Breaking News Kevin Mitchell goes to train with Roach

[Gazmac81]

i agree with all of that

Des, the British and Commonwealth Titles mean nothing on the World Stage. You and I both know this.

Should Danny Williams get a title shot because he is currently British Champ? Should Cleverly get a title shot because he is currently Commonwealth Champ? Of course not!

In reality, Cook was never a genuine World Champion(Haye, Froch Hatton, Calzaghe). He merely held a version, and it must be said it was the Wrarren Boxing Organisation version at that.
If Mitchell does indeed fight for and win the same belt he will be no more than a strap holder.

He gets a shot because allegedly works his fighters into undeserving shots in this particular organisation. It's happened plenty of times before and will happen plenty of times in the future no doubt.
Mitchell hasn't won an eliminator or beat anyone in the top 10-15 in the world and in my opinion these two need to happen(at least) for anyone to become a genuine challenger for a genuine World Title.

[Deserter]

not biased, just know a good boxer when i see one, so in your opinion johanssen isnt a good boxer, walter estrada was a world title contender

Mitchell faced Estrada more than FOUR years after he'd been bombed out in his WBO challenge against Harrison and was clearly way past his best - he'd been KO'ed in 2 by a fighter below world-class just two fights before he faced Mitchell as well.
And you say you're not biased...

Deserter, with all due respect your argument here is pointless because although Mitchell faced Estrada four years after his WBO fight againts Harrison and KO'd two fights before he boxed Mitchell, Estrada went the distance losing on points againts Roman Martinez the WBO Champion who KO'd Nicky Cook after Mitchell had boxed him. Mitchell good rid of Estrada by via KO 5, the current WBO Champ Martinez got rid of Estrada via points 10 so if you want to go by results etc to prove your point thats my argument and enough said really ... That and Mitchell being that World organizations undefeated inter-cont Champ, No.1 contender, undefeated British and Commonwealth Champion I'd say more than justifies Mitchell a shot at the title

With all due respect, my argument is not pointless - it's just that you've managed to completely miss my point, which was that Handles was being deliberately misleading by referencing Estrada's role as a former world title challenger without giving any proper context i.e. that it had happened so long ago and that his immediate form prior to the Mitchell bout was hardly stellar - had he done so this would have given a far clearer indication of the significance of Mitchell's victory over him.
You also talk about justifying Mitchell's shot at the title, but show me anywhere on the thread where I've got involved in this argument? I simply had a problem with the claim that Mitchell having an undefeated record somehow proved he was better than Khan, which is simply a ridiculous argument.
Let me clear one thing up - I like Mitchell as a boxer, but in my initial post I've made clear where I see him in the grander scheme of things, which is plenty of potential if he can iron out his flaws, but certainly unproven at world level at the moment. Can anyone genuinely argue against that summary?!

[Des1]

But it appears that you want to discredit Mitchell even to the extent of pointing out that a fighter he beat in 5 rounds got beat in 2 rounds prior Mitchell so I had to point out that that same fighter went the distance againts the current WBO champion Martinez so my point was that pointing out those results prove nothing. And again, your opinion maybe that he doesn't deserve a title shot but like I also said, that oganization has him as their intercont champ, have him as No.1 contender, being British and Commonwealth champ makes him in my opinion just as worthy as many others who have fought for a 'World' title and if not more worthy than Khan, its more outragous that Khan got a 'World' title shot I'd say than it is Mitchell. It seems to be forgot now that Khan fed on opponents smaller and lighter than him, beat up on some past their best ie Gomez, decked by 'non punchers' took a crushing defeat two fights before he challenges for a 'World' title. I'm not knocking Khan or disrespecting him, just saying that if Khan is worthy of his shot Mitchell certainly is.

[Des1]

i agree with all of that

Des, the British and Commonwealth Titles mean nothing on the World Stage. You and I both know this.

Should Danny Williams get a title shot because he is currently British Champ? Should Cleverly get a title shot because he is currently Commonwealth Champ? Of course not!

In reality, Cook was never a genuine World Champion(Haye, Froch Hatton, Calzaghe). He merely held a version, and it must be said it was the Wrarren Boxing Organisation version at that.
If Mitchell does indeed fight for and win the same belt he will be no more than a strap holder.

He gets a shot because allegedly works his fighters into undeserving shots in this particular organisation. It's happened plenty of times before and will happen plenty of times in the future no doubt.
Mitchell hasn't won an eliminator or beat anyone in the top 10-15 in the world and in my opinion these two need to happen(at least) for anyone to become a genuine challenger for a genuine World Title.

I see you point in that respect so then Arthur, Enzo, Cook, Rees, Khan didn't deserve title shots just as much if not more than Mitchell. He at least deserves his shot more than them.

[yiddo14]

Khan probably deserved his shot more than the rest but even then, Khan didn't actually deserve a shot either.

It's annoying seeing fighters get title shots because of who they are managed by as opposed to who they beat, especially when there have been plenty of guys with as much skill and plenty with a lot more talent who have had to go through hell to get a shot of any kind, if at all.
Still, thats part of the game I suppose.

Not Mitchell's fault at all and good luck to the man if does get his chance. Just think it will do him better in the long run if the had a few more tests first.

[Deserter]

But it appears that you want to discredit Mitchell even to the extent of pointing out that a fighter he beat in 5 rounds got beat in 2 rounds prior Mitchell so I had to point out that that same fighter went the distance againts the current WBO champion Martinez so my point was that pointing out those results prove nothing..

I'm not seeking to discredit Mitchell, I'm seeking to put that win in its proper context (as results DO prove something when judged in context), while you seem to be doing anything to put a positive spin on it - if you're so hung up on the Martinez result then why don't you point out that Estrada lost pretty much every round and was dropped in the 9th and the 10th? Just because Martinez didn't stop him doesn't suddenly mean that Estrada was a world-class opponent when Mitchell faced him, that's just nonsensical.
Oh, and something else that adds context is the review of the Mitchell vs Estrada fight by the respected Dan Rafael:
"The 23-year-old Mitchell has received plenty of hype in England as one of the nation's top prospects, and promoter allegedly has high hopes for him, but based on his disappointing performance against Estrada, there is much work to be done. Mitchell was making his American debut, so maybe the travel and unfamiliar territory distracted him. Of course, maybe it was all the punches that Colombia's Estrada, 33, was landing. He had Mitchell in trouble in the second round and swelled his right eye. Mitchell finally regrouped and knocked Estrada down at the end of the fifth with a right to the body. Even though the round ended and Estrada was on his feet, referee Lindsey Page stopped the fight, which looked like a terribly quick hook."
So, sounds like not only was it a questionable stoppage, but Mitchell experienced more trouble with Estrada than Martinez did.

[Des1]

But it appears that you want to discredit Mitchell even to the extent of pointing out that a fighter he beat in 5 rounds got beat in 2 rounds prior Mitchell so I had to point out that that same fighter went the distance againts the current WBO champion Martinez so my point was that pointing out those results prove nothing..

I'm not seeking to discredit Mitchell, I'm seeking to put that win in its proper context (as results DO prove something when judged in context), while you seem to be doing anything to put a positive spin on it - if you're so hung up on the Martinez result then why don't you point out that Estrada lost pretty much every round and was dropped in the 9th and the 10th? Just because Martinez didn't stop him doesn't suddenly mean that Estrada was a world-class opponent when Mitchell faced him, that's just nonsensical.
Oh, and something else that adds context is the review of the Mitchell vs Estrada fight by the respected Dan Rafael:
"The 23-year-old Mitchell has received plenty of hype in England as one of the nation's top prospects, and promoter allegedly has high hopes for him, but based on his disappointing performance against Estrada, there is much work to be done. Mitchell was making his American debut, so maybe the travel and unfamiliar territory distracted him. Of course, maybe it was all the punches that Colombia's Estrada, 33, was landing. He had Mitchell in trouble in the second round and swelled his right eye. Mitchell finally regrouped and knocked Estrada down at the end of the fifth with a right to the body. Even though the round ended and Estrada was on his feet, referee Lindsey Page stopped the fight, which looked like a terribly quick hook."
So, sounds like not only was it a questionable stoppage, but Mitchell experienced more trouble with Estrada than Martinez did.

Im not hung up on the Martinez result, I used an example to compare just as you did about Estrada being stopped in 2 before he boxed Mitchell. Glad you now realise that you cant in fact go by results now after what you pointed out.Accepted its your opinion that Estrada was stopped to soon, did you see when Estrada got stopped in 2 before Mitchell? Maybe if you did you might have the same opinion that he got stopped to soon in that fight. For every negative you throw out about Mitchell a positive can come back, has he ever been stopped, or floored? No, has he been hurt? Yes, has he come back and recovered after being hurt to turn the fight around? Yes, has he shown grit and heart? Yes, has he done everything asked of him? Yes. That can be a positive that when you say Estrada had Mitchell in trouble yet he turned it around couldn't it? I know of good champions who have been in trouble with a lot lesser fighters and not been able to turn it around like in upsets. So you say Mitchell got a swollen eye when when he boxed Estrada?!...Wow really! Who would think that could happen in boxing?! So what, a swollen eye is a result of taking a punch on the eye, or a thumb. You cant go out in the rain without getting wet.

[Deserter]

Glad you now realise that you cant in fact go by results now]

results DO prove something when judged in context]

So you say Mitchell got a swollen eye when when he boxed Estrada?!...Wow really! Who would think that could happen in boxing?! So what, a swollen eye is a result of taking a punch on the eye, or a thumb. You cant go out in the rain without getting wet.

Des, you really need to start reading my posts properly if you're going to reply. I couldn't have been more explicit about the fact results do matter as you can see above.
As for me saying Mitchell got a swollen eye, if you reread my post you'll see I was quoting a full report by Dan Rafael, it was him saying that, not me.
I will repeat the following just in bid to get it through to you:
1. I actually like Mitchell as a fighter - when he chooses to box like in the early part of the fight with Carl he looks like he COULD be world-class. I also admire the guts he showed in that fight.
2. Like many others, I don't like the way his career has been managed/manipulated so he is now in a position to fight for a belt without having proven himself in world class. Beating Estrada definitely did not prove he's capable of mixing at that level.
3. Relating to the above, regardless of the ethics of it (and you're right in that the likes of Khan have been similarly undeserving of shots), more importantly I don't think it's beneficial to HIM. I think it's important for every fighter to have steady career progression - look at how the Juan Laporte fight was so important in preparing McGuigan to face Pedroza, for example. Do you honestly think it's coincidence that all the guys that have been referenced as undeserving challengers or belt holders have suffered short reigns? In many cases it's because they were thrown in without proper prep that has led to them getting found out so brutally - to use a crude analogy, Andy Murray wouldn't prepare to face Roger Federer by playing a load of has-beens and never-will-bes, he'd prepare by facing decent players who he'd learn from and would be battle-hardened and sharper as a result. I don't think it's any different in this instance.
4. I think Mitchell's willingness for a tear-up and his lack of 'grooming' due to protective match-making will mean that he will fall short at the highest level. Believe me I take no pleasure in this and I'd be more than happy to be proved wrong, but that's my honest opinion.

[Des1]

Glad you now realise that you cant in fact go by results now]

results DO prove something when judged in context]

So you say Mitchell got a swollen eye when when he boxed Estrada?!...Wow really! Who would think that could happen in boxing?! So what, a swollen eye is a result of taking a punch on the eye, or a thumb. You cant go out in the rain without getting wet.

Des, you really need to start reading my posts properly if you're going to reply. I couldn't have been more explicit about the fact results do matter as you can see above.
As for me saying Mitchell got a swollen eye, if you reread my post you'll see I was quoting a full report by Dan Rafael, it was him saying that, not me.
I will repeat the following just in bid to get it through to you:
1. I actually like Mitchell as a fighter - when he chooses to box like in the early part of the fight with Carl he looks like he COULD be world-class. I also admire the guts he showed in that fight.
2. Like many others, I don't like the way his career has been managed/manipulated so he is now in a position to fight for a belt without having proven himself in world class. Beating Estrada definitely did not prove he's capable of mixing at that level.
3. Relating to the above, regardless of the ethics of it (and you're right in that the likes of Khan have been similarly undeserving of shots), more importantly I don't think it's beneficial to HIM. I think it's important for every fighter to have steady career progression - look at how the Juan Laporte fight was so important in preparing McGuigan to face Pedroza, for example. Do you honestly think it's coincidence that all the guys that have been referenced as undeserving challengers or belt holders have suffered short reigns? In many cases it's because they were thrown in without proper prep that has led to them getting found out so brutally - to use a crude analogy, Andy Murray wouldn't prepare to face Roger Federer by playing a load of has-beens and never-will-bes, he'd prepare by facing decent players who he'd learn from and would be battle-hardened and sharper as a result. I don't think it's any different in this instance.
4. I think Mitchell's willingness for a tear-up and his lack of 'grooming' due to protective match-making will mean that he will fall short at the highest level. Believe me I take no pleasure in this and I'd be more than happy to be proved wrong, but that's my honest opinion.

I read your post ok, and I see that you contradict yourself, your saying results do count then you say they dont. ie, Estrada gets stopped in two before he boxed Mitchell getting stopped in 5, clearly making a point about it,(results matter) then I point out the fact that Estrada took Martinez the distance after Mitchell stopped him suddenly you say that Mitchell's stoppage win was questionable and Martinez had Estrada down and won every round etc (basically saying the results of these fights mean nothing or dont tell the story). Also, I see you was quoting a full report by Dan Rafael, I would have thought that you agree with it by quoting it. Why quote someone else's report? Have you own opinion, or do you do that incase someone disagrees with you or shows you to be wrong you can say 'I didn't say it, I was qouting what someone else said'

[Deserter]

Glad you now realise that you cant in fact go by results now]

results DO prove something when judged in context]

So you say Mitchell got a swollen eye when when he boxed Estrada?!...Wow really! Who would think that could happen in boxing?! So what, a swollen eye is a result of taking a punch on the eye, or a thumb. You cant go out in the rain without getting wet.

Des, you really need to start reading my posts properly if you're going to reply. I couldn't have been more explicit about the fact results do matter as you can see above.
As for me saying Mitchell got a swollen eye, if you reread my post you'll see I was quoting a full report by Dan Rafael, it was him saying that, not me.
I will repeat the following just in bid to get it through to you:
1. I actually like Mitchell as a fighter - when he chooses to box like in the early part of the fight with Carl he looks like he COULD be world-class. I also admire the guts he showed in that fight.
2. Like many others, I don't like the way his career has been managed/manipulated so he is now in a position to fight for a belt without having proven himself in world class. Beating Estrada definitely did not prove he's capable of mixing at that level.
3. Relating to the above, regardless of the ethics of it (and you're right in that the likes of Khan have been similarly undeserving of shots), more importantly I don't think it's beneficial to HIM. I think it's important for every fighter to have steady career progression - look at how the Juan Laporte fight was so important in preparing McGuigan to face Pedroza, for example. Do you honestly think it's coincidence that all the guys that have been referenced as undeserving challengers or belt holders have suffered short reigns? In many cases it's because they were thrown in without proper prep that has led to them getting found out so brutally - to use a crude analogy, Andy Murray wouldn't prepare to face Roger Federer by playing a load of has-beens and never-will-bes, he'd prepare by facing decent players who he'd learn from and would be battle-hardened and sharper as a result. I don't think it's any different in this instance.
4. I think Mitchell's willingness for a tear-up and his lack of 'grooming' due to protective match-making will mean that he will fall short at the highest level. Believe me I take no pleasure in this and I'd be more than happy to be proved wrong, but that's my honest opinion.

I read your post ok, and I see that you contradict yourself, your saying results do count then you say they dont. ie, Estrada gets stopped in two before he boxed Mitchell getting stopped in 5, clearly making a point about it,(results matter) then I point out the fact that Estrada took Martinez the distance after Mitchell stopped him suddenly you say that Mitchell's stoppage win was questionable and Martinez had Estrada down and won every round etc (basically saying the results of these fights mean nothing or dont tell the story). Also, I see you was quoting a full report by Dan Rafael, I would have thought that you agree with it by quoting it. Why quote someone else's report? Have you own opinion, or do you do that incase someone disagrees with you or shows you to be wrong you can say 'I didn't say it, I was qouting what someone else said'

Jesus, this is getting tedious. I will spell it out for you one final time, as everyone else I'm sure has already grasped it and can see there is no contradiction at all. Results DO matter and they have to be judged in context - this is exactly why I had an issue with handles refering to Estrada as the former world title challenger without pointing out the context i.e. that it was four years previously and his form heading into the Mitchell fight was less than stellar. Which bit of that can't you grasp?
If anyone is contradicting himself it's you, as you say the result's not important, but then when I introduce the fight report which makes it clear that while a KO in 5 looks like a straightforward victory for Mitchell on paper, it was actually anything but, for some bizarre reason you have a problem with it - why? do you not think his ringside report is an accurate summary of the fight? If you accept it is, do you not then agree it's important to read something like this to get a proper idea of Mitchell's performance?
Again, the key phrase is THE RESULT MATTERS IN CONTEXT. Rafael's report gives vital context to the result - the two are inextricably linked, not contradictory. Please grasp this as I'm getting tired of explaining to the only individual who seems unable to grasp it

[Des1]

Yes, your getting boring now, like I said results do matter but it was YOU that came out with saying Estrada got beat in 2 before Mitchell boxed him that Estrada took Martinez the distance after Mitchell stopped him. What I cant grasp is you trying to discredit Mitchell in a sly way, sort of saying something but not, that prob explains why you seem to contradict yourself, twisting words around ....thinking about it your probably female...that explains it Yes, your getting boring now, like I said results do matter but it was YOU that came out with saying Estrada got beat in 2 before Mitchell boxed him that Estrada took Martinez the distance after Mitchell stopped him. What I cant grasp is you trying to discredit Mitchell in a sly way, sort of saying something but not, that prob explains why you seem to contradict yourself, twisting words around ....thinking about it your probably female...that explains it

[Deserter]

Yes, your getting boring now, like I said results do matter but it was YOU that came out with saying Estrada got beat in 2 before Mitchell boxed him that Estrada took Martinez the distance after Mitchell stopped him. What I cant grasp is you trying to discredit Mitchell in a sly way, sort of saying something but not, that prob explains why you seem to contradict yourself, twisting words around ....thinking about it your probably female...that explains it Yes, your getting boring now, like I said results do matter but it was YOU that came out with saying Estrada got beat in 2 before Mitchell boxed him that Estrada took Martinez the distance after Mitchell stopped him. What I cant grasp is you trying to discredit Mitchell in a sly way, sort of saying something but not, that prob explains why you seem to contradict yourself, twisting words around ....thinking about it your probably female...that explains it

YAWN,,, brilliant comeback, partciularly like the bit about being female.. Comedic genius. Shame you couldn't come back with a single valid argument though... Oh, and by the way, posting the same reply twice doesn't somehow add double the value to your lame response...

[Deserter]

Oh, and do a search under my name to see any previous posts regarding Mitchell. Do that and you'll see your accusation that I've got some sort of sly agenda against him is simply ridiculous.
It's a sad day when you can say you like a fighter, that he shows flashes of world class potential and that you hope he proves you wrong regarding concerns about his flaws, and still have some biased 'nuthugger' accusing you of being sly to him. It would be laughable if it wasn't so pitiful...

[handles]

Yes, your getting boring now, like I said results do matter but it was YOU that came out with saying Estrada got beat in 2 before Mitchell boxed him that Estrada took Martinez the distance after Mitchell stopped him. What I cant grasp is you trying to discredit Mitchell in a sly way, sort of saying something but not, that prob explains why you seem to contradict yourself, twisting words around ....thinking about it your probably female...that explains it Yes, your getting boring now, like I said results do matter but it was YOU that came out with saying Estrada got beat in 2 before Mitchell boxed him that Estrada took Martinez the distance after Mitchell stopped him. What I cant grasp is you trying to discredit Mitchell in a sly way, sort of saying something but not, that prob explains why you seem to contradict yourself, twisting words around ....thinking about it your probably female...that explains it

YAWN,,, brilliant comeback, partciularly like the bit about being female.. Comedic genius. Shame you couldn't come back with a single valid argument though... Oh, and by the way, posting the same reply twice doesn't somehow add double the value to your lame response...

ive never heard so much twaddle in all my years lol the ringside commentry on the night of estrada v mitchell fight imo was very wrong if the commentator said it was stopped to soon, in the 5th round, i was also there and it was correct for the ref to have stopped it, what do you want dead bodies carried out of the ring to make the likes of you people happy, estrada's legs had gone big time and was not hitting back had it not been stopped and the worse was to happen what a bad night for boxing that would have been, i have read and heard some bad commentary on boxing many times,

[handles]

Khan probably deserved his shot more than the rest but even then, Khan didn't actually deserve a shot either.

It's annoying seeing fighters get title shots because of who they are managed by as opposed to who they beat, especially when there have been plenty of guys with as much skill and plenty with a lot more talent who have had to go through hell to get a shot of any kind, if at all.
Still, thats part of the game I suppose.

Not Mitchell's fault at all and good luck to the man if does get his chance. Just think it will do him better in the long run if the had a few more tests first.

your having a laugh the best get promoted by the best, why do you think mitchell ect got signed, because the potential and the pedigree are there, what do you think these boys have been fed with silver spoons to get where they are, if there are boxers out there with class it would've shone thru and would've got signed up by promoters and got their shots at titles, mitchell had first class pedigree within the amateurs, 4 schools title, aba at 18yrs so if the talent out there was better than him where where they then mate, it amazes me why boxing fans dont get behind all boxers if thats the sport they love, boxing suffers enough imo needs to start getting more possitive reviews

[handles]

Yes, your getting boring now, like I said results do matter but it was YOU that came out with saying Estrada got beat in 2 before Mitchell boxed him that Estrada took Martinez the distance after Mitchell stopped him. What I cant grasp is you trying to discredit Mitchell in a sly way, sort of saying something but not, that prob explains why you seem to contradict yourself, twisting words around ....thinking about it your probably female...that explains it Yes, your getting boring now, like I said results do matter but it was YOU that came out with saying Estrada got beat in 2 before Mitchell boxed him that Estrada took Martinez the distance after Mitchell stopped him. What I cant grasp is you trying to discredit Mitchell in a sly way, sort of saying something but not, that prob explains why you seem to contradict yourself, twisting words around ....thinking about it your probably female...that explains it

YAWN,,, brilliant comeback, partciularly like the bit about being female.. Comedic genius. Shame you couldn't come back with a single valid argument though... Oh, and by the way, posting the same reply twice doesn't somehow add double the value to your lame response...

just to point out i was not being misleading with ref to mitchell estrada fight, just thought i was talking to someone with knowledge of that fight, has it still turns out i was and still am, pointless trying to educate you on boxing, you obviously just go on these forums to vent out ????, you prob dont understand the context of this msg either

[Deserter]

you obviously just go on these forums to vent out ????, you prob dont understand the context of this msg either

Well, let's see shall we? I've been posting on here for six years and had plenty of debates about the sport I love with fellow posters who share my passion. On many occasions we've agreed to disagree, that's the beauty of people having independent opinions, but there's always been a level of mutual respect. In six years and more than a thousand posts, I've never been accused of "venting".
Contrast that with you, who's made a grand total of 29 posts, all relating to Mitchell, and who seemingly can't stand anyone having an objective view of him, and it's pretty clear to everyone who actually comes on to "vent", hence other posters also making note of your "delusional comments"
Oh, and as for claiming to be trying to educate me on boxing when you're the one who made the statement that Mitchell is the p4p best fighter in Britain.... enough said

[yiddo14]

Khan probably deserved his shot more than the rest but even then, Khan didn't actually deserve a shot either.

It's annoying seeing fighters get title shots because of who they are managed by as opposed to who they beat, especially when there have been plenty of guys with as much skill and plenty with a lot more talent who have had to go through hell to get a shot of any kind, if at all.
Still, thats part of the game I suppose.

Not Mitchell's fault at all and good luck to the man if does get his chance. Just think it will do him better in the long run if the had a few more tests first.

your having a laugh the best get promoted by the best, why do you think mitchell ect got signed, because the potential and the pedigree are there, what do you think these boys have been fed with silver spoons to get where they are, if there are boxers out there with class it would've shone thru and would've got signed up by promoters and got their shots at titles, mitchell had first class pedigree within the amateurs, 4 schools title, aba at 18yrs so if the talent out there was better than him where where they then mate, it amazes me why boxing fans dont get behind all boxers if thats the sport they love, boxing suffers enough imo needs to start getting more possitive reviews

I can safely say I won't be returning to this thread again!

Enjoy

[handles]

you obviously just go on these forums to vent out ????, you prob dont understand the context of this msg either

Well, let's see shall we? I've been posting on here for six years and had plenty of debates about the sport I love with fellow posters who share my passion. On many occasions we've agreed to disagree, that's the beauty of people having independent opinions, but there's always been a level of mutual respect. In six years and more than a thousand posts, I've never been accused of "venting".
Contrast that with you, who's made a grand total of 29 posts, all relating to Mitchell, and who seemingly can't stand anyone having an objective view of him, and it's pretty clear to everyone who actually comes on to "vent", hence other posters also making note of your "delusional comments"
Oh, and as for claiming to be trying to educate me on boxing when you're the one who made the statement that Mitchell is the p4p best fighter in Britain.... enough said

yiddo being on here for 6 years doesnt account for nothing or could account for lots, im just debating back with you but what you write comes across negative, i may be wrong in the way i read things, yes i do think mitchell is the best p4p in britain at his weight and im just putting my opinion across, i think mitchell has plenty of flaws in his boxing, thats why he is going to train with roach, if he did'nt need improvment he would stay put would'nt he, im probably the one person in mitchells life that does tell him how it is and not what he wants to hear, everyone that knows me says im to hard on him, after every fight i will say to him what he lacked in doing while others pat him on the back, so you see my friend i didnt mean to upset you ok

[Des1]

Yes, your getting boring now, like I said results do matter but it was YOU that came out with saying Estrada got beat in 2 before Mitchell boxed him that Estrada took Martinez the distance after Mitchell stopped him. What I cant grasp is you trying to discredit Mitchell in a sly way, sort of saying something but not, that prob explains why you seem to contradict yourself, twisting words around ....thinking about it your probably female...that explains it Yes, your getting boring now, like I said results do matter but it was YOU that came out with saying Estrada got beat in 2 before Mitchell boxed him that Estrada took Martinez the distance after Mitchell stopped him. What I cant grasp is you trying to discredit Mitchell in a sly way, sort of saying something but not, that prob explains why you seem to contradict yourself, twisting words around ....thinking about it your probably female...that explains it

YAWN,,, brilliant comeback, partciularly like the bit about being female.. Comedic genius. Shame you couldn't come back with a single valid argument though... Oh, and by the way, posting the same reply twice doesn't somehow add double the value to your lame response...

I didn't mean to post my reply twice...an error which most would realise I would imagine, I would say I came back with a more than a valid single argument, you will see what I mean if your capable of reading my posts again but this time taking notice and not being so much up your own backside because 'you cant be wrong', look mate get over it, we all cant be right all the time and this time your not, it must hurt you as I see you've been on here all over the weekend while I've been out having a life but it will fade

[Deserter]

look mate get over it, we all cant be right all the time and this time your not, it must hurt you as I see you've been on here all over the weekend while I've been out having a life but it will fade

You love your assumptions fella don't you? Because I'm not hailing Mitchell as a p4p great you've decided:

1) I'm probably a woman
2) I have a 'sly agenda' against him
3) I have no life (though if you'd bothered to check my location you may have picked up on the fact I have a different weekend to you)

I think your responses say more about you than anything I could add, so much like Yiddo I'm signing off. I'm sure most posters on this board will be able to draw their own conclusions

[handles]

look mate get over it, we all cant be right all the time and this time your not, it must hurt you as I see you've been on here all over the weekend while I've been out having a life but it will fade

You love your assumptions fella don't you? Because I'm not hailing Mitchell as a p4p great you've decided:

1) I'm probably a woman
2) I have a 'sly agenda' against him
3) I have no life (though if you'd bothered to check my location you may have picked up on the fact I have a different weekend to you)

I think your responses say more about you than anything I could add, so much like Yiddo I'm signing off. I'm sure most posters on this board will be able to draw their own conclusions

its amazing how some people run of because they dont like a bit of what they dish out themselves

[Des1]

look mate get over it, we all cant be right all the time and this time your not, it must hurt you as I see you've been on here all over the weekend while I've been out having a life but it will fade

You love your assumptions fella don't you? Because I'm not hailing Mitchell as a p4p great you've decided:

1) I'm probably a woman
2) I have a 'sly agenda' against him
3) I have no life (though if you'd bothered to check my location you may have picked up on the fact I have a different weekend to you)

I think your responses say more about you than anything I could add, so much like Yiddo I'm signing off. I'm sure most posters on this board will be able to draw their own conclusions

I dont love them anymore than you love to twist discussions or opinions in an attempt to validate your opinion as you dont seem to be able to accept you may actually be wrong. Lets get a few things right, this thread was not about if Mitchell deserves a shot at the WBO title, it was not about if he is a 'p4p great'. It was infact about Mitchell going over to train with Roach. Was I hailing Mitchell as a 'p4p great' ? No, he hasn't shown that yet and obviously needs to do more to be put in that catogory (but if he has the potental to be Im sure Roach will bring it out in him). Did I basically say that I feel he is eligable enough and has the right to fight for that organizations (WBO) world title? Yes .....He has as much if not more than others who have fought for a 'world' title, ie Khan, Rees, Enzo etc. No matter what you say about Wwarren getting him an undeserved shot that cant be backed up. Was Mitchell given the British and Commonwealth title? No, he had to fight for it. Was he given the WBO inter-Cont title which helped push him into top spot for that organizations (WBO) senior belt? No, he had to fight for it. Of course we would all like fighters to only have one route to the title, one title, and all have to fight for that number one spot but this is boxing in the 2000's not of yester year. Your argument would be valid for a thread like that not whether Mitchell deserves his shot in today's day and age when he is more deserving than some who have already.

Oh, you have your laptop in the location of Dubia, for my next posts I may put myself in the location of Hollywood