Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I was watching a few 70s heavyweight fights the other day. Amazing how good the nearly men were - so Jerry Quarry, Shavers, Ron Lyle. makes you realise how weak the heavyweights are today, bar the top two or three. Quarry Shavers and Foreman Lyle are worth watching if you have ten minutes to kill.

Helenius to beat Fury most likely if they ever meet.

I fancy Derek Chisora to beat Fury too - I heard they have a contest lined-up soon.

Froch v Johnson should be a cracker but I wouldn't like to call that fight.

If Haye fight is on at CPT I may stroll over - will be a good crowd there I expect like last time.

Well Froch ground-out a win, well done to him, Johnson is a tough guy to beat.

Scary thing (and paradoxic thing too) is that Froch seems to display obvious flaws when he's in most contests, he was open to big rights last night, all night long. Yes, he could take them, but wouldn't it be better not to ? i mean cumulatively they will take their toll during a fight sometime.

Andre ward must be really looking forward to the final in the Super Six, he knows Froch can be got to. Ward is unorthodox, dirty (head/elbows/shoulder) and is a great mover - hard to tag. I want Froch to win of course but if I had to bet money it'd be on Ward winning by points. Froch is strong enough to take Ward's shots I think and he could KO Ward, but he has to hit him to do that. Ward made Kessler look amateur and, with his dirty tricks, split Kessler's face up, causing a stoppage. If Froch starts to labour into all out war with Ward, his openess may lead to Ward winning rounds by scoring points or marking Froch with the head. Good win for Froch last night, a hell of a lot to do yet.

This guy I may have mentioned a while back in this thread as a possible opponent for Nathan Cleverly. Now it appearss he wants Cleverly:

Shumenov wants Cleverly

Shumenov is very good IMO. He a won world title after 9 fights.

I don't think Cleverly will take-up the offer and if he does I believe he will suffer a loss.

Braemer also backed-out of fighting Shumenov I believe - I think he literally didn't turn-up on the day or left on the day citing an ear ache or something !!

There's a good article on EastSideBoxing about why this contest is a sham. Mayweather knows exactly what Ortiz's strengths are and why they've succeeded against other boxers (ie. Andre Berto, who he beat to win the WBC belt recently). Thing is, Ortiz's strengths wouldn't be achievable against Mayweather which is why he's lined-up the fight, he's just not open to those moves. Will create a lot of interest, earn loads of money, but not really be tested.

The only real fight out there for Mayweather is Manny, anything else is a sham.

I think he'd beat Manny though.

I don't think Mayweather will ever actually fight Manny, he asked for $100 Million for that contest - 10% of a BILLION dollars !! This sum was IMO proposed because he knows it's unrealistic. I'd love to see what he does if that offer did come through, I feel there would be another reason the fight couldn't happen.


The Ortiz fight will earn money and get Mayweather another World Title for his collection, he wouldn't want anything less than a world title contest, given his pedigree and the legacy he clearly still wants to protect. I think he's infatuated with preserving his 'O'.


The Ortiz fight may well be a warm-up fight, but not for a fight with Manny Pac !!

He decided to go it alone, rather than getting involved with the likes of Frank Warren. I respect him for taking that stance, but equally, had he been guided by an experienced promotor, they would've made the right decisions for him, and you never know what could've been.


He's deluded, and has an ego that he can't back up.


A shame indeed, I really do think it could've been different. He wouldn't have been the greatest, but neither was Bruno, and he can at least say that he was a world champ.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • In what way? Maybe it just felt more intelligent and considered coming directly after Question Time, which was a barely watchable bun fight.
    • Yes, all this. Totally Sephiroth. The electorate wants to see transformation overnight. That's not possible. But what is possible is leading with the right comms strategy, which isn't cutting through. As I've said before, messaging matters more now than policy, that's the only way to bring the electorate with you. And I worry that that's how Reform's going to get into power.  And the media LOVES Reform. 
    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...