wrote:I think mixing up a location is very different from inaccurately assessing the abilities of a fighter and the significance of their previous bouts

I'm not even that confident in Taylor and I haven't been arguing with you about who will win. The issue for me is simply that I don't think people should read much into Davies beating a well-worn and undersized Derry Matthews.

If you have mixed up something as obvious as the location kid how can i take you seriously on other issues. Lets just agree to disagree mr crusade( i really like that name )

Ya, good logic Vincent

I'd say, when it comes to one's ability to analyze fights, more telling than mixing up a location (I'm not British btw) is writing something like 'If paul is anywhere near his best he beats zeuge quite easily.' Of course, we all get certain fights wrong; doesn't mean one's opinion on other matters should be deemed uncredible

Thanks for the compliments my friend

crusader wrote:Ya, good logic Vincent

I'd say, when it comes to one's ability to analyze fights, more telling than mixing up a location (I'm not British btw) is writing something like 'If paul is anywhere near his best he beats zeuge quite easily.' Of course, we all get certain fights wrong; doesn't mean one's opinion on other matters should be deemed uncredible

Thanks for the compliments my friend

I think you have just gone through my posts to try and find an angle here. But what i said about the paul smith fight was true mr crusade. Unfortunately for paul he was nowhere near his best. Id ask you where that fight was held but ypu would probably get that wrong. And i couldnt care less if you was from jupiter mr no name. A moron is a moron. How can i take you seiously kid

Vincent stevenson wrote:

crusader wrote:Ya, good logic Vincent

I'd say, when it comes to one's ability to analyze fights, more telling than mixing up a location (I'm not British btw) is writing something like 'If paul is anywhere near his best he beats zeuge quite easily.' Of course, we all get certain fights wrong; doesn't mean one's opinion on other matters should be deemed uncredible

Thanks for the compliments my friend

I think you have just gone through my posts to try and find an angle here. But what i said about the paul smith fight was true mr crusade. Unfortunately for paul he was nowhere near his best. Id ask you where that fight was held but ypu would probably get that wrong. And i couldnt care less if you was from jupiter mr no name. A moron is a moron. How can i take you seiously kid

'seiously'?

Why, that's not how you spell 'seriously'! Your opinion on boxing now means nothing.

Poor Paul, not being at his best and losing 119-108 x 3.

crusader wrote:

Vincent stevenson wrote:

crusader wrote:Ya, good logic Vincent

I'd say, when it comes to one's ability to analyze fights, more telling than mixing up a location (I'm not British btw) is writing something like 'If paul is anywhere near his best he beats zeuge quite easily.' Of course, we all get certain fights wrong; doesn't mean one's opinion on other matters should be deemed uncredible

Thanks for the compliments my friend

I think you have just gone through my posts to try and find an angle here. But what i said about the paul smith fight was true mr crusade. Unfortunately for paul he was nowhere near his best. Id ask you where that fight was held but ypu would probably get that wrong. And i couldnt care less if you was from jupiter mr no name. A moron is a moron. How can i take you seiously kid

'seiously'?

Why, that's not how you spell 'seriously'! Your opinion on boxing now means nothing.

Come on son typing in a word wrong on a mobile phone and getting a location wrong of a fight is hardly the same thing. Grow up a wee bit mr crusade ( that is the best false name ever ) why the false name kid ?

Too bad Vince. You got it wrong and now your opinion on boxing means essentially nothing.

Since you're curious, my real name is crusader and your praise of it has made my day; thank you so much my friend

Did we ever see the best of Paul Smith ever ?

ShadrachSimmo wrote:Did we ever see the best of Paul Smith ever ?

Probably not mate no. Maybe in the first abraham fight.

Vincent stevenson wrote:

ShadrachSimmo wrote:Did we ever see the best of Paul Smith ever ?

Probably not mate no. Maybe in the first abraham fight.

What a wasted talent, I'm not sure the British boxing public realised what a tragic tale of 'what might have been' Smiggas career has been.

ShadrachSimmo wrote:Did we ever see the best of Paul Smith ever ?

He'll peak in world title crack #10 give him time