| bad career move [message #993967] |
Sun, 23 April 2006 06:04 |
|
Cory Sinks will return to the ring July 7 for the first time since getting
stopped by Zab Judah. However, instead of a tuneup after his 18 month
layoff, he's moving up to 154 to face Roman Karmazin. Spinks is gonna KOed
again.
|
|
|
| Re: bad career move [message #993993 ] |
Sun, 23 April 2006 16:34 |
|
"D. Flynn" <gunk2 [at] verizon.net> wrote in message
news:R0D2g.2160$Ze.1818 [at] trndny06...
> Cory Sinks will return to the ring July 7 for the first time since getting
> stopped by Zab Judah. However, instead of a tuneup after his 18 month
> layoff, he's moving up to 154 to face Roman Karmazin. Spinks is gonna KOed
> again.
I respectfully disagree with you. Spinks is not really a YOUNG fighter
anymore. This is the biggest and best money fight for him right now.
Spinks will get paid well because this fight will be in the Savvis Center.
If he wins, he gets another title and sets the stage for unification with
one of DK's other champions.
|
|
|
| Re: bad career move [message #994003 ] |
Sun, 23 April 2006 18:03 |
|
"sneeke" <dwilliams68 [at] nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hgM2g.1694$n13.1062 [at] tornado.southeast.rr.com...
>
> "D. Flynn" <gunk2 [at] verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:R0D2g.2160$Ze.1818 [at] trndny06...
>> Cory Sinks will return to the ring July 7 for the first time since
>> getting stopped by Zab Judah. However, instead of a tuneup after his 18
>> month layoff, he's moving up to 154 to face Roman Karmazin. Spinks is
>> gonna KOed again.
>
> I respectfully disagree with you. Spinks is not really a YOUNG fighter
> anymore. This is the biggest and best money fight for him right now.
> Spinks will get paid well because this fight will be in the Savvis Center.
> If he wins, he gets another title and sets the stage for unification with
> one of DK's other champions.
I think you're missing his point. While this might be the best 'fight',
money-wise, it could spell the end (or a serious setback) of Spinks'
marketability. Is taking a tough challenge at the title a good idea? It
seems to me as if Spinks is taking a roll of the dice. Then again, he's
hardly an appealing fighter to most fans outside of St. Louis, so maybe this
is the best deal available . . . but after 18 months without a fight and at
what cost should he lose?
BTW, Spinks just turned 27. He's hardly old for a fighter who has not had a
lot of tough fights, which he hasn't.
|
|
|
| Re: bad career move [message #994010 ] |
Sun, 23 April 2006 19:16 |
|
> I think you're missing his point. While this might be the best 'fight',
> money-wise, it could spell the end (or a serious setback) of Spinks'
> marketability. Is taking a tough challenge at the title a good idea? It
> seems to me as if Spinks is taking a roll of the dice. Then again, he's
> hardly an appealing fighter to most fans outside of St. Louis, so maybe
> this is the best deal available . . . but after 18 months without a fight
> and at what cost should he lose?
>
> BTW, Spinks just turned 27. He's hardly old for a fighter who has not had
> a lot of tough fights, which he hasn't.
Allow me to clarify, I didnt mean to imply that Spinks was OLD, I merely
stated that he is not YOUNG anymore, not physically, but I mean, he has been
to the top, he has been in the top p4p lists, held the undisputed crown,
with that being said, he is a top fighter with very little marketability
outside of his hometown as you noted. He is not a Fernando Vargas, he is
not a guy who just just get a tune up fight against a guy the caliber of
Castillejo or Joval and still make a million bucks. If Spinks were to fight
a tune up, it would have to be against a cupcake basically, and that would
be pointless as he would probably only make about $50k. If Spinks has been
staying in shape and sparring, it may prove to be a gamble well worth the
risk.
|
|
|
| Re: bad career move [message #994037 ] |
Mon, 24 April 2006 01:46 |
|
"sneeke" <dwilliams68 [at] nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2EO2g.2167$n13.1272 [at] tornado.southeast.rr.com...
>
> Allow me to clarify, I didnt mean to imply that Spinks was OLD, I merely
> stated that he is not YOUNG anymore, not physically, but I mean, he has
> been to the top, he has been in the top p4p lists, held the undisputed
> crown,
I would say he held the "unified title", but not the undisputed crown. With
the WBO having seemingly as much credibility as do the other of the Big 4
ABC and Margarito as their champion, I would not use the term undisputed.
That said, I can see the argument for what you said, as the lineage came
down from Mosley to Forrest to Mayorga and finally to Spinks. I just
wouldn't use the term.
|
|
|
