Jamie Moore turned down a fight with Darren Barker

not sure if moore is above British level , certainly at Middle he is not european level.

 

I understand what Moore is saying. He's making a business decision. Possibly the wrong one though.

Coming off a loss, beating an undefeated Brit who holds 2 titles would put him in line for a shot against Macklin and that is a huge domestic bout. Win that and he is in line for a world title crack, maybe an eliminator.

I'm not sure if someone like Moore would get a title shot any easier. Best bet is to be thrown in there against a contender who can put him in line for title shot i.e. when Clarke beat whathisname and got a shot at Vargas.

Can Moore possibly find a better opponent then Barker for April? I dunno.

 

Beating Barker would not put Moore in line for a shot at Macklin.
Macklin is not going to jeopardise a shot at a world title - it'll be the path of least resistance until he gets a shot at Sylvester.
Secondly Moore's opponent has been announced
http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=214262&cat=boxer

 

He has an opponent already for April. And what if he lost to Barker? Then where can he go?

Like I said before, he needs to be sure he is 100% ready for a fight against Barker - but if Moore is wanting to get a world title shot sooner rather than later, then Barker isn't going to really boost his rating is he?

 

If Moore beat Barker I think he would get a shot at Macklin. Macklin would have the chance to avenge his loss. It would be huge if sold right.

Moore can get further with this fight then that nobody he is fighting in April who is coming off of 3 losses.

Fighters don't go into fighters thinking they will lose. He should prepare for that though. If he did lose to Barker, he doesn't belong with Kelly Pavlik and other guys would probably undo him before he got that title shot.

 

I Agree, Barker is not the strongest middle and the extra weight will help Moore imo - would still love to see it though:?

 

I never once said I was above Barker, read my post.
And seriously, what do you think of Barker ducking Quigley?

 

He is taking a warmup fight after six months inactivity. It's not unheard of.
And for the umpteeth time, beating Barker does nothing to further his world title aspirations.

 

I remember reading that moore said he might only have one fight at middle and if the cut was still brutal move up to 168. If the cut was bad for his next fight and he got beat by barker in terms of career he would be damaged. So i imagine for barker he is targeting a name opponent, weight problems and coming off a loss. Let moore have a taste at middle then they should fight.

 

A warm up fight is fine but if you want to move your career along then get straight back in there. If you've got rust etc, shake it off in the gym. Nevertheless, if he wants to take an easier fight for his first middleweight outing then that is cool BUT he has to accept it does absolutely nothing for his career.

Beating Barker does more for his world title aspirations than this fight. Beating the undefeated British/C'Wealth champ would place him nicely in the WBC rankings. As does his last fight being a WBC eliminator. Couple this with him being a former Brit/C'Wealth/Euro champ at 154. If he beat Macklin it would further his WBC ranking. These orgs have always had good ties to the WBC, since it's creation.

Barker, Macklin, eliminator, I could see it getting him a title shot and being put firmly in the minds of boxing fans.

 

Moore's not ranked at middle by the WBC as yet - he's currently ranked number eight at light middle.
I'd imagine they'll put him in the top ten, as they have done Witter at welterweight.
Barker on the other hand isn't even in their top 15. Nor is he in any of the other three major organisations.

 

Moore is making a business decision but Barker is a much better fight than the one he is taking. Better for his profile, better for his quest for a title shot and better for his belt cabinet. This is the point.

If he is not ready for a tough fight at 160 then this is a different debate. However he says he is willing to go to the top and not via the easy route. Fighting Barker will elevate him higher than this no name he is fighting in April.

Barker should be in the top 20. He has two belts and fought good domestic fighters. He is waiting for that step up. It should've been Elcock and Macklin but he's been unlucky both times!

 

No he hasn't.

 

The Steven Bendall who beat Paul Smith in his next fight? The same Paul Smith who is 168 Brit champ.

The Darren McDermott who was the English champ with only one loss, beat Bendall prior to Barker and then Butler after the loss.

He did fight Crampton for the vacant C'Wealth when he was undefeated.

He fought Samuels when he only had two losses.

The guy is a British champ, thats the sort of fighters on the domestic scene. Only two he could fight is Elcock and Macklin. They are the next step up. I think he has been unfortunate to have fought for vacant titles. Remember though, Elcock and Macklin are arguably not domestic fighters, they are international having fought and won on the Euro and World scene.

 

None of that is impressive.
Bendall may have a win over Smith, (which was apparently a robbery, but I haven't seen it), but Smith's record at middle isn't anything to shout about is it? And for the record I had Smith losing to Quigley.
So Crampton was undefeated. So what? He was crap. Lost every single round. Samuel Kebede was undefeated when he fought Scott Harrison. Are you going to talk him up too?
The McDermott win was okay. McDermott should've been granted a rematch with Elcock. No way to lose an undefeated record.
Nevertheless he's just about British level.