Are British boxers too protected these days.
Nathan Cleverly, Kell Brook and lets not forget Jhon Murray. All protected fighters who are ranked very high but have not fought any top ranked fighters. I know Marray is not ranked very highly any more but at 1 point was ranked fifth in the world and bragged that he had the british record for most undefeated fights even though he fought a bunch of losers. Kell Brook I think has the best chance out of the three of doing well but with 27 fights and no wins over top ten fighters to his name.
Then you have Cleverly who I thought would fight anyone, but just recently has avoided chalanges and taken on other fighters who look good but have cherry picked opponents. He is ranked fifth in the world, does he really deserve it.
Now I know most people wont like this but I will bring in Khan. He has had 26 fights and has fought some of the best in his devision. He is always being put down but compare him to the other fighters which people seem to love he has taken more risks than all three.
I was going to praise Burns but other than his last few fights he has had a pretty cherry picked record.
I mostly blame there managers. Take Warren for example. He could have put Cleverly against someone ranked in the top ten but decides to put him against some loser ranked around 40th in the world. Thinking that the crap fight he has lined up will get Cleverly a shot against The winner of Bernard vs Dawson. Sending Clev from an easy fight to the Slaughter house just to fill his pockets.
Re: Are British boxers too protected these days.
Difficult for Brook to get fights against legit top 10 guys. Ring ranked guys:
Pac-out of the question
Floyd-out of the question
Berto or Ortiz-fighting each other
Senchenko-he doesn't leave the Ukraine.
Mike Jones-that is a fight that would make sense but all stupid boxers love trinkets and Jones gets a shot at one coming up.
Zaveck-lost to Berto and has gone back to fighting chumps
Aydin-He is fighting Guerrero. and honestly I've never seen him fight
Devon Alexander-just moved up to 147.
147 is a strange division. You basically have the 2 cash cows (Floyd and Pac), the 2 just below them that want to face the cash cows or each other in order to make big, big paydays (Berto/Ortiz), guys you haven't seen and no one knows alot about (Senchenko, Zaveck, Aydin), and the up and comers (Brook, Jones, Alexander).
While Alexander should easily get into the mix with the top 4 guys because of his prior success at 140, Brook and Jones need to move up the ladder this year.
As for Cleverly, he is alot younger than the other guys at 175. When most of the other top 10 guys were Cleverly's age they weren't facing top competition.
His team needs to pick it up this year and find someone in the top 10 that makes sense (in giving Cleverly a fighting chance to win). Someone in the lower part of the top 10, who can push Cleverly, but probably doesn't deal his career a setback at this point.
Re: Are British boxers too protected these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
captainanddew
Difficult for Brook to get fights against legit top 10 guys. Ring ranked guys:
Pac-out of the question
Floyd-out of the question
Berto or Ortiz-fighting each other
Senchenko-he doesn't leave the Ukraine.
Mike Jones-that is a fight that would make sense but all stupid boxers love trinkets and Jones gets a shot at one coming up.
Zaveck-lost to Berto and has gone back to fighting chumps
Aydin-He is fighting Guerrero. and honestly I've never seen him fight
Devon Alexander-just moved up to 147.
147 is a strange division. You basically have the 2 cash cows (Floyd and Pac), the 2 just below them that want to face the cash cows or each other in order to make big, big paydays (Berto/Ortiz), guys you haven't seen and no one knows alot about (Senchenko, Zaveck, Aydin), and the up and comers (Brook, Jones, Alexander).
While Alexander should easily get into the mix with the top 4 guys because of his prior success at 140, Brook and Jones need to move up the ladder this year.
As for Cleverly, he is alot younger than the other guys at 175. When most of the other top 10 guys were Cleverly's age they weren't facing top competition.
His team needs to pick it up this year and find someone in the top 10 that makes sense (in giving Cleverly a fighting chance to win). Someone in the lower part of the top 10, who can push Cleverly, but probably doesn't deal his career a setback at this point.
Agreed. That is exactly what Cleverly and Warren have just avoided They could have taken on someone ranked in the top ten but decided to fight someone ranked around 40th in the world. But you can see Warren is just looking for the big pay day as he thinks this bullshit match that he has just arranged will give Cleverly a chance against the winner of Dawson vs Hopkins. Throwing him to the lions to make a quick buck.
I know he is young but he has a title so should have to defend it against legit opposition. Your not telling me that someone ranked so low deserves a shot at a world title.
As for Brook, I like him and think he could be a great boxer but he has already had 27 fights. That is alot in my book and think he should be stepping up in his next fight. Do you guys not get bored of a boxer like Murray taking on loads of losers, watching all his easy fights and then he suddenly steps up after ages only to lose to a good boxer.
Re: Are British boxers too protected these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
0james0
Has it ever been any different?
Is it any different for fighters from other countries?
It's normal now. Over match a fighter, build up the record, beat some has been big names then get some form of title.
Lol. That's the way it is now.
Re: Are British boxers too protected these days.
I would hate to have some of you Guys,as managers or promoters you would fuck up your fighters
quick time.Hard fights makes for short careers you build your career slow,remember the great fighters
did not face each other on a regular bases.Boxing is a money business the best fighters face each other
for big money, if you think not you are living in la-la land the 3 points in boxing Wealth 1st Fame 2and
Acclaim 3rd simple.;)
Re: Are British boxers too protected these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dropanuke
Now can everyone one see that wbo isn't a real title cos the WBC wouldn't put up with this shite!!!
Example: I'm Sergio Martinez iv got the WBC then I'm going to defend against chris eubank jr or a ranked 200 fighter. I mean come on that's what real champs are about isn't it???? I mean cleverly I thought was a champ and had passion and fans?? Chuckle chuckle
It seem you worship at the alter of the WBC, this organisation is just as corrupted as the rest you are
fooling yourself otherwise.The WBC ban Chisora without a hearing at lest the BBBC had a hearing and
he will have a appeal.At one time the WBC were bed fellow's with one Mr King if you did not fight for
King no WBC shot for you my friend.
Don't kid yourself about boxing's governing body's,none are whiter than white remember that bit of
plastic around there wast,its the fighter not the belt that's a real Champion.;)
Re: Are British boxers too protected these days.
Cleverly gets protected cuz he sucks.
Promising young british fighters dont get babied as much. Take Kev for instance. He took on a very dangerous prescott and took em to school.. Then a prime katsidis etc...
There is no choice but to protect guys like cleverly and burns although hes scottish or whatever.lol they are limited, domestic talents.
Kell brook may have been protected but hes still the truth..
Kev and brook are the real deals.. Rest of them are ordinary and must be protected.. Look for ricly burns to go on that belt milking tour against part time fish n chips makers. Looks like hres already starting to make excuses to back out from a showdown with kev... Talking about conflict of schedules blah blah..
Re: Are British boxers too protected these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FinitoElDinamita
Cleverly gets protected cuz he sucks.
Promising young british fighters dont get babied as much. Take Kev for instance. He took on a very dangerous prescott and took em to school.. Then a prime katsidis etc...
There is no choice but to protect guys like cleverly and burns although hes scottish or whatever.lol they are limited, domestic talents.
Kell brook may have been protected but hes still the truth..
Kev and brook are the real deals.. Rest of them are ordinary and must be protected.. Look for ricly burns to go on that belt milking tour against part time fish n chips makers. Looks like hres already starting to make excuses to back out from a showdown with kev... Talking about conflict of schedules blah blah..
Finito see your still in love Kev, remember bud the ones you love let you down;D as for Cleverly he's in
no hurry age is on his side careers are a marathon not a sprint my friend.;)
Re: Are British boxers too protected these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FinitoElDinamita
Cleverly gets protected cuz he sucks.
Promising young british fighters dont get babied as much. Take Kev for instance. He took on a very dangerous prescott and took em to school.. Then a prime katsidis etc...
There is no choice but to protect guys like cleverly and burns although hes scottish or whatever.lol they are limited, domestic talents.
Kell brook may have been protected but hes still the truth..
Kev and brook are the real deals.. Rest of them are ordinary and must be protected.. Look for ricly burns to go on that belt milking tour against part time fish n chips makers. Looks like hres already starting to make excuses to back out from a showdown with kev... Talking about conflict of schedules blah blah..
Finito see your still in love Kev, remember bud the ones you love let you down;D as for Cleverly he's in
no hurry age is on his side careers are a marathon not a sprint my friend.;)
If thats the case he should give up the title and fight the lower fighters without pretending they are top opposition. When Warren and Clev avoid there manditory ranked ninth in the world and take on someone ranked 40th in the world, they might as well give the belt up. There are people in line who have earned a shot at this title and Clev and Warren have worked it so a undeserving fighter gets a shot just because he is a safer fight. ITS ALL WRONG.
Re: Are British boxers too protected these days.
British fighters are no more protected than they were many years ago or most other countries. As has been said, the aim is to maximise the income of the fighter, and then try and achieve things in that order. Fighters will eventually find their level in the end but ability (think Galzaghe or Naz), age (think Froch), ring wars (think Froch again) and ambition (think Hatton leaving Warren) are factors that influence how far they progress.
Re: Are British boxers too protected these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
British fighters are no more protected than they were many years ago or most other countries. As has been said, the aim is to maximise the income of the fighter, and then try and achieve things in that order. Fighters will eventually find their level in the end but ability (think Galzaghe or Naz), age (think Froch), ring wars (think Froch again) and ambition (think Hatton leaving Warren) are factors that influence how far they progress.
Well I for one am a fan of a fighter. I didnt watch the last two cleverly fights properly, just sky plus and fast foward it to a ko or decision victory. As far as Murray goes I remember people saying how he was the next best thing but knew as soon as he was put against reasonably good opposition he would lose. He was prowd of his record for being the british fighter with most fights undefeated. But they were a bunch of losers. I just cant enjoy watching people beat on weaker people for so long.
I know UFC is less entertaining than boxing but at least the fighters are challenged at the right level.
Re: Are British boxers too protected these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Leighton
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
British fighters are no more protected than they were many years ago or most other countries. As has been said, the aim is to maximise the income of the fighter, and then try and achieve things in that order. Fighters will eventually find their level in the end but ability (think Galzaghe or Naz), age (think Froch), ring wars (think Froch again) and ambition (think Hatton leaving Warren) are factors that influence how far they progress.
Well I for one am a fan of a fighter. I didnt watch the last two cleverly fights properly, just sky plus and fast foward it to a ko or decision victory. As far as Murray goes I remember people saying how he was the next best thing but knew as soon as he was put against reasonably good opposition he would lose. He was prowd of his record for being the british fighter with most fights undefeated. But they were a bunch of losers. I just cant enjoy watching people beat on weaker people for so long.
I know UFC is less entertaining than boxing but at least the fighters are challenged at the right level.
It seem to me you are a bit slow on the uptake, you will never see fighters fighting top class opposition week in week out it does not happen. Take note my friend if you were a manager
you would turn a winner into a loser.what for your own self gratification match making is
not easy you shout and moan. we all do as fans remember in this game money rules as I have
said in the past the moneys right they fight.;)
Re: Are British boxers too protected these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
British fighters are no more protected than they were many years ago or most other countries. As has been said, the aim is to maximise the income of the fighter, and then try and achieve things in that order. Fighters will eventually find their level in the end but ability (think Galzaghe or Naz), age (think Froch), ring wars (think Froch again) and ambition (think Hatton leaving Warren) are factors that influence how far they progress.
you have to think about timing too
take john murray as a good example, im not saying he was ever a world beater but had he been stepped up a few fights before then maybe he would have progressed a bit better
perhaps not the strongest example
by the way i think the opening post is very harsh
Re: Are British boxers too protected these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Leighton
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
British fighters are no more protected than they were many years ago or most other countries. As has been said, the aim is to maximise the income of the fighter, and then try and achieve things in that order. Fighters will eventually find their level in the end but ability (think Galzaghe or Naz), age (think Froch), ring wars (think Froch again) and ambition (think Hatton leaving Warren) are factors that influence how far they progress.
Well I for one am a fan of a fighter. I didnt watch the last two cleverly fights properly, just sky plus and fast foward it to a ko or decision victory. As far as Murray goes I remember people saying how he was the next best thing but knew as soon as he was put against reasonably good opposition he would lose. He was prowd of his record for being the british fighter with most fights undefeated. But they were a bunch of losers. I just cant enjoy watching people beat on weaker people for so long.
I know UFC is less entertaining than boxing but at least the fighters are challenged at the right level.
It seem to me you are a bit slow on the uptake, you will never see fighters fighting top class opposition week in week out it does not happen. Take note my friend if you were a manager
you would turn a winner into a loser.what for your own self gratification match making is
not easy you shout and moan. we all do as fans remember in this game money rules as I have
said in the past the moneys right they fight.;)
I have no problem with them having easy fights inbetween tough fights. But they have way too many easy fights inbetween and take too long to take on good opposition. You compare Khan to Murray. How many fights do you need before you take a risk. Like you say its all down to money, but we lose out and I find myself not bothering to watch good home fighters.
If Clevs next two fights were against people ranked 30th or under would you bother to watch them?
Re: Are British boxers too protected these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Leighton
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Leighton
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
British fighters are no more protected than they were many years ago or most other countries. As has been said, the aim is to maximise the income of the fighter, and then try and achieve things in that order. Fighters will eventually find their level in the end but ability (think Galzaghe or Naz), age (think Froch), ring wars (think Froch again) and ambition (think Hatton leaving Warren) are factors that influence how far they progress.
Well I for one am a fan of a fighter. I didnt watch the last two cleverly fights properly, just sky plus and fast foward it to a ko or decision victory. As far as Murray goes I remember people saying how he was the next best thing but knew as soon as he was put against reasonably good opposition he would lose. He was prowd of his record for being the british fighter with most fights undefeated. But they were a bunch of losers. I just cant enjoy watching people beat on weaker people for so long.
I know UFC is less entertaining than boxing but at least the fighters are challenged at the right level.
It seem to me you are a bit slow on the uptake, you will never see fighters fighting top class opposition week in week out it does not happen. Take note my friend if you were a manager
you would turn a winner into a loser.what for your own self gratification match making is
not easy you shout and moan. we all do as fans remember in this game money rules as I have
said in the past the moneys right they fight.;)
I have no problem with them having easy fights inbetween tough fights. But they have way too many easy fights inbetween and take too long to take on good opposition. You compare Khan to Murray. How many fights do you need before you take a risk. Like you say its all down to money, but we lose out and I find myself not bothering to watch good home fighters.
If Clevs next two fights were against people ranked 30th or under would you bother to watch them?
I can see were you are coming from, there are times you will have to face good fighters problem is
there are not many undisputed champions about theses days.
Here is my take you got 4 champions at one weight 4 top ten fighters in there ranking ,that forty fighters in there top ten. Some will be ranked in all 4 so looking at the overall picture, you got your 4
champs 1 outstanding 1 good and the others mediocre.The same for the contenders some will be good and some crap what a mix my friend were do you start.
What it boils down to lots of champs and contenders at one weight yes some quality and some dross
thats how boxing stands at the moment.:confused:
Re: Are British boxers too protected these days.
Match making is a business proposal nothing more, nothing less. Until the risk/reward equation shows maximum returns, the best matches won't be made. This is not an exclusive phenomena that exists on the dreary isle of Great Britain, it happens everywhere a promoter has a say.
The only way around this is to have a single sanctioning body that ranks fighters and limits the rank differential between fighters to make a fight, or a single body that schedule all fights themselves.
Re: Are British boxers too protected these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
killersheep
Match making is a business proposal nothing more, nothing less. Until the risk/reward equation shows maximum returns, the best matches won't be made. This is not an exclusive phenomena that exists on the dreary isle of Great Britain, it happens everywhere a promoter has a say.
The only way around this is to have a single sanctioning body that ranks fighters and limits the rank differential between fighters to make a fight, or a single body that schedule all fights themselves.
Which is pure fantasy because it would be detrimental to the amount of money made by fighters, managers, promoters, TV companies, sponsors, etc
Shit titles and shit matches only harm hardcore fans.
Re: Are British boxers too protected these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
killersheep
Match making is a business proposal nothing more, nothing less. Until the risk/reward equation shows maximum returns, the best matches won't be made. This is not an exclusive phenomena that exists on the dreary isle of Great Britain, it happens everywhere a promoter has a say.
The only way around this is to have a single sanctioning body that ranks fighters and limits the rank differential between fighters to make a fight, or a single body that schedule all fights themselves.
Which is pure fantasy because it would be detrimental to the amount of
money made by fighters, managers, promoters, TV companies, sponsors, etc
Shit titles and shit matches only harm hardcore fans.
I completely agree, which gets back to my first point of maximal returns. I like my fantasy it makes for better fights, but completely fails as a business plan.
Re: Are British boxers too protected these days.
Both Fenster and killersheep have this right. You can't do anything about the bullshit titles/organisations system in boxing. It would be ideal to have one single body and a commissioner of the sport like baseball and American football have, but those sports can have them because they have established franchises (teams) which are guaranteed to earn a certain level of revenue every season. There aren't any franchises in boxing, only individual prospects who may or may not turn out to be worth any investment by promoters. And promoters naturally want to protect their investments as much as they can, as is human nature. So we have the system we have.
Re: Are British boxers too protected these days.
I think there are some that are & some that aren't
Groves & DeGale have been match-up ok
Re: Are British boxers too protected these days.
Perhaps I'm not very familiar with British boxing, but if I had to answer the question: absolutely not. I often give examples of British matchups to prove that boxers are overly protected in my own country.
Re: Are British boxers too protected these days.
Always rated kell brook for way way back and even though he hasn't really been tested though he looked really good against durable Mathew hatton.kell brook didn't even break sweat againt hatton and made a great account of himself as a great uk prospect.kevin Mitchell is coming on strong after getting his private life issues out the way.kevin mitchell is worth a world title.Ricky burns is looking awesome at his new weight and proved his worth at world title level.David price is another good prospect for us Brits think he has the right tools to dominate the heavyweight division after a bit more experience.
