Page 8 of 31

Re: Boxing

Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2016 2:44 pm
by Numbers
Big D wrote:I agree with that but can't see his skills breaking down GGG or out boxing him. Will be good to watch though.
I have my doubts as well, Golovkin will be all over him, it'll be interesting to see Eubanks tactics, Murray managed to frustrate Golovkin with his high guard before succumbing to a body shot late on.

Re: Boxing

Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:40 pm
by Big D
Holy shit. Some balls by Brook to take the fight!

Re: Boxing

Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2016 3:25 pm
by Numbers
Big D wrote:Holy shit. Some balls by Brook to take the fight!
Well that was out of the blue, not the best fight for Brook to take, there are plenty in his division to keep him busy you'd think.

Re: RE: Re: Boxing

Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2016 3:41 pm
by Big D
Numbers wrote:
Big D wrote:Holy shit. Some balls by Brook to take the fight!
Well that was out of the blue, not the best fight for Brook to take, there are plenty in his division to keep him busy you'd think.
Unless he gets starched in 1 or 2 then this will raise his profile to help get those fights. And his bank balance.

Re: Boxing

Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2016 6:00 pm
by Discreet Hooker
All adds up really guys , GGG is possibly running out of worthwhile opponents . He see s Brook as a smaller fighter who is now 30 yrs old . Not much to frighten the yanks camp. Good payday for both . Might put a £1 on GGG , the bookies odds will make interesting reading .

Re: Boxing

Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2016 1:16 pm
by Numbers
Discreet Hooker wrote:All adds up really guys , GGG is possibly running out of worthwhile opponents . He see s Brook as a smaller fighter who is now 30 yrs old . Not much to frighten the yanks camp. Good payday for both . Might put a £1 on GGG , the bookies odds will make interesting reading .
I doubt it'll be that interesting, GGG odds on favourite.

Re: Boxing

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:09 am
by Discreet Hooker
Numbers wrote:
Discreet Hooker wrote:All adds up really guys , GGG is possibly running out of worthwhile opponents . He see s Brook as a smaller fighter who is now 30 yrs old . Not much to frighten the yanks camp. Good payday for both . Might put a £1 on GGG , the bookies odds will make interesting reading .
I doubt it'll be that interesting, GGG odds on favourite.

The result imo is not in doubt , I was thinking odds on a stoppage or even naming a round in which the bout ends . In teresting none the less .

Re: Boxing

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 8:34 pm
by rowan
:lol: Brilliant!


Re: Boxing

Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 8:29 am
by Discreet Hooker
Well done Carl Frampton . Excellent win away from home agin world class warrior .


Hats off

Re: Boxing

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 1:56 pm
by Big D
Good win for Frampton.

Not sure there are many money fights in that division though.

Re: Boxing

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:22 pm
by Numbers
Excellent win for Frampton, sounds as though a rematch is on the cards as that would represent the best two fighters in that division, I didn't see the fight but Selby was there to try and promote a fight against the winner.

Josh Warrington looked very good on Saturday, there's a lot of British talent around that weight category.

Re: Boxing

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:47 pm
by Discreet Hooker
Big D wrote:Good win for Frampton.

Not sure there are many money fights in that division though.

No doubt that a match~up with Rigondeaux would be serious money .

Re: Boxing

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:47 pm
by Big D
Is rigondeaux not fighting at super bantam?

Re: Boxing

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:26 pm
by Discreet Hooker
Big D wrote:Is rigondeaux not fighting at super bantam?


Rigondeaux has offered Frampton out earlier this year stating that ' Frampton ' is a coward for not facing him ( Usual boxer type ranting & raving ).


We can assume from his offer that he is more happy for a match~up .

I would pay to see it too .

Re: Boxing

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:29 pm
by Big D
Yes but my point was there was no big money fights of those within the division. Rigondeaux would need to step up as I doubt Frampton will move back down.

Re: Boxing

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 12:37 pm
by Numbers
Big D wrote:Yes but my point was there was no big money fights of those within the division. Rigondeaux would need to step up as I doubt Frampton will move back down.
I think that the reason that he moved up was to avoid Rigondeaux, can't blame him really. I'm assuming he doesn't want the Selby fight as a rematch with Santa Cruz is on the cards, again you can't really blame him, that's the money fight.

Re: Boxing

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 5:13 pm
by Numbers
Well a shame Joe Joyce didn't win the super heavyweight title, he looks rather lumbering tbh.

Whereas I like Joshua's boxing he isn't much of a pundit, hois synopsis of Joyce's performance seemed to be "he should have knocked him out", all very good for AJ but not everyone is quite as concussive as he is.

Re: RE: Re: Boxing

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 5:53 pm
by Big D
Numbers wrote:Well a shame Joe Joyce didn't win the super heavyweight title, he looks rather lumbering tbh.

Whereas I like Joshua's boxing he isn't much of a pundit, hois synopsis of Joyce's performance seemed to be "he should have knocked him out", all very good for AJ but not everyone is quite as concussive as he is.
Yeah JJ is not much more than a good amateur. Probably while he is still amateur at 30.

Tbf to AJ, he won't have been exposed at all to punditry and played it safe by being uncontroversial.

Re: RE: Re: Boxing

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 8:04 pm
by Discreet Hooker
Big D wrote:
Numbers wrote:Well a shame Joe Joyce didn't win the super heavyweight title, he looks rather lumbering tbh.

Whereas I like Joshua's boxing he isn't much of a pundit, hois synopsis of Joyce's performance seemed to be "he should have knocked him out", all very good for AJ but not everyone is quite as concussive as he is.
Yeah JJ is not much more than a good amateur. Probably while he is still amateur at 30.

Tbf to AJ, he won't have been exposed at all to punditry and played it safe by being uncontroversial.

Didn't JJ come into boxing late , hence his age ?

Seem to remember AJ nicking the Gold agin a very experienced Italian heavyweight , a bout that could have gone either way .

Unless an amateur opponent is totally outclassed , its sometimes hard to choose twix between two boxers smashing everything in front of them for 9 minutes .

Re: RE: Re: Boxing

Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 11:53 am
by Numbers
Discreet Hooker wrote:
Big D wrote:
Numbers wrote:Well a shame Joe Joyce didn't win the super heavyweight title, he looks rather lumbering tbh.

Whereas I like Joshua's boxing he isn't much of a pundit, hois synopsis of Joyce's performance seemed to be "he should have knocked him out", all very good for AJ but not everyone is quite as concussive as he is.
Yeah JJ is not much more than a good amateur. Probably while he is still amateur at 30.

Tbf to AJ, he won't have been exposed at all to punditry and played it safe by being uncontroversial.

Didn't JJ come into boxing late , hence his age ?

Seem to remember AJ nicking the Gold agin a very experienced Italian heavyweight , a bout that could have gone either way .

Unless an amateur opponent is totally outclassed , its sometimes hard to choose twix between two boxers smashing everything in front of them for 9 minutes .
JJ has been boxing for 8 years, he is not going to make it in the professional ranks and I doubt he will even try, when Joshua won gold he could have lost three of the fights he had on the way, the first fight was against Felix Savons nephew and it seemed to be the Cuban who won, ditto the final Joshua was behind for the whole fight and then won it on countback in controversial circumstances.

The clear difference between Joyce and his opponent was the cleanness of the shots, Joyce managed to land very few scoring punches, almost all of them were on the gloves/arms, the Frenchman landed some clean shots which was what swung it for him.

Re: Boxing

Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 8:29 am
by rowan
Looks interesting but . . . why are most of the boxing films about white boxers?


Re: Boxing

Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 2:01 pm
by Numbers
rowan wrote:Looks interesting but . . . why are most of the boxing films about white boxers?

Hollywood, Duran was one of my favourite fighters.

Re: Boxing

Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 2:27 pm
by rowan
I was a kid but remember the Sugar Ray battles well. I despised Sugar Ray back then, tho in retrospect he was undoubtedly the pick of an outstanding generation of light-to-middle weight boxers, with Hagler and Hearns also on the scene, just as Ali had been the pick of a great heavyweight division a decade or so before. It was a little like the old rock-scissors-paper game with the fighters having completely different strengths, making for some intriguing match-ups. The Sugar Ray - Duran rematch obviously became a bit of a farce, however, with the latter basically giving up while still in the ring, and regrettably he'll always be forever remembered as the recipient of that outrageous wind-up punch from Sugar Ray. :cry:

Re: Boxing

Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 3:19 pm
by Numbers
rowan wrote:I was a kid but remember the Sugar Ray battles well. I despised Sugar Ray back then, tho in retrospect he was undoubtedly the pick of an outstanding generation of light-to-middle weight boxers, with Hagler and Hearns also on the scene, just as Ali had been the pick of a great heavyweight division a decade or so before. It was a little like the old rock-scissors-paper game with the fighters having completely different strengths, making for some intriguing match-ups. The Sugar Ray - Duran rematch obviously became a bit of a farce, however, with the latter basically giving up while still in the ring, and regrettably he'll always be forever remembered as the recipient of that outrageous wind-up punch from Sugar Ray. :cry:
Indeed the fab four, the greatest era for the middleweight division without question.

I would say Hagler was the man however.

Re: Boxing

Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 4:10 pm
by Numbers
Here's the HJagler v Hearns fight, legendary: