david_carnell

Great wins for selby, brook and Joshua. Khan didn't impress in his points win but if he still wants mayweather, if anything, a slightly imperfect performance might be more likely to land it than looking like a potential defeat. Selby looks v naturally gifted. A bout against lomachenko could be epic. Brook is now a real contender at welterweight and will struggle to find people keen to take him on. Joshua didn't look amazing but did what no one else has done in ko'ing Johnson inc wlad, fury and chisora. The boy can certainly hit hard and he looks a million dollars. Now needs a real rest but he can't be far away from challenging some of the gatekeepers of the division and then a belt (at least the one wlad doesn't have).

I don't particularly like him or admire his methodologies but you underestimate Gorgeous George at your peril. Ask Oona King (Bethnal Green 2005) Ask Imran Hussein (Broadford West 2012) The guy is probably the best orator I've even seen in the flesh and will certainly make the tv debates lively. He has the ability to reach electorate that other candidates struggle to. He won't win, but he might decide who does.

Ach I could have saved you the cash and lent you a copy. Sorry. Hope you enjoy it. My Dad's family are all from Catford/Lewisham orginally so was interesting to read as I suspect it was pretty similar to Bermondsey.

Greening may well be thinking of resigning from govt over Heathrow expansion so would be interesting to see what she'd do as Mayor.

If you're interested in the people and local history of that area then The Likes of Us: A History of the White Working Class is a very good read: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Likes-Us-Biography-Working/dp/1862076006

Where else would one pick up some cheap eastern-European labour for cash-in-hand work?

Oh I'm not complaining. A cursory glance at the BBC Champ list suggests: Klitschko x 3 Lebedev Kovalev Golovkin Gradovich Lomachenko Not as many as I'd assumed actually but not shabby. UK and Ireland get: Froch Lee Brook Quigg Frampton (and possibly Selby on Sat) not bad going as a comparison.

Ruskis and former Soviet states eating up belts at the moment it seems.

Nandos

Aye - Lee Selby on Sat should be great. If he beats Gradovich then he might want to tet himself against Lomachenko! KidKruger - you know much about this Gradovich fella?

He did it quite well in Groves II actually. He's tall and rangy with a good jab when he chooses to use it.

Good points KK. He probably hasn't faced anyone who hits as hard as Froch mind you.... If it comes off that'd be a cracker...

I think that could be a war! Golovkin is a lot smaller although not especially quick. But he has, like Duran, hands of stone. Massive power in both fists. Froch doesn't really do defence in a tradition way an as he's aged his reflexes have faded and he gets caught. A lot. But he has a chin of granite. Likewise, he has power, esp in that right hand that he curls up like a coiled spring. If Froch takes it, and boxes smart behind a long jab and then peppers GGG with straight rights he can keep him at bay for a points win. If Froch trades toe-to-toe I think he'll lose although it might depend on how well GGG takes a punch - have we really seen him be hit hard before?

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > AQ Foxy specifically said he didn't want any > debate on the thread, only supporting views. I > quote "this is not a thread to discuss fox > hunting". > > The Fox's wish has been granted. This

Right. You've highlighted the issue. Thread locked.

Canelo was 152lbs when he fought Mayweather. Mayweather was 150. Cotto was 154lbs when he fought Mayweather. Mayweather was 151 That shows that 150lbs is Mayweather's natural limit. Even if Golovkin could boil himself down to scrape under the 154 limit (and I'm doubtful that's sensible) he'd shoot up to closer to 160 (if not higher) when he got in the ring. No way does Mayweather give up 10lbs. Daniel Jacobs, the WBA holder, looks like he can bang a bit (26KOs from 29 wins) so that could be entertaining but again, he may not want the fight. Peter Quillan and Andy Lee would also be entertaining. Contrary to some commentators out there I think there is more depth at middleweight than would appear. That's four or five solid-to-very-good fighters for Golovkin to seek out before he could realistically say there is no one left. That would also take him up to Hopkins record 20 defences.

Except they only cover Coventry and Warks and surrounds. Not much use in SE London.

Never going to happen. Ever. Mayweather was a featherweight at amateur level and has come up through to welterweight now. That's the biggest his frame can handle comfortably. He had to fight Canelo at some weird catch-weight. He won't go up to light-middle properly. GGG's was a middleweight amateur and now fights at....middleweight. No way can he go down and retain his power. He'd be crazy to try. GGG should look to duff up Cotto and then Canelo. Once he's done, then take on whoever is around at super-middle....Ward, Groves, DeGale, even Froch (that would be a right old dust up).

It's just that none of that stuff is new. He knows the media knows etc etc.

Robbin - your earlier link was from 2013. What was that meant to prove exactly?

Chuka withdraws. Bizarre.

A comment in a blog about the decline of the left-wing Social Democratic parties in Scandanavia and Austria caught my eye. It could easily apply to the Labour party here:

Interesting, accurate and depressing analysis by John Harris: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/15/labour-history-leadership

Louisa Unless we agree to state funding of all political parties and ban donations it would be manifestly unworkable for the unions to stop supporting business. And I don't think it is any less detrimental than the Conservatives being funded by big business. Simply self preservation by both groups.

It's not a bubble Louisa. The unions were and are the bedrock of the party. Without them, what does the party stand for? Who does it represent? Not every trade union is Mark Serwotka or Bob Crow(RIP). That's your bubble and your skewed thinking. Most are entirely reasonable organisations working with and alongside employers, not against them. And this country would be a poorer place without the rights that they have helped introduce and defended. Unions represent a vast range of workers from across public and private sectors and barely any engage in the sort of industrial action that the media obsess over. I understand Loz's point about going beyond your core support but it's also evident that Labour lost that too. Concerns about immigration, low wages and housing amongst traditional working-class voters weren't addressed adequately and UKIP capitalised on that. I also think Loz mistakes union members (not the unions themselves - this isn't a block vote) having a say in the election with the unions controlling the party. If you work for Barclays and voted Tory does this mean the big banks control the Conservative Party? Of course not, and neither will any Labour leader be "controlled" by the unions after the election. The Blair analogy doesn't work either - he won the union vote in his election too. He even beat Prescott in the union vote. I agree that perception will be key but I think any Labour leader who loses sight of standing up for the rights and interests of the ordinary worker (union member or not) shouldn't be standing at all. There doesn't have to be a mutual exclusivity between being in favour of strong workers' rights and being able to target aspirational voters too.