Bernard Dunne was good but no superstar

richierichballs

Bernard Dunne was good but no superstar
February 24th, 2010

By Chris McKenna: Bernard Dunne brought an end to his boxing career in a brief appearance on Irish broadcaster RTE’s Friday night chat show The Late, Late Show. It was cringe-worthy to sit and watch Dunne be hailed by the presenter of the show, Ryan Tubridy, as some sort of national hero who lifted the country as the economy crumbled around it.

Don’t get me wrong, the boy done well but he could have been so much better. He won a European title and a WBA World title, both achievements that cannot be sniffed at.

However, Dunne could have been better having began his professional career in America he had a great opportunity under the guidance of one of the world’s best coaches.
For some reason, whether he wasn’t good enough or didn’t enjoy being away from home, the Dubliner returned to Ireland and decided to build his career with the help of Brian Peters’ promotions.
Dunne had plenty going for him – courage, dedication and fast hands – but he lacked the power needed and his defence was poor.
He showed his courage to beat Esham Pickering and Ricardo Cordoba for the European and WBA title respectfully but his defence of these crowns against Kiko Martinez and Poonsawat Kratingdaenggym proved that the Dublin super-bantamweight was not world-class.
Martinez took 90 seconds to dismantle Dunne’s defence and Poonsawat, while taking a little longer, also made the Dubliner look like a journeyman.
Credit is due to Dunne for recovering from the Martinez defeat to comeback, also credit to Brian Peters his promoter, who was crucial to the recovery.
The Cordoba fight was a thriller but only because it was two well-matched, average fighters battling it out. It was exciting stuff, it was one of the fights of the year but it was certainly not the battle of the world’s best in the division.
The atmosphere was electric and it was great to see so many people getting behind an Irish fighter but too many got carried away.
RTE and sections of the Irish media tried to make out that Dunne was a household name worldwide but in truth, he was and still remains virtually unknown to most outside of the Emerald Isle.
Dunne’s stint fighting in the old Point Depot and the o2 Arena did further raise the profile of boxing in Ireland after the previous summer’s successful Olympics for the Irish amateurs.
It was great for the sport to be so heavily focused in the Irish media for once and it continues to be held in a higher regard than maybe it once was.
Dunne’s charisma and charm has helped the sport a lot but people need to be reminded that he was not a great.
His wisest career move was to retire now as there’s no way he can get another world title fight and anything less, after the defeat by Poonsawat, would struggle to sell out the National Stadium in Dublin, nevermind the o2 Arena.
Let’s just hope that those some of the ‘fight fans’ that jumped on the Bernard Dunne bandwagon can continue to support Irish professional and amateur boxing so that the sport can continue to grow in Ireland.
And that one day Irish boxing will have a true great world champion again as there is plenty of potential in the amateur ranks at the moment.

mark renton

Chris McKenna me arse - walshb posts that kind of stuff here every day, lazy journalism - no facts with specculation whether Dunne would have got another shot at another world title or would have filled the stadium, and a swipe at media for overhype - hellooo Chris its fcukin boxing the sport of Prince Naz and Eubank

walshb

john47832 wrote: »

Chris McKenna me arse - walshb posts that kind of stuff here every day, lazy journalism - no facts with specculation whether Dunne would have got another shot at another world title or would have filled the stadium, and a swipe at media for overhype - hellooo Chris its fcukin boxing the sport of Prince Naz and Eubank

Hey, keep me out of it. I never let hype and media sway me; you should maybe take a leaf?

That journalist failed to specify that Dunne won a version of the WBA title. I hate inaccuracies. You really are Dunne's biggest fan, aren't you? Just remember, it's only journalism. You take it far too serious when Dunne is spoken of.

I Drink It Up!

I disagree with Chris McKenna.

Bernard Dunne was a No-Good Superstar.

Big Ears

walshb wrote: »

Hey, keep me out of it. I never let hype and media sway me; you should maybe take a leaf?

That journalist failed to specify that Dunne won a version of the WBA title. I hate inaccuracies. You really are Dunne's biggest fan, aren't you? Just remember, it's only journalism. You take it far too serious when Dunne is spoken of.

Actually(at least in the WBA's eyes) he is correct. WBA title or WBA regular title(which are the same thing) is what Dunne won. Had he won and unified with another title he would become WBA Super-Champion, or had he held an interim belt he would be WBA interim champion. Now you could point out how he failed to mention there was a WBA 'Super-Champion' at this weight, and that another man holding a WBA title and his title being regarded as better than Dunne's lessens Dunne's achievement.

But stating it was the WBA title, is indeed correct. As far as the WBA is concerned Dunne won the same title McGuigan did except at a lower weight.

I'd disagree with calling Dunne and Cordoba average fighters aswell.

I Drink It Up!

Big Ears wrote: »

Actually(at least in the WBA's eyes) he is correct. WBA title or WBA regular title(which are the same thing) is what Dunne won. Had he won and unified with another title he would become WBA Super-Champion, or had he held an interim belt he would be WBA interim champion. Now you could point out how he failed to mention there was a WBA 'Super-Champion' at this weight, and that another man holding a WBA title and his title being regarded as better than Dunne's lessens Dunne's achievement.

But stating it was the WBA title, is indeed correct. As far as the WBA is concerned Dunne won the same title McGuigan did except at a lower weight.

I'd disagree with calling Dunne and Cordoba average fighters aswell.

And as far as anyone with a clue about boxing is concerned, nothing of the sort happened.

walshb

Big Ears wrote: »

Actually(at least in the WBA's eyes) he is correct. WBA title or WBA regular title(which are the same thing) is what Dunne won. Had he won and unified with another title he would become WBA Super-Champion, or had he held an interim belt he would be WBA interim champion. Now you could point out how he failed to mention there was a WBA 'Super-Champion' at this weight, and that another man holding a WBA title and his title being regarded as better than Dunne's lessens Dunne's achievement.

But stating it was the WBA title, is indeed correct. As far as the WBA is concerned Dunne won the same title McGuigan did except at a lower weight.

I'd disagree with calling Dunne and Cordoba average fighters aswell.

Big, the key is that Barry won the title off the CHAMPION in the weight.
Had Dunne beaten Caballero, then they are the same. Dunne beat Cordoba, a belt holder for the WBA, but not D belt holder that Pedroza or Caballero was/were. Pedroza was the ONLY man at 126 lbs for the WBA. This is NOT the same as what transpired for Dunne.

Cordoba is not average, he is a good fighter. But, we pretty much all agreed that if Dunne had any chance against a top ten rated man, Cordoba's style was the one to go after. He is not a good hitter really. As much as I was impressed with Dunne that night for
his dogged determination, I feel that the bout was the end of him really. Too much intensity for him and he
suffered badly I would say, Cordoba too. You know, Dunne won the fight, but who took more punishment?
Bit like SRL beating Hearns in 1981. Ray came off the worst...

I Drink It Up!

walshb wrote: »

Big, the key is that Barry won the title off the CHAMPION in the weight.
Had Dunne beaten Caballero, then they are the same. Dunne beat Cordoba, a belt holder for the WBA, but not D belt holder that Pedroza or Caballero was/were. Pedroza was the ONLY man at 126 lbs for the WBA. This is NOT the same as what transpired for Dunne.

Cordoba is not average, he is a god fighter. But, we pretty much all agreed that if Dunne had any chance against a top ten rated man, Cordoba's style was the one to go after. He is not a good hitter really. As much as I was impressed with Dunne that night for
his dogged determination, I feel that the bout was the end of him really. Too much intensity for him and he
suffered badly I would say, Cordoba too. You know, Dunne won te fight, but who took more punishment?
Bit like SRL beating Hearns in 1981. Ray came off the worst...

Give it up....the Irish are in the business of declaring "BEGRUDGER!! BEGRUDGER!!!" every time somebody tries to talk sense. They have the same mentality as the people who beat up Newton for wondering why things fall down and not up.

mark renton

I Drink It Up! wrote: »

Give it up....the Irish are in the business of declaring "BEGRUDGER!! BEGRUDGER!!!" every time somebody tries to talk sense. They have the same mentality as the people who beat up Newton for wondering why things fall down and not up.

your basic knowledge on the laws of physics are excellent - shame that the very part of your brain that stores this knowledge won't share any resources for boxing

Big Ears

walshb wrote: »

Big, the key is that Barry won the title off the CHAMPION in the weight.
Had Dunne beaten Caballero, then they are the same. Dunne beat Cordoba, a belt holder for the WBA, but not D belt holder that Pedroza or Caballero was/were. Pedroza was the ONLY man at 126 lbs for the WBA. This is NOT the same as what transpired for Dunne.

I'm not arguing that Caballero was the #1 at the weight, and indeed the #1 man as far as the WBA are concerned. However in their eyes Caballero was a 'Super-Champion', something Pedroza was not, and in their eyes Cordoba held the same position Pedroza did. As I said I'm not arguing it, merely pointing out how the WBA interpret it and thus why the article is factually correct.

walshb

Big Ears wrote: »

I'm not arguing that Caballero was the #1 at the weight, and indeed the #1 man as far as the WBA are concerned. However in their eyes Caballero was a 'Super-Champion', something Pedroza was not, and in their eyes Cordoba held the same position Pedroza did. As I said I'm not arguing it, merely pointing out how the WBA interpret it and thus why the article is factually correct.

Hate to beat a dead horse, but simply, Cordoba WAS not Pedroza. Pedroza was Caballero. Caballero is the man, and Pedroza was the man. You can
try and cut it many ways, but all you need to do is know that in 1985, Pedroza was the ONLY WBA world champion. Hence, he was what Caballero is.

Now, if for some reason someone points out that in 1985 there was a man at
feather who was the WBA "SUPER" champ, then this man was D man...

For that time in 1985, Pedroza was the only WBA champion. I fail to see how anyone can then say that Pedroza was equal to Ricardo Cordoba as
regards world champion material, official, technical or anything else. They were worlds apart.

Big Ears

walshb wrote: »

Hate to beat a dead horse, but simply, Cordoba WAS not Pedroza. Pedroza was Caballero. Caballero is the man, and Pedroza was the man. You can
try and cut it many ways, but all you need to do is know that in 1985, Pedroza was the ONLY WBA world champion. Hence, he was what Caballero is.

Now, if for some reason someone points out that in 1985 there was a man at
feather who was the WBA "SUPER" champ, then this man was D man...

For that time in 1985, Pedroza was the only WBA champion. I fail to see how anyone can then say that Pedroza was equal to Ricardo Cordoba...

For the last time I'm not stating my beliefs, I'm stating the WBA's.
I would compare Caballero to Pedroza, not Cordoba. I believe that the Super-Champion is really only what the normal champion was before they introduced this ridiculous situation. But this is not how the WBA view things, and therefore the author of the article is correct it simply stating it was the WBA title, instead of stating it was a version of the WBA title.

I'm not spinning anything, I'm telling it as it is.

mark renton

Big Ears wrote: »

I'm not arguing that Caballero was the #1 at the weight, and indeed the #1 man as far as the WBA are concerned. However in their eyes Caballero was a 'Super-Champion', something Pedroza was not, and in their eyes Cordoba held the same position Pedroza did. As I said I'm not arguing it, merely pointing out how the WBA interpret it and thus why the article is factually correct.

I just dont get how teh above is so hard to understand to some people, world title belts are not based on who you fought for them they are based on them being world title belts

walshb

Okay, lets say the article gets that right, however, hate to be so precise, but to most fans they would automatically assume that Dunne did the same as Barry, when in fact, he did not. The article should have touched on the fact that Dunne's title was slighly different (not to Barry's specifically, just in general), and went on to briefly explain this new WBA situation.

The only way Dunne and Barry would be the same is for Dunne to have beaten Caballero.

That's me done on this, I promise.:)

mark renton

walshb wrote: »

The only way Dunne and Barry would be the same is for Dunne to have beaten Caballero.

That's me done on this, I promise.:)

How is that then?? - Pedroza never unified, neither Barry - if Dunne beat Cab then he would have taken both titles ?? no??

so how is this on a par?

walshb

john47832 wrote: »

How is that then?? - Pedroza never unified, neither Barry - if Dunne beat Cab then he would have taken both titles ?? no??

so how is this on a par?

Best way to settle this is as Harry Hill says, "Fight."

Barry vs. Dunne at a catch weight of 124 lbs....

Yes, IF Dunne had beaten Cab, and if your aunt had balls she'd be your........

joepenguin

Big Ears wrote: »

For the last time I'm not stating my beliefs, I'm stating the WBA's.
I would compare Caballero to Pedroza, not Cordoba. I believe that the Super-Champion is really only what the normal champion was before they introduced this ridiculous situation. But this is not how the WBA view things, and therefore the author of the article is correct it simply stating it was the WBA title, instead of stating it was a version of the WBA title.

I'm not spinning anything, I'm telling it as it is.

The wba have just changed their business model. Consider this:

Tim Bradely held both wbc and wbo belts. The wbc told him to relenquish the wbo if he wanted to stay wbc champ. Making a stand for boxers and proving that fighters are bigger than belts he called their bluff, vacated and Alexander won the belt.

Now lets say that the wbc were as shrewd as the wba and instead of stripping bradely and not making money from him they declared him "super champ" even if doesnt defend his belt. Then they call alexander the regular champ. Is he any oess of a champ because of the business model surrounding the trinket? Same for anyone that ever won a vacant belt. The wba have realised this is a better way of making money and we cant blame the fighters for that.