Bunce article on Purdy

Yeah, that why I amended my initial post.....I was put off of my stroke because Purdy failed to make last time but still retained (or even improved) his ranking. Its nonsense

 

Don't believe so . I haven't had time to look around today tho

 

So how do you l know Espinoza & GBP are pissed?

 

You don't, HOF obviously does

 

Dan Rafael lives in my shed. It's a bloody beaut!

 

Must be a bloody big shed

 

There is absolutely no problem with what Hearns has done with Rees and now Purdy. I welcome it in fact. At short notice, if it wasn't our "underdog" it would be some Mexican or Central American "underdog", and quite frankly its a little more interesting to see if the guys we know can put in a performance.

What is the other option? To think somebody like Rees, Jennings, Purdy etc is going to win a WBO belt and defend it at home making good money against average foes is fanciful at best. They're probably not good enough and even if they were who is going to watch them and where is the return going to come from? Or do Hearns and him turn it down in order to get into position to fight for the British title?

The article is completely...totally and utterly pointless. It says nothing people don't already know, that all these guys were massive underdogs going to America. Yet it has a negative slant to it throughout which makes you wonder what exactly his problem is.

 

It's good for the likes of Jennings, Lockett and Purdy, who aren't going to win world titles, but what about Rees and Barker, both are capable of being world champions. Then there's Kell Brook, after a series of eliminators, he was having to travel for a world title fight against Alexander, who's hardly a draw over in America.

 

I think its debatable Rees is going to be an established world champion. Best he could do is what he did the first time, get lucky and fight a poor champion. That may even apply for Barker, and did that Martinez fight REALLY hinder him? I'd highly doubt it. Should we have also said Murray should never have fought Martinez too? That was the exact same situation, maybe even worse being in Argentina and what happened there??

End of the day what Eddie does is commendable, he gives the fighter the choice rather than turning it down flat, they don't have to take the fight. He does it knowing full well it does not damage their stock at all, nor does it mean they can't fight for a world title again. They just take a chance, I think its important not to be in the mindset that a L = disastrous. That is the kind of mindset applied on a wider scale that means a no risk approach and means we don't always get the fights we want.

Sometimes you can't win on here to be honest, if you take the cautious route you get the crticism Burns has had, if you take a chance as an underdog you get accused of throwing your fighters to the wolves and hampering their career.

 

Exactly.

It's not as if Alexander is Tommy Hearns or anything.

Even then, Purdy would just get one-shotted in the first round and that'd be that, back to domestic level you go, son.

At worst he'll get bashed up for a bit and then stopped, but it's his big chance.

He's not earned it, and unless a miracle happens he won't get another shot, so he's got to go for it and give it 100%.

Put yourself in his shoes (and those of his promoter I guess).

When you're sat with your grandkids talking about what you did - which my grandad still does to this day even though I'm pushing 30, do you want to say ''I fought for the world title'' (I know, I know) or ''my promoter thought I'd lose so we waited until someone crap came along, only they didn't and I never got the chance''.

Ask yourself this - would someone like Jamie Moore have taken a shot at whoever might have been available, say Shane Mosley, or Ricardo Mayorga etc?

Course he would. Trouble was, he was grossly mismanaged and barely made it to a European title before the weight making became too much and he completely burned out overnight.

I was always told to have no regrets and that no matter how bad today seems there'll always be a tomorrow.

If Purdy gets whacked tonight, which I expect he will, at least he got in there and had a go.

 

This. The over emphasis on a spotless record is one of the things that's most annoying in boxing.
Also I note that the thread on Franks Sun column has been deleted. Shock horror.

 

It just shows that a lot of people are still in that dangerous mindset that L's = end of the world. The better approach must be to fight mediocre fare for a paper title or Diamond bauble and keep racking up W's.

The truth is, the best approach depends on the fighter. Guys like Rees, Purdy, Jennings, Lockett have to take the fight as they aren't really world level guys, and all the reasons you say apply, its a memory, an experience, a good pay day, a chance to raise your profile with a performance, and if the stars align a chance for something extraordinary. That does not deserve the negativity that seeps through Bunce's article.

Guys like Barker and Murray are good enough that you have to take the chance as there is a very decent possibility they will put in a very good display or win, and they're not a Joe Calzaghe or Ricky Hatton that is going to make a living fighting guys handpicked from a top 10 and then put that cherry on the top at the end with a few mega fights. These are guys that are good, but they're not in any danger of becoming the next Bernard Hopkins at middleweight, they are just contenders that need profile, need world class fights however they come and make the best of their career, they're also late 20's!

But guys like Kell Brook, Ricky Burns are potentially a big deal, they require the calculated approach. Their ceiling is higher, so you want the right fights, not pushovers as that is going too far the other way, but ideally you don't wanna be pulling too many Gonzalez's out of your arse for not a lot of upside, nor do you wanna take big fights on poor terms. You want to catch those mega fights at the right time on the right terms but keep it ticking over with intriguing B level fights that if you fighter is what we think will win anyway, that is the best way to maximize the risk/reward for your fighters career while also giving us good fights.

I think these are roughly the 3 "types" we see, of course some are in between the categories and debatable but by and large I think that is how it is. And I think Hearn pretty well understands it too.