BoxRec

had been around in this day and age, a great fighter, perhaps with all of the skills of amir khan, and some.......but with a royal doulton chin. after his 1st round KO at the hands of the belgian (?seys or reys)..then would errols career have been structured in a more protective manner, so that he would not have had to fight a brute like kaylor, but would have managed to find a world title shot via a different route....with the right promoter.

such a great fighter, such promise, very very gifted, but such crap whiskers. but were matchmakers and promoters so much more aggressive then?

rhino222 wrote:
such a great fighter, such promise, very very gifted, but such crap whiskers. but were matchmakers and promoters so much more aggressive then?

i think the quick answer is probably 'no', cue bennie and a much better answer than I could provide about the Cartel, the way they matched Frank Bruno, etc etc

Counter-puncher wrote:

rhino222 wrote:
such a great fighter, such promise, very very gifted, but such crap whiskers. but were matchmakers and promoters so much more aggressive then?

i think the quick answer is probably 'no', cue bennie and a much better answer than I could provide about the Cartel, the way they matched Frank Bruno, etc etc

but should christie have been risked in a big punching domestic bust up with a brute like kaylor to keep the BBBof C happy. it was the equivalent of hatton v witter in its day, khan v murray in its day...... and we know in this day and age these fights just dont happen.

I'd have to know more to answer that, but from memory the Kaylor fight was british title eliminator, in those days a fighter like Christie wouldn't get anywhere without the british title, so yes he should have been risked in the Kaylor fight as it was his best/only option for getting to or going beyond british level. that'd be my answer.

The Cartel were rarely aggressive in their matchmaking. F rank Warren was more aggressive but Christie just didn't develop as a pro under manager Burt McCarthy, who also did a great job of mismanaging three-time ABA king Andy Straughn.

As said earlier, it was so much harder to avoid domestic rivals as you really had to go the british title route to get a crack at the european and then world title.

rhino222 wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

rhino222 wrote:
such a great fighter, such promise, very very gifted, but such crap whiskers. but were matchmakers and promoters so much more aggressive then?

i think the quick answer is probably 'no', cue bennie and a much better answer than I could provide about the Cartel, the way they matched Frank Bruno, etc etc

but should christie have been risked in a big punching domestic bust up with a brute like kaylor to keep the BBBof C happy. it was the equivalent of hatton v witter in its day, khan v murray in its day...... and we know in this day and age these fights just dont happen.

And thats the problem with boxing today

Too many good fights out there not being made

In the gum, Errol looked a milion dollars, even sparring with Eubank at matchroom gym, He made Eubank look silly, but alas, could not do it for real in the gym,
I trained Ian Strudwicke and devised a plan to beat him and it worked!!, sad to see tho, loved Errols style..

Christie fought a friend of mine in the amateurs (the early stages of the 1982 ABAs). It lasted one punch.

Was there ever any footage of him at the Kronk in the good old days?