BoxRec

Reading a few threads and there seems to be a difference in opion about making fights now such as Hatton v Witter and Haye v Maccarrenelli etc

What are your views on making big domestic match-ups when both fighters arguably have world title aspirations.

Surely it is better to let them lead an assault on the world title before they might one day meet each other?

as long as they sare tru contender class, then yes undoubtedly.
but as we saw with the l middles we had a lot of decent fighters but none where wolrd contnder class really. everytime they stepped up they got torn apart.
(ok stone was against mosely but I think shane is one of the most overrated fighters out there since the turn of the millenium)
then we are robbed of exciting match ups including steve roberts, richard williams, takaloo, wayne alexander, anthony farnell and possibly adrian stone.

so its a bit of a chicken and egg situation im afraid.

I think at Welterweight Mosley was the real McCoy, he was fast, accurate and deadly, once he stepped up from welterweight, at least for a time. He was always going to get found out by someone with that style however.

This is a question. For me the lightmiddles (with the possible exception of Williams, who i feel could have been good enough) were never talented enough to fight at the elite level, and talk of them winning genuine world titles was aways just a pipe dream. They should have been put in against each other, and hopefully it's a lesson learned for all concerned.

With regard to the cruisers at the moment, i'd like to see Hobson and Enzo fight fairly soon, as i believe they'll both come up short at the top level. As for Haye, well he looks like he might be something special, so i'd keep him away from obvious bangers like Enzo until he's established on the world scene. Hopefully the other two will be fighting at a sufficiently high level to make the matches then.

I guess the short answer is, if both fighters in a potential match-up can clearly cut it at the top, why risk them against each other at an early stage?

I think it would be bigger for British boxing if they are already established as world beaters before they fight each other.

If two people on the rise in Britain fight each other it would not have the same appeal and one could be damaged, whereas two British world champions set a fight in Britiain, it'd be bigger for Britain, have more appeal, probably more excitement, and would help raise the profile of British sport.

I think a lot of this is this fornicating terrible fixation we seem to have developed for fighter's records, a fixation fostered by promoters who know they'll have trouble selling a fighter with a couple of losses on his record. In a perfect world, they should be being put in together to find out who is best in Britain, before moving on to international level.

A loss doesn't necessarily 'damage' a fighter. It always used to be considered a part of learning you trade. Now, people assume the fighter's career is over. Is Dale's career over after his close loss to Booth? If we're ever lucky enough to have two young world class fighters (and we're not a big country, they don't come along every week), and one turns the other, so be it. If the fighter can't deal with a loss, then they should really think whether they're in the right game. Look at Dazzo Williams, and how he's come back from very early set backs. Again, Dale's a good example. If the fighter can deal with setbacks, they often come through it stronger and the better for the experience.

Unfortunately, a promoter's first responsibility is to his wallet (and I don't blame 'em, I'd be the same) so young prospects go in with low-risk fighters whenever and wherever possible.

Some fighters careers can recover from a loss, some cannot. It depends on how popular they were in the first place

With so few TV dates available, and so much competitiion, the unbeaten stars are always going to get more exposure. It's not ideal, but it's the way it is, not TV fights are almost impossible to make money off now, as the level of crowds is nothing like it was 40 years ago, when you could get 40,000 fans for a big world title fight.

Arturo Gatti showed that even if you have big losses on your record, you can still make big PPV numbers, but that is because of his style. Floyd Mayweather couldn't tolerate more than one or two losses, because generally he bores the ass of the average sports fan.

Hatton could certianly rebound from one if not more losses.

I can see the rationale for keeping Hatton and Witter away from one another, surely it's better to have them both get a genuine world title (looking possible now with Hatton bearing down on Harris), and then meet for a huge amount of money and exposure, than knock one another off at an early stage for no real advantage?

mickeybeard wrote:I think a lot of this is this fornicating terrible fixation we seem to have developed for fighter's records, a fixation fostered by promoters who know they'll have trouble selling a fighter with a couple of losses on his record. In a perfect world, they should be being put in together to find out who is best in Britain, before moving on to international level.

A loss doesn't necessarily 'damage' a fighter. It always used to be considered a part of learning you trade. Now, people assume the fighter's career is over. Is Dale's career over after his close loss to Booth? If we're ever lucky enough to have two young world class fighters (and we're not a big country, they don't come along every week), and one turns the other, so be it. If the fighter can't deal with a loss, then they should really think whether they're in the right game. Look at Dazzo Williams, and how he's come back from very early set backs. Again, Dale's a good example. If the fighter can deal with setbacks, they often come through it stronger and the better for the experience.

Unfortunately, a promoter's first responsibility is to his wallet (and I don't blame 'em, I'd be the same) so young prospects go in with low-risk fighters whenever and wherever possible.

IMO, the fixation is mainly held by the more casual boxing fans, i think you'll be hard pushed to find guys on here who are genuinely bothered about unbeaten records. I for one couldn't care less if a decent prospect suffered a few losses, provided he learned something from the defeats and wasn't beaten badly.

Agreed. Just think two genuine British world beaters in a match would be better then two prospects. Not that they both wouldn't be good to be honest.

glittermonkey wrote:IMO, the fixation is mainly held by the more casual boxing fans, i think you'll be hard pushed to find guys on here who are genuinely bothered about unbeaten records. I for one couldn't care less if a decent prospect suffered a few losses, provided he learned something from the defeats and wasn't beaten badly.

And yet you'd rather keep Haye away from dangerous guys like Enzo because Haye appears to be world class? You can't have it both ways. There are no guarentees, and if Haye and Enzo go the international route and loose a couple, the fights aren't worth anywhere near as much anymore, and we've got another light-middleweight situation on our hands. If the fights can be made, they should be made. Let's find out who's the best in the country. The winner goes on to bigger and better things, the loosers either lower their goals, or push themselves to improve. It won't happen for financial reasons, but I fail to see why it shouldn't happen.

As for it only being the casual fan that cares about pretty records well, it would be nice if that were true, but I'm afraid I've seen plenty of so-called serious fans on boards like these jump on young fighters at the first given opportunity.

Hatton/Witter is a completely different situation in that, if the recent press is to be believed, Ricky is sat on a WT fight anyway. Both are already past the domestic level, and have been for a while.

I know that this situation is unlikely to ever come to pass, for the reasons James gave in his post, but I'm at a loss as to why so many of you think it shouldn't happen. The beauty of the sport is that, despite any intricate plans to build fighters up to WT fights seperately, they're never more than a couple of decent punches away from being (in the eyes of the media and fans) damaged goods.

mickeybeard wrote:

glittermonkey wrote:IMO, the fixation is mainly held by the more casual boxing fans, i think you'll be hard pushed to find guys on here who are genuinely bothered about unbeaten records. I for one couldn't care less if a decent prospect suffered a few losses, provided he learned something from the defeats and wasn't beaten badly.

And yet you'd rather keep Haye away from dangerous guys like Enzo because Haye appears to be world class? You can't have it both ways. There are no guarentees, and if Haye and Enzo go the international route and loose a couple, the fights aren't worth anywhere near as much anymore, and we've got another light-middleweight situation on our hands. If the fights can be made, they should be made. Let's find out who's the best in the country. The winner goes on to bigger and better things, the loosers either lower their goals, or push themselves to improve. It won't happen for financial reasons, but I fail to see why it shouldn't happen.

I'm not trying to have it both ways. As i've said, a defeat is not the end of the world for a prospect, providing that the defeat isn't too crushing. The only way i see Enzo beating Haye is by KO, that to me would be a damaging defeat.

However, if Haye was to fight Nelson, and was outboxed for periods of the fight, suffering a fairly narrow points defeat, then i could stomach that. In the long run that would be far more beneficial to his career than a potential KO against Enzo.

mickeybeard wrote:As for it only being the casual fan that cares about pretty records well, it would be nice if that were true, but I'm afraid I've seen plenty of so-called serious fans on boards like these jump on young fighters at the first given opportunity.

I meant here on boxrec's educated British Scene forum. Most of the more respected blokes here wouldn't condemn Haye for the type of loss i've described above.

Actually, being sparked by Enzo might convince him to keep his bloody hands up.

I actually think that being knocked silly might do him some good, as long as it wasn't a punishing KO. He seems confident enough to bounce back, and it'd teach him that he won't be able to toy with higher level opponents.

DODSON VS FROCH IT WILL HAPPEN IN OCTOBER IN LIVERPOOL IAM ON A FULL RECOVERY AND WILL BE BACK IN TRAINING VERY SOON FULL TIME I WILL BE BRITISH AND COMMONWELTH CHAMP VERY SOON AND IT IS REALY ME NATSUECOW MEANS WHITE WARRIOR AKA TONY THE WARRIOR DODSON.

NATSUECOW wrote:DODSON VS FROCH IT WILL HAPPEN IN OCTOBER IN LIVERPOOL IAM ON A FULL RECOVERY AND WILL BE BACK IN TRAINING VERY SOON FULL TIME I WILL BE BRITISH AND COMMONWELTH CHAMP VERY SOON AND IT IS REALY ME NATSUECOW MEANS WHITE WARRIOR AKA TONY THE WARRIOR DODSON.

Hey Tony welcome, hope my comments on the other thread were taken as constructive criticism - Its better to be honest (but constructive) than to give a fighter false confidence.

Good luck in your fight with Froch.

LOL YE STU THATS WHY I COME ON THESE THINGS TO SEE WHAT PEOPLE THINK OF ME AS A FIGHTER IVE HAD A LOT OF BAD LUCK THIS YEAR BUT IAM ONLY 24 WHICH ISNT THAT OLD AND HAVE A LOT OF YEARS LEFT IN ME IAM NOT EVEN AT MY PRIME YET.SO LETS SEE WHAT HAPPENS AND THANKS FOR YOUR HONESTY STU.TONY DODSON

Just a few words for you to take into your fight with Froch. Firstly, RIGHT HAND. Secondly, please land it as often as possible. Seriously though, good luck.