Page 1 of 1

Barker/Eastman.

Posted: 18 Aug 2013, 04:13
by Rover
How would this go?

Re: Barker/Eastman.

Posted: 18 Aug 2013, 04:24
by gilgamesh
I think Barker wins a decision in a pretty tough bout.

Re: Barker/Eastman.

Posted: 18 Aug 2013, 04:31
by Rover
gilgamesh wrote:I think Barker wins a decision in a pretty tough bout.
Probably, but Eastman could punch, and Barker's chin isn't rock.

Re: Barker/Eastman.

Posted: 18 Aug 2013, 04:35
by gilgamesh
Rover wrote:
gilgamesh wrote:I think Barker wins a decision in a pretty tough bout.
Probably, but Eastman could punch, and Barker's chin isn't rock.
Neither of them were dynamite punchers though, they're boxers for the most part and I think Barker's reach would give him the slight edge. I'd be shocked at nothing here though.

I doubt Barker stays a titlist very long.

Re: Barker/Eastman.

Posted: 18 Aug 2013, 04:37
by Rover
gilgamesh wrote:
Rover wrote:
gilgamesh wrote:I think Barker wins a decision in a pretty tough bout.
Probably, but Eastman could punch, and Barker's chin isn't rock.
Neither of them were dynamite punchers though, they're boxers for the most part and I think Barker's reach would give him the slight edge. I'd be shocked at nothing here though.

I doubt Barker stays a titlist very long.
Sturm could beat him.

Re: Barker/Eastman.

Posted: 18 Aug 2013, 04:38
by gilgamesh
Rover wrote:
gilgamesh wrote:
Neither of them were dynamite punchers though, they're boxers for the most part and I think Barker's reach would give him the slight edge. I'd be shocked at nothing here though.

I doubt Barker stays a titlist very long.
Sturm could beat him.
Probably, but he wouldn't leave Germany to do it, and Barker would be a damn fool to go to Germany to defend his belt against him.

Re: Barker/Eastman.

Posted: 18 Aug 2013, 04:44
by Rover
gilgamesh wrote:
Rover wrote:
gilgamesh wrote:
Neither of them were dynamite punchers though, they're boxers for the most part and I think Barker's reach would give him the slight edge. I'd be shocked at nothing here though.

I doubt Barker stays a titlist very long.
Sturm could beat him.
Probably, but he wouldn't leave Germany to do it, and Barker would be a damn fool to go to Germany to defend his belt against him.
I read Sturm will fight the Barker/Geale winner.
And many others have gone to Germany; Barker might.

Re: Barker/Eastman.

Posted: 18 Aug 2013, 04:45
by gilgamesh
Rover wrote:
gilgamesh wrote:
Probably, but he wouldn't leave Germany to do it, and Barker would be a damn fool to go to Germany to defend his belt against him.
I read Sturm will fight the Barker/Geale winner.
And many others have gone to Germany; Barker might.
I repeat if Barker goes to GERMANY to defend HIS title, he's a goddamn fool.

Most who went to Germany were trying to take Sturm's title away from him, not the other way around.

Re: Barker/Eastman.

Posted: 18 Aug 2013, 04:53
by Rover
gilgamesh wrote:
Rover wrote:
gilgamesh wrote:
Probably, but he wouldn't leave Germany to do it, and Barker would be a damn fool to go to Germany to defend his belt against him.
I read Sturm will fight the Barker/Geale winner.
And many others have gone to Germany; Barker might.
I repeat if Barker goes to GERMANY to defend HIS title, he's a goddamn fool.

Most who went to Germany were trying to take Sturm's title away from him, not the other way around.
Geale went there for a unification. I think Sturm won his belts in Germany. Aside from DLH, he's pretty much fought his title fights there.

Re: Barker/Eastman.

Posted: 18 Aug 2013, 05:30
by gilgamesh
Rover wrote: Geale went there for a unification. I think Sturm won his belts in Germany. Aside from DLH, he's pretty much fought his title fights there.
At least Geale was going for a unification though, Barker would have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Though in all fairness, I figure he's going to lose his title in quick fashion regardless of who he defends against...well as long as they're a top Middleweight, if he scrapes the bottom of the barrel like Sturm did I suppose he can defend his title a few times.

Re: Barker/Eastman.

Posted: 18 Aug 2013, 05:35
by Rover
gilgamesh wrote:
Rover wrote: Geale went there for a unification. I think Sturm won his belts in Germany. Aside from DLH, he's pretty much fought his title fights there.
At least Geale was going for a unification though, Barker would have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Though in all fairness, I figure he's going to lose his title in quick fashion regardless of who he defends against...well as long as they're a top Middleweight, if he scrapes the bottom of the barrel like Sturm did I suppose he can defend his title a few times.
Soliman also went over there when he was already the #1 contender.

Re: Barker/Eastman.

Posted: 18 Aug 2013, 05:37
by gilgamesh
Rover wrote:
gilgamesh wrote:
Rover wrote: Geale went there for a unification. I think Sturm won his belts in Germany. Aside from DLH, he's pretty much fought his title fights there.
At least Geale was going for a unification though, Barker would have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Though in all fairness, I figure he's going to lose his title in quick fashion regardless of who he defends against...well as long as they're a top Middleweight, if he scrapes the bottom of the barrel like Sturm did I suppose he can defend his title a few times.
Soliman also went over there when he was already the #1 contender.
Yeah but that was Soliman...I had completely forgotten he was even an active fighter until he fought Sturm.

Re: Barker/Eastman.

Posted: 18 Aug 2013, 05:42
by Rover
Point is he was already a mandatory.

Re: Barker/Eastman.

Posted: 18 Aug 2013, 05:43
by gilgamesh
Rover wrote:Point is he was already a mandatory.
Just because you're a mandatory doesn't mean you call the shots, The Mandatory title challenger still goes the Champ's backyard 85% of the time.

Re: Barker/Eastman.

Posted: 18 Aug 2013, 05:45
by Rover
gilgamesh wrote:
Rover wrote:Point is he was already a mandatory.
Just because you're a mandatory doesn't mean you call the shots, The Mandatory title challenger still goes the Champ's backyard 85% of the time.
Sturm was no longer a champ.

Re: Barker/Eastman.

Posted: 18 Aug 2013, 05:48
by gilgamesh
Rover wrote:
gilgamesh wrote:
Rover wrote:Point is he was already a mandatory.
Just because you're a mandatory doesn't mean you call the shots, The Mandatory title challenger still goes the Champ's backyard 85% of the time.
Sturm was no longer a champ.
Then why did you even mention the Soliman bout?

Re: Barker/Eastman.

Posted: 18 Aug 2013, 05:50
by Rover
Because it shows Sturm didn't need to have a belt to get fighters to come to Germany.

Re: Barker/Eastman.

Posted: 18 Aug 2013, 05:55
by gilgamesh
Rover wrote:Because it shows Sturm didn't need to have a belt to get fighters to come to Germany.
I know that, but Soliman was nobody (you can get any fighter to go anywhere if they're hard up for a payday). Barker has a belt, Sturm doesn't. That changes things.

I'm not saying Barker WON'T go to Germany, but he'd be stupid if he did. He has what Sturm wants, not the other way around.

Hell Barker would likely get just as much money to fight Murray or Macklin in England that he would to fight Sturm in Germany, and in England he'd be home.

Re: Barker/Eastman.

Posted: 18 Aug 2013, 06:00
by Rover
gilgamesh wrote:
Rover wrote:Because it shows Sturm didn't need to have a belt to get fighters to come to Germany.
I know that, but Soliman was nobody (you can get any fighter to go anywhere if they're hard up for a payday). Barker has a belt, Sturm doesn't. That changes things.

I'm not saying Barker WON'T go to Germany, but he'd be stupid if he did. He has what Sturm wants, not the other way around.

Hell Barker would likely get just as much money to fight Murray or Macklin in England that he would to fight Sturm in Germany, and in England he'd be home.
Soliman already was a mandatory and had a title shot awaiting him.

And like I said, I read that the winner would be fighting Sturm, so a purse bid might determine this.

Re: Barker/Eastman.

Posted: 18 Aug 2013, 06:03
by gilgamesh
Rover wrote:
gilgamesh wrote:
Rover wrote:Because it shows Sturm didn't need to have a belt to get fighters to come to Germany.
I know that, but Soliman was nobody (you can get any fighter to go anywhere if they're hard up for a payday). Barker has a belt, Sturm doesn't. That changes things.

I'm not saying Barker WON'T go to Germany, but he'd be stupid if he did. He has what Sturm wants, not the other way around.

Hell Barker would likely get just as much money to fight Murray or Macklin in England that he would to fight Sturm in Germany, and in England he'd be home.
Soliman already was a mandatory and had a title shot awaiting him.

And like I said, I read that the winner would be fighting Sturm, so a purse bid might determine this.
We'll see what happens, Sturm is a solid opponent if that is indeed the route Barker takes...he's a f*cking idiot if he does though, because there's a 70% chance he gets jobbed out of his title.

Re: Barker/Eastman.

Posted: 24 Aug 2013, 18:36
by Giancarlo
Barker

Re: Barker/Eastman.

Posted: 24 Aug 2013, 18:55
by giacomino
Prime v Prime I would go Eastman by close decision.
I would suspect Sturm will outbid Barker for the title fight but it's not a given. UK promoters have money, unlike many promoters from countries that can't compete financially. Sturm by UD. Barker is not a puncher, which makes him perfect for Sturm, who has nightmares about opponents like G3

Re: Barker/Eastman.

Posted: 25 Aug 2013, 09:51
by loaded_gloves
Eastman would break Barker up. I have seen both men fight in the flesh and Eastman was at very least a level above Barker. I think Eastman hit with way more weight than Martinez.