John Murray

Spud · Post by **Spud** » 08 Dec 2007, 18:58

Dear oh dear oh dear - seeing contender jump up and down after John's win tells me how close they thought the fight was.

Lets wait for it - I am wrong - okay then lets go in at another angle - why such joy in Murray win against a fighter whose record now stands at 16-9-1??

At the limited showing of rounds from ITV I was not impressed.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 08 Dec 2007, 18:59

Murray took a good learning fight vs a tough Mexican. Let's not go overboard with the criticisms. ITV didn't show the fight in full, so they may well have shown some bad Murray rounds to make non-SN fighters look great.

Murray took the fight where he'd pick up new things and experiences. Khan took the flashy route vs a chin ready to be taken. They'll both go far, IMO.

Spud · Post by **Spud** » 08 Dec 2007, 19:07

Autobarn wrote:Murray took a good learning fight vs a tough Mexican. Let's not go overboard with the criticisms. ITV didn't show the fight in full, so they may well have shown some bad Murray rounds to make non-SN fighters look great.

Listen to the commentary!!!

They thought the rounds were close!!!

Look at the corners relief - they knew it was close!!!

Murray in my opinion has gone down hill since he left the careful guidance of Steve Wood.

What's next for him another journeyman to look impressive against??

I will mention the record of the Mexican again - 16-9-1

I will also mention that Murray has been a professional boxer for 4 years now he made his debut in September 2003!!!

Look at what Amir Khan is doing now

Look at what Carl Froch is doing now who made his debut only 18 months prior to that

Look at what David Haye is doing he made his debut 9 months prior to Murray.

In my opinion Murray is going backwards!!!

Twinkle Toes · Post by **Twinkle Toes** » 08 Dec 2007, 19:36

Murray was and is over rated, much like Kevin Mitchell.

Spud · Post by **Spud** » 08 Dec 2007, 19:41

Twinkle Toes wrote:Murray was and is over rated, much like Kevin Mitchell.

I don't know so much. I honestly believe Murray has a lot of talent - but - in my opinion he has gone down hill big time - he is now 23-0 after having struggled big time against a mexican journeyman.

IMO things are not working out for him - is there something wrong with the training regime??

josh fg · Post by **josh fg** » 08 Dec 2007, 19:51

Difficult to say not having seen any of the Mexican's fights, he was a genuine tough journyman. It could have been that Murray was using it to practice infighting.

Good fight though I think its true that he may be loosing his way somewhat.

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 08 Dec 2007, 20:22

Murray has no speed and basically tucks up. Khan's speed and volume would open him up.

Khan would destroy him and Thaxton.

Khan needs someone like Romanov.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 08 Dec 2007, 20:42

some of the reactions on here are preposterous. rawling and duke are there to make SN fighters look as good as they can and the "opposition" hve to look bad.

murray took a LEARNING FIGHT. can the numbskulls on here not comprehend that? he's a young fighter and you pick things up with different fights.

he looked great vs hickman last month, but was in vs a guy who was harder to hit clean this time. he has a more rounded style than khan, throws better, shorter shots and has infighting skills which cannot be underestimated.

khan, by contrast, took a COSMETIC fight, by finishing off a slow fighter probably shell shocked from 3 consecutive hard fights (romanov, ramirez, katsidis). are ppl forgetting what happened to khan when he got tagged by a feather fisted, above average technician, limond? down twice from 1 punch.

khan would learn a lot fighting cagey, game mexicans who can take a shot.

who would have believed that the 1 and only juan diaz got dropped early in his career and was so upset about it that he cried in a post fight interview on showtime...despite that humiliation, he went on to become one of the youngest lightweight beltholders ever and now looks poised to rule the division, holding 3 belts as he does. get a fricking life, some of you.

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 08 Dec 2007, 20:49

Jeez who put sand In yo vagina?

Murray will be opened up by Khan's volume and speed. Murray's getting bruised up by journymen.

Spud · Post by **Spud** » 08 Dec 2007, 21:55

Autobarn wrote:some of the reactions on here are preposterous. rawling and duke are there to make SN fighters look as good as they can and the "opposition" hve to look bad.

murray took a LEARNING FIGHT. can the numbskulls on here not comprehend that? he's a young fighter and you pick things up with different fights.

he looked great vs hickman last month, but was in vs a guy who was harder to hit clean this time. he has a more rounded style than khan, throws better, shorter shots and has infighting skills which cannot be underestimated.

khan, by contrast, took a COSMETIC fight, by finishing off a slow fighter probably shell shocked from 3 consecutive hard fights (romanov, ramirez, katsidis). are ppl forgetting what happened to khan when he got tagged by a feather fisted, above average technician, limond? down twice from 1 punch.

khan would learn a lot fighting cagey, game mexicans who can take a shot.

who would have believed that the 1 and only juan diaz got dropped early in his career and was so upset about it that he cried in a post fight interview on showtime...despite that humiliation, he went on to become one of the youngest lightweight beltholders ever and now looks poised to rule the division, holding 3 belts as he does. get a fricking life, some of you.

Go and **** yourself - people are entitled to opinions.

Why the insults??

Using your words MURRAY TOOK A LEARNING FIGHT!!!

It is you who is a thick numbskull - John Murray was having his 23rd professional fight after having been a professional boxer for 4 YEARS!!!!- why the need for a learning fight against a fighter with a 16-9-1 record?? - also if you knew your boxing you would see this tough mexican they put Murray in with has campaigned for the most of his career at far lower weights!!!

josh fg · Post by **josh fg** » 08 Dec 2007, 21:57

Spud wrote:Go and **** yourself -
Why the insults??

Come on!

yiddo14 · Post by **yiddo14** » 09 Dec 2007, 07:21

Spud wrote:
Autobarn wrote:some of the reactions on here are preposterous. rawling and duke are there to make SN fighters look as good as they can and the "opposition" hve to look bad.

murray took a LEARNING FIGHT. can the numbskulls on here not comprehend that? he's a young fighter and you pick things up with different fights.

he looked great vs hickman last month, but was in vs a guy who was harder to hit clean this time. he has a more rounded style than khan, throws better, shorter shots and has infighting skills which cannot be underestimated.

khan, by contrast, took a COSMETIC fight, by finishing off a slow fighter probably shell shocked from 3 consecutive hard fights (romanov, ramirez, katsidis). are ppl forgetting what happened to khan when he got tagged by a feather fisted, above average technician, limond? down twice from 1 punch.

khan would learn a lot fighting cagey, game mexicans who can take a shot.

who would have believed that the 1 and only juan diaz got dropped early in his career and was so upset about it that he cried in a post fight interview on showtime...despite that humiliation, he went on to become one of the youngest lightweight beltholders ever and now looks poised to rule the division, holding 3 belts as he does. get a fricking life, some of you.
Go and **** yourself - people are entitled to opinions.

Why the insults??

Using your words MURRAY TOOK A LEARNING FIGHT!!!

It is you who is a thick numbskull - John Murray was having his 23rd professional fight after having been a professional boxer for 4 YEARS!!!!- why the need for a learning fight against a fighter with a 16-9-1 record?? - also if you knew your boxing you would see this tough mexican they put Murray in with has campaigned for the most of his career at far lower weights!!!

You don't have to "know" your boxing for that kind of info matey.

Any chump can look it up on Boxrec

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 09 Dec 2007, 07:25

he's also 23 years old. one showing that isn't sensational and already you make value judgements on a fighter's career. the reports from America had Murray a comfortable winner. do you believe everything that ITV commentators tell you?

khan's coming along well, but ppl have gone gaga over a 1st round KO, and have reacted a bit too strongly the other way with murray. grow up.

Southpaw Stylist · Post by **Southpaw Stylist** » 09 Dec 2007, 07:38

One thing I can tell you, these fights are good experience for Murray.

However, Khan would smoke him.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 09 Dec 2007, 07:39

It's a fight for the future and I believe both guys will make it to world class.

Spud · Post by **Spud** » 09 Dec 2007, 08:37

Terry D wrote:How many rounds did they show, if any? Spud, you could take a few minutes of each round from Femi's recent win and make it seem a knock on the guy.

John went to Vegas, got himself a win and can now enjoy the experience. He's been to the place twice this year and won.

Terry,

My opinion on Murray's performance on Friday evening is based on 2 things - yeah okay every now and again Rawling & Co get it wrong

but they felt the fight was close.

The tell tale sign though was the body language of the fighters and the corners - To see Murray's trainer Gallagher jump up and shout "yes" was a sign of utter relief and in addition his fighter was in if nothing else a struggle with a fighter who normally campaigns at lower weights in addition a fighter who was there to be beaten.

Murray is a professional fighter of 4 years standing - in addition experience wise in my opinion he should have been stepped up in class sometime ago - why you and others let a fighter with 23 fights get away with it is beyond me - a lot of you RIGHTLY criticise Roman Greenburg and I stress RIGHTLY - look at his record and also look at his age!!!! so yours and others arguments really do no wash whatsoever.

It is no good giving John Murray excuse after excuse after excuse - it was a bad victory against as the Americans would say "A Club Fighter".

As for "Been 2 vegas twice and won" - ahh bless his cotton socks - what is the point of going all the way to Vegas when in reality he should be stepped up in class and put into real learning fights.

Whilst Amir Khan who I have heavily criticised in the past progresses in the right manner in my view Murray has gone backwards big time.

I also agree with someone - Khan would batter Murray if he was to fight anything like he did on Friday.

I will state it again - it is my opinion John Murray has gone backwards big time since he left the careful but also progressive management of Steve Wood who had him fighting regularly but was also stepping him up in class slowly but surely.

Its a shame because John Murray is a good boxer and if he is to progesses it is my view there has to be changes!!!

The Blade · Post by **The Blade** » 09 Dec 2007, 08:42

Autobarn wrote:some of the reactions on here are preposterous. rawling and duke are there to make SN fighters look as good as they can and the "opposition" hve to look bad.

murray took a LEARNING FIGHT. can the numbskulls on here not comprehend that? he's a young fighter and you pick things up with different fights.

he looked great vs hickman last month, but was in vs a guy who was harder to hit clean this time. he has a more rounded style than khan, throws better, shorter shots and has infighting skills which cannot be underestimated.

khan, by contrast, took a COSMETIC fight, by finishing off a slow fighter probably shell shocked from 3 consecutive hard fights (romanov, ramirez, katsidis). are ppl forgetting what happened to khan when he got tagged by a feather fisted, above average technician, limond? down twice from 1 punch.

khan would learn a lot fighting cagey, game mexicans who can take a shot.

who would have believed that the 1 and only juan diaz got dropped early in his career and was so upset about it that he cried in a post fight interview on showtime...despite that humiliation, he went on to become one of the youngest lightweight beltholders ever and now looks poised to rule the division, holding 3 belts as he does. get a fricking life, some of you.

Are you off your head, on on drugs? Murray was ordinary against a modest oppenent, and too easy to hit. Khan takes him apart. He is not remotely in Amir's class, nice guy though he is.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 09 Dec 2007, 08:45

Murray has taken backward steps. He lost the Showtime date through injury, he fought the same guy twice (Smith?) and did worse in the rematch. He only fought 3x this year which is a hindrance but it making up for it now in taking regular fights and grabbing different experiences.

Murray's had 2 live opponents who were game, in the space of 4 weeks. He was dynamite v Hickman and struggled v the Mexican. If you single out 1 fight and decide a whole career, then you could single out the Hickman win where he looked great.

Let's wait and see Murray vs Thaxton. If John gets a dominant win, all the overreactions will go in the totally opposite direction. Opinion only sways from 1 extreme to another on here. There's so little balance.

ITV showed from rd 4, missed out rd 6 I think and then went the whole hog from 7-10. ITV probably only showed the fight because Murray wasn't dominant.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 09 Dec 2007, 08:48

The Blade wrote:
Autobarn wrote:some of the reactions on here are preposterous. rawling and duke are there to make SN fighters look as good as they can and the "opposition" hve to look bad.

murray took a LEARNING FIGHT. can the numbskulls on here not comprehend that? he's a young fighter and you pick things up with different fights.

he looked great vs hickman last month, but was in vs a guy who was harder to hit clean this time. he has a more rounded style than khan, throws better, shorter shots and has infighting skills which cannot be underestimated.

khan, by contrast, took a COSMETIC fight, by finishing off a slow fighter probably shell shocked from 3 consecutive hard fights (romanov, ramirez, katsidis). are ppl forgetting what happened to khan when he got tagged by a feather fisted, above average technician, limond? down twice from 1 punch.

khan would learn a lot fighting cagey, game mexicans who can take a shot.

who would have believed that the 1 and only juan diaz got dropped early in his career and was so upset about it that he cried in a post fight interview on showtime...despite that humiliation, he went on to become one of the youngest lightweight beltholders ever and now looks poised to rule the division, holding 3 belts as he does. get a fricking life, some of you.
Are you off your head, on on drugs? Murray was ordinary against a modest oppenent, and too easy to hit. Khan takes him apart. He is not remotely in Amir's class, nice guy though he is.

right, so that means his whole career has been, and will be, ordinary. genius, you don't even need drugs for inspiration!

Spud · Post by **Spud** » 09 Dec 2007, 08:51

Your argument is severly flawed Autobarn and it is you insulted the posters who dare criticise Murray.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 09 Dec 2007, 08:57

No insults and no flaws and I don't need you to tell me what's what.

It was not a great performance, in fact it was very disappointing, but the Mexican offered little target, seemed tough and spirited. Let's see what Murray picks up from this fight, before going overboard.

Murray can look great - Johnny Walker, Hickman, Odamattey - and he can look pedestrian - Munguia, Billy Snith 1 and 2.

It's also easy to go overboard on Khan, as ppl did after Limond and as ppl are after Earl.

As I said, let's wait for Murray-Thaxton. If you can only obsess over the freshest fight in your mind.

sweetscience · Post by **sweetscience** » 09 Dec 2007, 08:57

Autobarn wrote:Murray has taken backward steps. He lost the Showtime date through injury, he fought the same guy twice (Smith?) and did worse in the rematch. He only fought 3x this year which is a hindrance but it making up for it now in taking regular fights and grabbing different experiences.

Murray's had 2 live opponents who were game, in the space of 4 weeks. He was dynamite v Hickman and struggled v the Mexican. If you single out 1 fight and decide a whole career, then you could single out the Hickman win where he looked great.

Let's wait and see Murray vs Thaxton. If John gets a dominant win, all the overreactions will go in the totally opposite direction. Opinion only sways from 1 extreme to another on here. There's so little balance.

ITV showed from rd 4, missed out rd 6 I think and then went the whole hog from 7-10. ITV probably only showed the fight because Murray wasn't dominant.

itv were going to show meager cause he is being mooted as a potential oppo for khan but cause he didnt win they showed murray

they arent in the business of making khan's possible future oppo's look bad (wheres the potential ratings in that) they proberly showed the rounds they did cause they must have had the best action

but to be fair.......khan would destroy murray he is just too slow and doesnt have enough one punch power to trouble khan

let murray fight thaxton and if one wins with a decent showing let them fight khan, otherwise id rather khan didnt bother

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 09 Dec 2007, 09:00

sweetscience wrote:
Autobarn wrote:Murray has taken backward steps. He lost the Showtime date through injury, he fought the same guy twice (Smith?) and did worse in the rematch. He only fought 3x this year which is a hindrance but it making up for it now in taking regular fights and grabbing different experiences.

Murray's had 2 live opponents who were game, in the space of 4 weeks. He was dynamite v Hickman and struggled v the Mexican. If you single out 1 fight and decide a whole career, then you could single out the Hickman win where he looked great.

Let's wait and see Murray vs Thaxton. If John gets a dominant win, all the overreactions will go in the totally opposite direction. Opinion only sways from 1 extreme to another on here. There's so little balance.

ITV showed from rd 4, missed out rd 6 I think and then went the whole hog from 7-10. ITV probably only showed the fight because Murray wasn't dominant.
itv were going to show meager cause he is being mooted as a potential oppo for khan but cause he didnt win they showed murray

they arent in the business of making khan's possible future oppo's look bad (wheres the potential ratings in that) they proberly showed the rounds they did cause they must have had the best action

but to be fair.......khan would destroy murray he is just too slow and doesnt have enough one punch power to trouble khan

let murray fight khan and if one wins with a decent showing let them fight khan, otherwise id rather khan didnt bother

But it always seems to be Sports Network vs Them on TV.

When Murray's on form, he's a very correct puncher. Don't count out those body shots chopping Khan down. Much more compact fighter is Murray and his punches usually look more professiona. If Murray excells next time and if Khan looks amateurish next time, the thread will see-saw! Also, in a case where Murray must go after an opponent he may bring his best (or may just not be fast enough, n one knows).

Let's see who can get to Thaxton/Romanov first.

Spud · Post by **Spud** » 09 Dec 2007, 09:02

Autobarn wrote:No insults and no flaws and I don't need you to tell me what's what.

Look at your previous posts.

sweetscience · Post by **sweetscience** » 09 Dec 2007, 09:03

bloody hell you were quick with a reply then, i edited it within a few secs of posting and you beat my edit