Page 1 of 2

macklin or barker

Posted: 10 Jan 2011, 16:21
by barry leslie
mattew macklin or darren barker?

Re: macklin or barker

Posted: 10 Jan 2011, 16:40
by berealman
close fight, but I'd love Barker to get the result :TU:

Re: macklin or barker

Posted: 10 Jan 2011, 16:44
by Newport Daz
Macklin's looked pretty bad in his last 2 fights, but Barker hasn't fought in a long time. I hope Barker but it's too close to call.

Re: macklin or barker

Posted: 10 Jan 2011, 17:10
by barry leslie
yeah both seem like nice guys out the ring but i just think even though macklins strong barkers got more in his arsenal and i think macklins time was 18 months ago boxings all about timing and if he didnt get the chance when he was on a roll i think it might just have passed him by but im by no means writing macklin off he was ill against ruben varon and barker didnt look great fighting iffe belghecium so they both ground out the W

Re: macklin or barker

Posted: 10 Jan 2011, 17:18
by greenyox3
I think both of them need this fight, or they risk going stale.

As for who wins, it could simply come down to who's hungrier for it.

Re: macklin or barker

Posted: 10 Jan 2011, 17:46
by TerribleTerry
Macklin.

Re: macklin or barker

Posted: 10 Jan 2011, 18:00
by simonsays
Barker

Re: macklin or barker

Posted: 10 Jan 2011, 18:16
by whiskey
I see it being close with maybe a canvas trip along the way.

Macklin on his very best shines brighter than Barker.

But Barker is so consistent - and therefore I edge towards him very slightly.

Great fight regardless.

Re: macklin or barker

Posted: 10 Jan 2011, 18:37
by goldenears
wont happen

Re: macklin or barker

Posted: 11 Jan 2011, 05:15
by stujones
That's my call also Golden Ears, a few months ago I would have accepted it to not happen as I gave them a chance at world level. However, seeing their most recent performances I have the feeling, sadly, that both have reached their level so lets get it on now. If its a classic and the winner does go on to win a world title - then they can always rematch for the world title.

As for a pick, should the fight take place..... mmmm I don't know. Originally I thought Macklin would have too much power, but seeing his last fight I was going to go for the consistency of Barker. However, this news (not sure how old it is, or how much it has been exaggerated) about Barker being beaten untill he was unconscious by some thugs - well this could have a massive affect on his durability.... it really could.

Back in my amateur days I knew someone who sparred regularly with guys much bigger than him - and could take the shots well. After leaving boxing for 6 weeks, cause he got trod on the head playing Rugby and got concussed - he never boxed competitively after. He gave sparring a go, but his durability was gone - never floored, but you could see him out of it facing jabs.

Now, I don't know if there was proper neurological damage. He never told me if he had any scans after the Rugby (I doubt). But I also know a Rugby player who seemed to be concussed prone, after years of playing with no injuries it seemed to occur every game after the first one. A concerned Dad suggested he had a scan and it revealed no damage. He would have been medically cleared to box.

Re: macklin or barker

Posted: 11 Jan 2011, 05:31
by JC
stujones wrote:That's my call also Golden Ears, a few months ago I would have accepted it to not happen as I gave them a chance at world level. However, seeing their most recent performances I have the feeling, sadly, that both have reached their level so lets get it on now. If its a classic and the winner does go on to win a world title - then they can always rematch for the world title.
I agree Stu. Both careers could do with a boost and promoted right it could really raise the winner's profile.

Re: macklin or barker

Posted: 11 Jan 2011, 05:37
by gobbles
Won't happen. Too much doubt about TV and Barker's fitness.

Re: macklin or barker

Posted: 11 Jan 2011, 05:42
by Dioufy
Bookies should have this 5/6 either way. It's impossible for anyone to be certain of a win for either fighter. Although, in my experience, in a close fight, I always go with the better boxer, and Barker is definitely that.

Re: macklin or barker

Posted: 11 Jan 2011, 05:55
by winkveron
Barker on points or late stoppage for me. I think he's the much classier boxer and I think Macklin is overrated to be honest.

Re: macklin or barker

Posted: 11 Jan 2011, 06:07
by dutchie
2 months i would have gone for Macklin,but i feel with Macklin if he doesn't knock out his opponent in the first 4 rounds he will struggle against better opposion and i feel Barker could take it.

Re: macklin or barker

Posted: 11 Jan 2011, 06:42
by whiskey
goldenears wrote:wont happen
Well, I didn't want to say it - but I think the same.

Barker was legitimately unable to fight last time, what with losing his teeth, suffering with his hip and so forth.

Back last year, Macklin was without any sort of fight and had the opportunity to get the European title. This time however he has nothing to gain by fighting Barker. Plus his promoter is not keen on ever working with others, nor taking risks.

Throw in rumours of Winky Wright offering him a comeback fight in April and suddenly it looks like British boxing gets denied yet again.

It's wank if it goes a different route. As recent polls put this match up right up there with Degale vs Groves etc, in terms of fights people actually want to see.

Re: macklin or barker

Posted: 11 Jan 2011, 07:36
by King Haye
Barker. Macklin is very overrated for me.

Re: macklin or barker

Posted: 11 Jan 2011, 09:29
by black panther
Hennessy won the purse bids yesterday :

Hennessy Sports outbid both allegedly and Double A Promotions (Andy Ayling) earlier today in Rome to stage the all British European middleweight title fight between Darren Barker and Matthew Macklin. A date and venue will be announced within the next two weeks. Bid amounts weren’t disclosed.
http://www.fightnews.com/Boxing/henness ... -bid-72011

Re: macklin or barker

Posted: 11 Jan 2011, 10:37
by avidlemon
I would love macklin to win this. I like his heart, spirit and drive. He can box, and I feel the power is still there. However I think he has looked very lack lustre last two outings and he was lucky not to drop the last fight.
Barker has been inactive. He's had injuries and apparantely took a kicking. Could this be a factor? For me it's a pick em'.
Macklin has to go back to boxing and make barker come forward. Barker needs to make macklin over commit and catch him coming in. I thunk it's tough to call. Had macklin performed to his potential and looked amazing in his last two fights i would lean to him. But now the question is can he raise it for barker, and can barker find his form again?

Re: macklin or barker

Posted: 11 Jan 2011, 10:58
by Captain Hook
BARKER

Re: macklin or barker

Posted: 11 Jan 2011, 13:34
by bigh
WONT HAPPEN!!

Re: macklin or barker

Posted: 11 Jan 2011, 13:51
by Arnie
Would like to see Mac win but cant see it, I can see Barker winning on points and Matt getting busted up with his jab, Matts defence has not been there of late. Hope im wrong.

Re: macklin or barker

Posted: 11 Jan 2011, 14:22
by goldenears
just no way FW lets it go ahead on any bill but his own. We'll get robbed of the only decent domestic MW fight yet again.

Re: macklin or barker

Posted: 12 Jan 2011, 07:07
by pyenest77
I go for Barker too skillful, too consistant. I think also with Macklins last couple of performances the gloss seems to have gone for me. Not sure what anyone else thinks, but with the violent assault Barker received & Macklins last 2 tepid performances it needs rebuilding up.

Re: macklin or barker

Posted: 12 Jan 2011, 07:37
by Londonirish
Aint 100% sure but has Barker just had an Hip Replacement?? If so i dont see this Fight happening...