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?