Are all British fights good for British Boxing?
I've been thinking about this one for a while. The media in the UK makes a big deal about all British clashes as if they're the most important fights for British boxers. I'm not sure they're always necessary as they can ruin the loser and have the winner thinking he is better than he really is. It isn't just the casual media clammering for these fights, well known faces and boxing personalities are always saying stuff like "there is nothing like an all British clash". Frank Warren often says it, the whole pundit team on Sky say it and obviously some of these clashes sell well which is why alot of fighters go for them. In the past we've had figghts such as Benn-Eubank and Lewis-Bruno were hugely successful events that didn't hinder the progress of the fighters, but sometimes these clashes stop a fighter from pushing on a level, such as Burns-Mitchell and Haye-Maccarinelli. I'm not suggesting that Mitchell or Maccarinelli could have gone too much higher than what they have done, but todays fighters are littered with padded records and getting world titles and keeping them can be much easier than it used to be allowing fighters to make some 'easy money'.
While today, David Haye and Ricky Burns have made a success of their all British clashes and would support the argument for these fights, Macklin, Barker & Murray have all done very well at Middleweight without facing each other. So do you think they're a good idea, or would you prefer our fighters to conquer the world before facing each other?
Re: Are all British fights good for British Boxing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greenbeanz
I wish fighters in general were given enough respect by the fans, promoters and networks that they could lose without being completely dismissed. The momentum that propels an overhyped and overmatched prospect could be better spent with more more competitive matchmaking once a basic apprenticeship has been served. It's not going to happen though because fighters records are often maintained by promoters who know the damage a domestic loss can have on their investment. Then on top of that the UK promoters are in competition and begrudge risking their prized assets against a rivals star who will fill the vacuum their man inhabited.
Their is no reason why British fighters losing to a domestic rival should always end careers though. There are a few Brits who have lost to other UK fighters early in their career and then went on to win world titles.
Ricky Burns v Alex Arthur being a prime example. He had to rebuild after that defeat, but there's no doubt he came back a stronger and better fighter because of it.
Personally, I like that it can take quite a few fights to build up to an all British clash...we know that eventually Barker / Macklin / Murray will fight each other, but I don't mind seeing them chasing the titles first.
It's not quite as clear cut as the poll suggests, but I've gone for yes because its closer to my point of view than no.
Re: Are all British fights good for British Boxing?
I picked A.. British fighters should face each other first to prove that they are worthy to take that next step towards the world stage in America.
Re: Are all British fights good for British Boxing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FinitoElDinamita
I picked A.. British fighters should face each other first to prove that they are worthy to take that next step towards the world stage in America.
Ha, you shock and astound us with your opinion which was totally unexpected. The same could be send about American heavyweights being sent over to Europe to face the elite.
Re: Are all British fights good for British Boxing?
Yes they are, most prospects fail in world-class anyway.
Nothing niggles me more in boxing, apart from everyone that ever lost had an excuse, when all-Brit encounters don't happen because "wait until they have a "world" title"
1. There's no guarantee good prospects will become champions.
2. There's no evidence having a title makes a fight better to watch.
Re: Are all British fights good for British Boxing?
Common sense needs to be used. If you can get a cracking pay day early on in your career, why not take it?
But as mentioned, there is an obsession with the '0'.
This has been creeping into the sport for years, but we (The Internet), have made it far worse than it ever was. Fighters need to realize nothing sneaks by anymore.
But they also need to realize an early defeat is not the end of the world, indeed it can improve you.
If people had seen Larry Holmes in his amateur days, they would of put you in a padded cell if you had said this bloke will get to 48-0...
If Barry McGuigan had given up after his first pro defeat, he would of been 1 and 1, but his career turned out alright in the end.
The true boxing fan knows when a defeat has potentially dire consequences, and they generally know when someone will come back stronger for the defeat.
Re: Are all British fights good for British Boxing?
I have also never understood why the 0 is so important , a fighter is what he is , and real fans can see that.
Re: Are all British fights good for British Boxing?
They're good for boxing full stop because we have the Lonsdale belt. The best belt out there by a mile and to anyone with half a clue a belt worth winning/keeping.
Sure they aren’t all for the Lonsdale belt but any all Brit dust up of note is still trading off that history and prestige.
Re: Are all British fights good for British Boxing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
I have also never understood why the 0 is so important , a fighter is what he is , and real fans can see that.
The '0' is only important when you have finished an excellent career. It is something that you can be add to your resume in the debate over where you stand in the great scheme of things.
Re: Are all British fights good for British Boxing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Memphis
They're good for boxing full stop because we have the Lonsdale belt. The best belt out there by a mile and to anyone with half a clue a belt worth winning/keeping.
Sure they aren’t all for the Lonsdale belt but any all Brit dust up of note is still trading off that history and prestige.
Good point, one that sticks out in modern times, was like you suggest not a British title fight, but an 'eliminator'. But anyone who knew British boxing at the time loved the build up and the bout:
http://www.assetstorage.co.uk/AssetS...stie-pre-f.jpg
Re: Are all British fights good for British Boxing?
Kaylor Christie. :) I'd forgotten about that photo, I always liked the doorman's face.
Also this one was fun :
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/...28_468x321.jpg
Re: Are all British fights good for British Boxing?
Yes they should fight on the way up. Just ripping off the fans when they fight on the way down or at the end of their career for a payday and means very little in all reality with who was the better boxer
Re: Are all British fights good for British Boxing?
Unfortunately the "0" is important to casual fans and therefore promoters.
Even though it's virtually impossible to pull the wool over punters eyes today with all the information available - Boxrec, youtube, forums etc - broadcasters, pundits, journo's, ex-fighters, will still sell a fight with "he's undefeated," and sadly to the casual fan, 20-0 against a bunch of Mexican cab drivers is far more impressive that 14-6 against a bunch of Mexican warriors.
Re: Are all British fights good for British Boxing?
What better than being the Champion of your Country, and lets face it the Lonsdale belt
is the best looking championship belt out there.
Also I've seen some cracking fights, through the years yes it is good for British Boxing.
