BoxRec

One sided win for Buckland, Truscott was never likely to have the pop to keep him off. But one question, why the derisory commentary from Sky about Truscott. They effectively said he was shit and more frustratingly that he wasn't really trying hard enough/didn't want it. Styles make fights and Buckland was all wrong for Truscott, but he stood there and gave it a decent shot, showed some decent defence (and yes, a lack of pop) and returned fire with regularity every time Buckland looked like he was going to stop him.

Thought he showed a lot of bottle and deserved more than what sounded like some pretty disrespectful commentary from someone who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

Anyway.....rage subsiding....

A lot of talk after the fight of Buckland v Foster Jr. Not sure why the need for this fight rather than just going for Fegatilli. I'd rate Bucklands chance agaianst the Belgian pretty highly, he looked pretty beatable even if he did pull off the shock.

Tough loss for Truscott. Brave kid, but needs more authority on his punches to compete at title level.

He didn't really seem up for it though did he?

It looked like a weak fight on paper and that is how it turned out. If Sky didn't want a one sided fight then they shouldn't have booked one.

It isn't a very deep division domestically though, so maybe no one better was available.

Baboon wrote:Anyway.....rage subsiding....

A lot of talk after the fight of Buckland v Foster Jr. Not sure why the need for this fight rather than just going for Fegatilli. I'd rate Bucklands chance agaianst the Belgian pretty highly, he looked pretty beatable even if he did pull off the shock.

Tough loss for Truscott. Brave kid, but needs more authority on his punches to compete at title level.

Foster Jr. is the British mandatory challenger.

If Buckland fights Fegatilli next then I would like to see Foster fight Sykes for the English title with the winners meeting.

im surprised he got a straight shot at the title. with the number of names in the division you would have thought he would have had to win an eliminator.

anyone know what happened in Richard Towers Bout , Annoyed that sky yet again failed to show him.

stopped him in 5th.

i agree Baboon truscott had moments in that fight and they weren't even commented on by the commentary, it was too one sided commentary wise buckland won clearly but truscott did well to survive the storm and hang in for 12 rounds there was no need to be be so personally negative about his effort

Horse wrote:He didn't really seem up for it though

Have to disagree there. He dug in and tried his best in what was a terrible match up for him. The lad has a big heart.

Have to agree that I thought the commentary was unfair and appalling, I dont need to be told over and over that a fight is onesided and adams comments about Truscott being like a lamb was both insulting and ridiculous. And what the hell was Nelson going on about after the fight calling Truscott a broken man???. This from a man who was hardly known for his fighting spirit during his career!!.

dondada wrote:

Horse wrote:He didn't really seem up for it though

Have to disagree there. He dug in and tried his best in what was a terrible match up for him. The lad has a big heart.

Later on he showed some heart, but his early workrate was pretty poor.

He was up against it, but he never seemed to try to do much to give himself any sort of a chance to win, he seemed to just accept his fate and try to go the distance.

Horse wrote:He didn't really seem up for it though did he?

It looked like a weak fight on paper and that is how it turned out. If Sky didn't want a one sided fight then they shouldn't have booked one.

It isn't a very deep division domestically though, so maybe no one better was available.

The Hunters back.

damianhucker1 wrote:anyone know what happened in Richard Towers Bout , Annoyed that sky yet again failed to show him.

Ditto.

Truscott is a very nice boxer, albeit lacking a major dig. Even when he was under serious fire he looked composed and rarely hurt, he kept his defence together and fired off plenty of counter uppercuts and hooks on the inside. In the last couple of rounds, after he'd been put down (and it looked like he wanted out), he put up a very spirited showing and gave a fair bit back.

I wasn't happy with the commentary either - they were basically writing the lad off as a pro because he was coming off 2nd best against an opponent who is within reach of European level. I may be mistaken, but I got the impression (and have done on previous nights involving one sided fights) that Smith's extreme negativity was somehow a veiled attack on the promoter for putting the fight together. If so, he should take a look at his own role in allowing it as a main event on Sky!

Kilburn wrote:

damianhucker1 wrote:anyone know what happened in Richard Towers Bout , Annoyed that sky yet again failed to show him.

Ditto.

http://news.boxrec.com/news/2012/rabche ... tor-rhodes

Towers report here mate.

Buckland is unstoppable at the moment at British level. He's in the form of his life and must be looking for a European title shot soon.

Truscott looked good to me and I agree the Sky team were too negative. The 9st 4lbs British champs will not all be a good as Buckland and if Truscott can keep plugging away, he could land another shot and get a better result next time.