Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant

[dbflex]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 034128.ece

This article is disgusting and as much as I do not wish to give it any more notoriety (or web hits) I feel anyone who disagrees, as I do, vehemently, should leave a comment under the piece.

Flex

[Brian Moore]

While the tone of the piece may be harsh by the Times journalist, Buckley represents one of the things that is wrong with British boxing and why many of today’s younger fans are being more attracted to MMA. Boxing cards are supposed to contain competitive, well-matched bouts right the way down the card. It’s not about just having a decent main event and chief support. Buckley has long since ceased to be competitive, arguably since the early 90’s, and just goes through the motions, effectively conning the paying public. Do you think they care about Buckley being a loyal servant? They just want to see competitive fights for their very hard earned money, not 60-54 every time Buckley steps through the ropes.

I don’t have a problem with journeymen of the likes of Tony Booth who at least give it a go and earn their money by putting in an honest shift when they climb through the ropes but this doesn’t apply to Buckley. Lets’ face it this is a man who earns good pocket money for essentially turning up and going through the motions. What is exactly is he teaching our prospects?

Trashing Buckley may be below the belt but celebrating him as some kind of iconic figure is equally naïve. If Boxing is to survive the fewer the “opponents” who adopt Buckley’s mindset, the better.

[Poncey]

Maybe it's me, but I don't see it as bashing Him. As mentioned on the comments, the tone or headline isn't great.

[oliverfennell]

I think it was all fair enough, except for the headline. He may have the most defeats but there are certainly worse boxers out there.

[banjo]

"Worlds worst boxer"



Obviously the writer has never heard of Eric Crumble

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer

[Lenny]

While the tone of the piece may be harsh by the Times journalist, Buckley represents one of the things that is wrong with British boxing and why many of today’s younger fans are being more attracted to MMA. Boxing cards are supposed to contain competitive, well-matched bouts right the way down the card. It’s not about just having a decent main event and chief support. Buckley has long since ceased to be competitive, arguably since the early 90’s, and just goes through the motions, effectively conning the paying public. Do you think they care about Buckley being a loyal servant? They just want to see competitive fights for their very hard earned money, not 60-54 every time Buckley steps through the ropes.

I don’t have a problem with journeymen of the likes of Tony Booth who at least give it a go and earn their money by putting in an honest shift when they climb through the ropes but this doesn’t apply to Buckley. Lets’ face it this is a man who earns good pocket money for essentially turning up and going through the motions. What is exactly is he teaching our prospects?

Trashing Buckley may be below the belt but celebrating him as some kind of iconic figure is equally naïve. If Boxing is to survive the fewer the “opponents” who adopt Buckley’s mindset, the better.

I agree with this. Boxers like Booth, Billy and Ernie Smith do teach our prospects something and usual give it a go.

[Chambers2]

I didn't like the tone of the article especially the headline.

Why couldn't they have concentrated on the amount of BIG names he's been in with or just the amount of fights he's had or the amount of shows he'd saved at the last minute or how few times he'd bee stopped

[dbflex]

Hooray for Chambers – before that, I must admit to being surprised by the responses. I imagined the people most ikely to appreciate the job Buckley does – i.e. helping to develop prospects by forcing them to try to fing gaps in his defence – would be the hardcore fans, the guys who use the forums. Starting this thread may actually have backfired but there you go.

For those who feel only the headline is offensive, here are a a coule of quotes:

"a man who should be remembered for ever as Britain’s most spectacular sporting loser."

"While the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBC) remained desperately concerned that he would do himself a serious lasting injury, Buckley persisted, losing bout after bout. Though the BBBC would have liked to have halted Buckley’s career, it has proved powerless to stop him." (Is this even true?)

[dondada]

I assumed on another thread it was Ron Lewis' sub-editor stitching him up with a shitty headline. I've read it now and Ron is negative initially - but you can't get away from the fact that Buckley has lost 256 fights. The tone is a bit unfortunate, perhaps. Ron does have to try and get the space in the first place though.

Buckley does divide opinion - the writer does give balance further down the piece.

The Eddie the Eagle analogy is a bit strained - Edwards was always complete shite, Buckley wasn't.

Unfortunately Matt Syed - usually good - takes the analogy further:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 034127.ece

It's bollocks. Eric the Eel and Buckley being compared? One of those times that general sports writers expose their ignorance of boxing, I'm afraid. The cheeky bastard even talks about Buckley's left hook. I doubt he's ever seen it.

Think on that Buckley got a draw three weeks ago and three years ago boxed a very deserved draw against Sean Hughes (I was there, Matt Syed wasn't) who went on to beat Pickering.

Buckley has gone back a lot since then though and I'm glad to see him get out on 300.

[dondada]

Buckley has long since ceased to be competitive, arguably since the early 90’s

He hasn't been competitive for a while. But to say the early 90's is way off.

[Autobarn]

Well, as they say boxing is a business first and a sport second. Journeymen are needed to pad records, make up numbers, keep the hot fighters busy, and ultimately lose. They take late notice fights if they need the dosh, and in some cases, if they beat the other guy, they might not be brought back next time. Promoters need journeymen for sure.

I wonder, what percentage of fights are meant to be competitive? How long is a piece of string.

[Poncey]

How many times has Peter been floored? I seem to remember His first being against Hamed, and that was questionable.

[stujones]

What I think is most wrong with the article is that the "loser" Tim Henman gets mentioned in the same bracket as Eddie the Eagle and Buckley. Tim was the fourth best player in the world at one stage, the same as "winner" Murray is now and was a semi finalists in Slams on the 3 different surfaces.

[Max Molyneux]

Suprised the BBBOC have let him carry on the way he does, he doesn;t get KO'ed much but something has to be done when you constantly just give the fighters wins.

He admitted In boxing monthly he's got the call many times so early In the morning after nights out which surely should be right. He's probably not been as fit as made out.

Not like he comes to win either, he may as well quit If he gives them the win.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Yes, generic sports writers often clearly know little or nothing about boxing.

Unlike other sports, boxing involves getting hit, and therefore 'giving it a go' is a risky business.

Once a fighter has realised they aren't heading for the big time they have to make a living somehow, and unfortunately, if you get sparked out, you don't get to fight for a while.

Young tennis players can learn to play the game even whilst getting annihilated by Roger Federer, however, in boxing, you don't learn the ropes by getting knocked out in a single round by Floyd Mayweather.

Boxing is simply different from other sports because of the violent and dangerous element involved in participating, - something clearly lost on general sports writers, except when they are criticising it.

Buckley has been a magnificent servant to the sport, and win or lose, the fact he was able to participate in so many fights and rarely got stopped - shows he had a certain amount of class.

[Max Molyneux]

"Worlds worst boxer"



Obviously the writer has never heard of Eric Crumble

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer

Crumble would beat Zelenoff though. D

[Lenny]

I don't think there is a case for his license being removed, he is healthy, rarely takes a beating and is earning a living. Bloody boring to watch though which is my main issue

[jamesmcdonnell]

I have seen Bukcley quite a few times, as have many, and although you know he is going to go 6 x 2 you also know that if he did open-up a bit more he would nick a few rounds, then again if he did that he would not be called in to these shows, and that would leave many undercard fights in the shit.

You need to watch Buckley contests with an educated eye, I imagine most broadsheet 'boxing' writers will not posses the ability to really appraise Buckley's fights.

He is often coming in at short-notice and the onus, in all reality, falls on the young prospect to show intelligence and ability enough to open Peter up, that so few do is either a sign of their inadequacies or that Peter knows how to ride a shot, block a shot and keep it tight, in other words he can actually box.

You can tell how good a prospect is by the amount of clean shots they land on the guy, and very few land more than a few a round. Peter gives them a chance to learn how to switch attacks, open a guard up and then work on different shots.

The difference between Buckley and Henman is that Peter has no one rooting for him to win, whereas Henman had full-time training and coaching, sponsorships and a large following of middle-England dickheads willing him on. Henman is the loser who should have won, not Buckley.

I actually have just read the article, I usually steer clear of boxing articles for this very reason, the headline is pretty poor, the article is meh, Buckley probably presented an easy target for this chap, contrary to the target he presents in the ring. It may have been a chance to throw up a compelling headline and get people tut-tutting over the sport. So what else is new?

Henman wasn't a loser, he won plenty of tournaments, just because he never won a grand slam, hardly makes him a loser. Few players ever win a grand slam tournament, just like few snooker players win the world title, but that doesn't make you a loser.

Henman lacked charisma, and had a twee jersey knit wearing middle aged middle england fanbase, but that shouldn't detract from his achievements.

[dondada]

Henman was a top class player, no doubts about that.

The annoying thing is that he did bottle it on the really big stage. Worse players than him won slams. If he had just won one, anywhere, he would have been viewed very differently I think.

Murray is a different animal altogether. He has won five titles all ready aged 21 (Henman won eight in his whole career, off the top of my head) and has shown great ticker when the chips are down.

[dbflex]

I think Terry D got that spot on. You cannot judge Buckley in the same way as a British top 10 boxer – he has been given, and accepts, a different role entirely.

[Wrists]

Sorry Ian have to disagree

Matthew Syed talks utter shite most of the time - this is a guy who said a few years back 'Its time to sack Sir Alex'.

He also wrote that disgraceful piece about Geordies and how we are thick, its all our fault that we have a shit team etc etc etc - whilst at the same time is probably thinking of his next article entitled 'Aren't Spurs Brilliant'.

Too much crap is written by sportswriters which is allowed to go unnoticed.

Stick to BBN thats what I say



Wrists

[dondada]

Sorry Ian have to disagree

Matthew Syed talks utter shite most of the time - this is a guy who said a few years back 'Its time to sack Sir Alex'.

He also wrote that disgraceful piece about Geordies and how we are thick, its all our fault that we have a shit team etc etc etc - whilst at the same time is probably thinking of his next article entitled 'Aren't Spurs Brilliant'.

Too much crap is written by sportswriters which is allowed to go unnoticed.

Stick to BBN thats what I say



Wrists

Fair enough then, Kev. I've only read a few bits and they've been good.

I don't think it's time to sack 'Sir' Alex. Time for someone to spark the blind, irascible, twat though.

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

"a man who should be remembered for ever as Britain’s most spectacular sporting loser."

ummm but Buckley didnt even try to win for 100's of fights


What else can you describe him as?



"plucky loser" maybe.....


I have been saying for years that people like Buckly are terrible for boxing

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

"a man who should be remembered for ever as Britain’s most spectacular sporting loser."

ummm but Buckley didnt even try to win for 100's of fights


What else can you describe him as?



"plucky loser" maybe.....


I have been saying for years that people like Buckly are terrible for boxing

Who else is going to take these fights? Us lot?

It might shut us up if we did

[Chambers2]

Terry I disagree about Henman, he's the best tennis player the country's produced since I've been alive...although Murray will soon surpass him. I'm far from a Henman fan (too namby-pamby middle class for me), but he can't be lumped in the same 'Loser' category with the aforementioned.

Greg Rusedski doesn't seem to provoke the same negativity for not winning a Grand Salm, neither do the likes of David Coulthard for not winning a F1 title