good on you ed robinson!!

Deserter · Post by **Deserter** » 19 Jul 2011, 07:59

Chambers2 wrote:
Deserter wrote:
Chambers2 wrote:I THINK IT WAS DISGUSTING THAT SKYS FIRST REACTION AFTER COOKS INJURY WAS TO DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM THE FIGHT AND TRY AND LAY THE BOOT IN!!

Ed went down dramatically in my estimations when he described the fight as a farce (sensationalism), although he was probably under orders from above to be a prick!
Says the man with the enviable track record of being a cheerleader for Haye and Audley
Struggling to see the link

That you have a history of making bad calls. This is another one.

Wrists · Post by **Wrists** » 19 Jul 2011, 08:01

Personally I thought Ed Robinson was correct to address the fact that the fight ended in a bit of a joke, the use of the word farce can be debated until the cows come home, the fact is the sentiment behind the question was entirely correct and for me answered quite well (in the circumstances) by Robert Smith.

I nearly wet myself when I heard Ed Robinson (who comes across as a nice guy on TV, and from my time covering shows for this site he has always come across the same) ask an aggressive question. It didnt sound quite right for me, but thats a compliment even if it doesnt sound like one.

You cant polish a crap - the fight was crap end of story, if you rate a fight based on value for money for the public etc etc then you have to say its crap, regardless of the reasons for the outcome. Have a huge amount of sympathy for Burns AND Cook. The fight was crap and people have the right to say that and in the case of others some people are paid to say that.

Have to say I have always been a fan of Bunce but he has let himself down a little bit on this. The continued disdain for Internet writers is now becoming boring, he should realise that if it were not for sites like this (IMO) the amount of writing etc about the sport would be minimal. Its fair to say the daily's place little importance on it now. Buncey - there is some cracking stuff written by people on here. Ian Mc's pieces speak for themselves, Terry Dooley, Captain Hook etc etc - heck even I try my best

Instead of continuing to trott out the old 'working class hero' rhetoric about serving your time why not offer constructive criticism on pieces (your welcome to do so on any of mine) rather than simply dismiss Internet Writers as 'keyboard warriors' or 'something they do whilst on a lunch break'.

You may find some good stuff worth reading - or is that the problem

Kevin Roberts

Glyn Leach · Post by **Glyn Leach** » 19 Jul 2011, 08:22

King Geedorah wrote:Ed is a wordsmith, I reckon he’s kicking himself for using the word ‘farce’. It was a tragicomedy of errors with no one person/group to blame. “Who is to blame for this tragicomedy?” would have worked better, perhaps leading to a quick debate on the definition of tragedy and comedy, are they the same, and a quick run through of the difference between the beards (Greeks) and the Bard.

Reminds me of when Adam Smith tackled FW on RH's opponents. Ed-ed for the top?

Adam Smith would have growl-grilled Smudger about this 'precocious incident'

Chambers2 · Post by **Chambers2** » 19 Jul 2011, 08:35

Deserter wrote:
Chambers2 wrote:
Deserter wrote: Says the man with the enviable track record of being a cheerleader for Haye and Audley
Struggling to see the link
That you have a history of making bad calls. This is another one.

If this injury was detected prior to the fight and he was allowed to fight by the BBBC then it's a bad call by me, but I don't think that's the case else it's unlikely cook would have been in the shape he was in.

hurlock · Post by **hurlock** » 19 Jul 2011, 08:37

well put wrists :!:

ed regrets not drawing more from the interview, not from the comment, which people are not reading into.

like you said wrists you cant polish a terd & you cant insult peoples intelligence & i think sky being the clients & having customers to please need to be direct & its not them who are damaging boxing but the people involved & if a stance wasnt taken many would e dissapointed.

i also read somone commenting on adam??alan smith sighning for this & him being to blame.the man is into broadcasting & is subsequently a fan & he aint a promoter or matchmaker & obviously trust's the promoter to do his job. i dont think he is that savvy & clued up at all certainly not a lou dibella in the making is he :!: or maybe he is involved & aware & being greedy with a brown envelope i suppose we well never know.

ed went up in my estimation's unlike the panel mguigan & co. who are paid to comment on the fight soley but then start being false & phoney. i dont expect them to put the foot in.but they dont need to squabble & look silly trying to clear up a mess thinking they can save face it's embarrassing as it they are condoning it as a part of somthing that happens.

dbf · Post by **dbf** » 19 Jul 2011, 09:24

Glyn Leach wrote:
King Geedorah wrote:Ed is a wordsmith, I reckon he’s kicking himself for using the word ‘farce’. It was a tragicomedy of errors with no one person/group to blame. “Who is to blame for this tragicomedy?” would have worked better, perhaps leading to a quick debate on the definition of tragedy and comedy, are they the same, and a quick run through of the difference between the beards (Greeks) and the Bard.

Reminds me of when Adam Smith tackled FW on RH's opponents. Ed-ed for the top?
Adam Smith would have growl-grilled Smudger about this 'precocious incident'

Funny you mention the word 'precocious' Glyn - I was at my parents at the weekend and found an old copy of BM that I must have left there. Your opening column was talking about commentators and mentioned how Smith possibly needed to tone it done and learn the meaning of the word precocuous.

Jon Saxon · Post by **Jon Saxon** » 19 Jul 2011, 12:38

HBO do this shite MUCH better.
Roy Jones Jnr V Ricky "part time policeman" Frazer
"Folks sorry to say this is junk,..... tonight we brought you garbage"

There is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay to much as sucking at the because of politics.

Ed should have went right up to Warren (come ahead and sue me btw you will lose) and said "look you cu** give us some reall fights like the UFC do or else were gonna do a 'Henesey' on you to!"

Oh and while your at it pay Joe Calzaghe his fuking money you leech.

Jon Saxon · Post by **Jon Saxon** » 19 Jul 2011, 12:39

AND If my post gets removed? shame on any of you for worrying about the truth.

hurlock · Post by **hurlock** » 19 Jul 2011, 15:59

BIGMARK wrote:i would still like to know if Ed had a chance to speak to Robert Smith after the interview? I know Ed regrets using the the world farce and no doubt would of like to re-address the issue after the interview?

did you not see it as a farce then mark??

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 19 Jul 2011, 16:08

The fans who wanted to see the Burns/Cook "world" title fight, paid their travel and tickets and turned up for a 12 round fight.
Instead they see Cook keel over inside 6 seconds, wobble around and hit the deck twice more - and virtualy no punches were landed. He could barely walk, let alone fight.

How the hell did he get through all that sparring, then collapse in agony with the first light punch Burns threw ?

It was a farce.

Final round · Post by **Final round** » 19 Jul 2011, 16:17

MightyWarrior wrote:
How the hell did he get through all that sparring, then collapse in agony with the first light punch Burns threw ?

It was a farce.

I asked that same question it just beggars belief that someone can spar many rounds but they're back suddenly goes at the first body shot of the fight. Maybe he didn't spar?

ed robinson · Post by **ed robinson** » 19 Jul 2011, 16:34

Hey BigMark, I spoke to Robert afterwards and then also phoned him on Monday, when I explained that by farce I mean't, as I understand it, a ludicrous and rather absurd sequence of events. He felt that me using the word farce implied something more sinister and that it was very disrespectful to a boxer who was obviously still in very serious pain. It's a fair point and a large part of the reason why I regret saying what I said. Perhaps it genuinely was a freak injury and unconnected to Nicky's previous back problems or the heavy betting on a Burns early stoppage. I can't be certain either way and so shouldn't judge or appear to judge and that's why I regret using the word. There is no doubting Nicky's distress once that shot landed, or his bravery in previous fights. I put forward my own thoughts to Robert and he also took them on board. Ultimately only Nicky knows the full truth and, as I tried to say before, boxers are never 100% going into a fight. A pertinent question might be, if he felt there was a fair chance that his back would go, should he have pulled out the fight? To me that is actually a more difficult question to answer than it first appears. There are boxers with chronically bad hands who know that it might seriously damage their chances. If David Haye's cut from sparring reopened in the first exchange of his fight with John Ruiz and the fight was stopped would there be the same reaction? And if the answer is yes then why did it get rather ignored just because he won, even though he admitted it also hampered his preparations. There is always a chance that a man might get knocked out when he steps between the ropes but from day one in an amateur gym a boxer is trained and conditioned to ignore the negative. All that said, even though I regret making my initial statement to Robert I also think that I should have asked tougher questions in the rest of the interview. But that's live TV. I spent Sunday and Monday going over it in my head but now I have to learn the lessons and move on to the next show.

billy nelson · Post by **billy nelson** » 19 Jul 2011, 16:44

ed robinson wrote:Hey BigMark, I spoke to Robert afterwards and then also phoned him on Monday, when I explained that by farce I mean't, as I understand it, a ludicrous and rather absurd sequence of events. He felt that me using the word farce implied something more sinister and that it was very disrespectful to a boxer who was obviously still in very serious pain. It's a fair point and a large part of the reason why I regret saying what I said. Perhaps it genuinely was a freak injury and unconnected to Nicky's previous back problems or the heavy betting on a Burns early stoppage. I can't be certain either way and so shouldn't judge or appear to judge and that's why I regret using the word. There is no doubting Nicky's distress once that shot landed, or his bravery in previous fights. I put forward my own thoughts to Robert and he also took them on board. Ultimately only Nicky knows the full truth and, as I tried to say before, boxers are never 100% going into a fight. A pertinent question might be, if he felt there was a fair chance that his back would go, should he have pulled out the fight? To me that is actually a more difficult question to answer than it first appears. There are boxers with chronically bad hands who know that it might seriously damage their chances. If David Haye's cut from sparring reopened in the first exchange of his fight with John Ruiz and the fight was stopped would there be the same reaction? And if the answer is yes then why did it get rather ignored just because he won, even though he admitted it also hampered his preparations. There is always a chance that a man might get knocked out when he steps between the ropes but from day one in an amateur gym a boxer is trained and conditioned to ignore the negative. All that said, even though I regret making my initial statement to Robert I also think that I should have asked tougher questions in the rest of the interview. But that's live TV. I spent Sunday and Monday going over it in my head but now I have to learn the lessons and move on to the next show.

Ed if you could clearly see the distress Nicky was in then surely as an ex pro fighter yourself the word FARCE was totally inappropriate?You must have an understanding of the rigors these guys go through to be in the best shape possible.I for one was very concerned for Nickys health in there and i must question should have ref stopped the fight when seeing the distress Nicky was in? i beleive he should have but there we go,no wonder some refs get a bad time on forums.I actually spoke to Nicky this morning and he told me he was in huge pain and he needs to take stong tablets for a few months,he was a real gent and wished us all the best.GOOD ON YOU NICKY!

hurlock · Post by **hurlock** » 19 Jul 2011, 17:00

the lad has been retired for two year's billy down to his back & running a bar abroad.it aint rickys fault he prepares to face anyone.

nicky also mentioned to the doctor which was heard on sky that he had taken cortisone injections to obviously null the pain. say nicky had been paralysed in there, what would you be saying then :!:

why has burns defeated a decent champiuon & now getting poor cannon fodder :!: is there no faith in him??will alex arthur chop his leg off & challenge?

gary buckland is easily made & credible to the british public but wazza dont like live opponents it seems the wbo is the same as the wbu imo.

Dan Dares · Post by **Dan Dares** » 19 Jul 2011, 17:10

ed robinson wrote:Hey BigMark, I spoke to Robert afterwards and then also phoned him on Monday, when I explained that by farce I mean't, as I understand it, a ludicrous and rather absurd sequence of events. He felt that me using the word farce implied something more sinister and that it was very disrespectful to a boxer who was obviously still in very serious pain. It's a fair point and a large part of the reason why I regret saying what I said. Perhaps it genuinely was a freak injury and unconnected to Nicky's previous back problems or the heavy betting on a Burns early stoppage. I can't be certain either way and so shouldn't judge or appear to judge and that's why I regret using the word. There is no doubting Nicky's distress once that shot landed, or his bravery in previous fights. I put forward my own thoughts to Robert and he also took them on board. Ultimately only Nicky knows the full truth and, as I tried to say before, boxers are never 100% going into a fight. A pertinent question might be, if he felt there was a fair chance that his back would go, should he have pulled out the fight? To me that is actually a more difficult question to answer than it first appears. There are boxers with chronically bad hands who know that it might seriously damage their chances. If David Haye's cut from sparring reopened in the first exchange of his fight with John Ruiz and the fight was stopped would there be the same reaction? And if the answer is yes then why did it get rather ignored just because he won, even though he admitted it also hampered his preparations. There is always a chance that a man might get knocked out when he steps between the ropes but from day one in an amateur gym a boxer is trained and conditioned to ignore the negative. All that said, even though I regret making my initial statement to Robert I also think that I should have asked tougher questions in the rest of the interview. But that's live TV. I spent Sunday and Monday going over it in my head but now I have to learn the lessons and move on to the next show.

I think i'm probably right in saying that in the eyes of the viewers, the Sky Team's stock went up because of your comment. To apply two fundamental principles of journalism (being sure of your facts, and right to reply) in a live situation must be an incredibly difficult thing to do.

I wouldn't fancy doing Live TV. I'd be touching cloth before i got the first question out.

Giancarlo · Post by **Giancarlo** » 19 Jul 2011, 17:32

MachoMan09 wrote:
Buncey wrote:Nobody mentioned the 'back' issue before the first bell. Fact.
The Daily Telegraph ran a story on the 'back' issue on the morning of the fight. It was entitled "Ricky Burns' opponent Nicky Cook reveals inactivity is due to severe back problem".

Surely that can't be right. Buncey said NO ONE AT ALL EVER MENTIONED THE BACK. Fact. Trust me.

Adios.

whiskey · Post by **whiskey** » 19 Jul 2011, 17:48

Ed,

For god's sake grow a pair of balls man.

It's was either a 'FARCE' - or Ricky Burns hit's so freakishly hard he can prolapse a disc with a glancing blow - And I think we all know which it was.

There is no inbetween here at all. No shades of grey, absolutely nada.

And the bum lickers skirting around the fact for fear of reprisal need to grow a pair too.

leforge · Post by **leforge** » 19 Jul 2011, 17:51

G0mez wrote:Ed,

For god's sake grow a pair of balls man.

It's was either a 'FARCE' - or Ricky Burns hit's so freakishly hard he can prolapse a disc with a glancing blow - And I think we all know which it was.

There is no inbetween here at all. No shades of grey, absolutely nada.

And the bum lickers skirting around the fact for fear of reprisal need to grow a pair too.

Coco · Post by **Coco** » 19 Jul 2011, 18:10

G0mez wrote:Ed,

For god's sake grow a pair of balls man.

It's was either a 'FARCE' - or Ricky Burns hit's so freakishly hard he can prolapse a disc with a glancing blow - And I think we all know which it was.

There is no inbetween here at all. No shades of grey, absolutely nada.

And the bum lickers skirting around the fact for fear of reprisal need to grow a pair too.

I think Ed's last statement is quite right and to admit that he could have done better in the heat of live tv shows real balls.
To say there is no possible inbetween is quite incorrect.
You can put your back out by getting out of bed. Cook got through the training camp and looked in great shape, you wouldn't be able to do the roadwork to get the weight of if his bad was already badly crocked.
Obviously the back went early, he was clearly in great pain and was down 4 times before it was stopped.
All the people who bet on a 3rd round stoppage must have been pig sick!!
Only Nicky knows bad it was beforehand, i'm sure he needed the payday. Maybe he didn't think it would hold up for 12 hard rounds, but it was well worth risking. I can't believe he thought it would give in a matter of seconds or he was going to take a dive that early.

Gazmac81 · Post by **Gazmac81** » 19 Jul 2011, 18:19

there was full interview with cook in Scottish sun regarding his back injury and how it would always be there
Burns whacked him round the back and it went , must have been sore one but yea feel robbed off good fight

Boxing never really surprises me though with crazy situations

Giancarlo wrote:
MachoMan09 wrote:
Buncey wrote:Nobody mentioned the 'back' issue before the first bell. Fact.
The Daily Telegraph ran a story on the 'back' issue on the morning of the fight. It was entitled "Ricky Burns' opponent Nicky Cook reveals inactivity is due to severe back problem".

Surely that can't be right. Buncey said NO ONE AT ALL EVER MENTIONED THE BACK. Fact. Trust me.

Adios.

Scottrf · Post by **Scottrf** » 19 Jul 2011, 18:21

Gazmac81 wrote:there was full interview with cook in Scottish sun regarding his back injury and how it would always be there
Burns whacked him round the back and it went , must have been sore one but yea feel robbed off good fight

Boxing never really surprises me though with crazy situations

Giancarlo wrote:
MachoMan09 wrote: The Daily Telegraph ran a story on the 'back' issue on the morning of the fight. It was entitled "Ricky Burns' opponent Nicky Cook reveals inactivity is due to severe back problem".

Surely that can't be right. Buncey said NO ONE AT ALL EVER MENTIONED THE BACK. Fact. Trust me.

Adios.

Nope. It was never mentioned. Fact. Trust him.

Adios.

whiskey · Post by **whiskey** » 19 Jul 2011, 18:25

Coco wrote: To say there is no possible inbetween is quite incorrect.

Well each to there own mate. But on my planet if it looks like total bollocks, then usually, it is.

That shot that 'cuffed' him, had the power to prolapse a disc ? he was carrying that into the ring, it never occurred there.

It was a lousy fight from the outset when it was announced, and the outpouring of apologists since Saturday need to get a grip.

Whether Cook hid it from his team, or whether they were all in the know about it's seriousness leaves a sh*tty taste in my mouth. Collectively as boxing fans and more importantly, as paying customers, we shouldn't have to put up with these charlatans.

And the more that roll over and accept it, then more likelihood it will occur again.

Some people will swallow any old cack, and the involved parties will slap us on our backs and tell us how tasty it is.

Coco · Post by **Coco** » 19 Jul 2011, 18:40

I'll happily call a spade a spade but I prefer to take a considered view than to jump on a sensationalist bandwagon.
If he was going to take a dive he would have waited for a better shot to land and he wouldn't have kept getting up, he was an absolute agony or an oscar winner.
As I said you can put your back out by getting out of bed you don't need to be hit by a sledgehammer blow.
To claim there is no possible inbetween is far too cut and dry for me.
If his back was that bad it should have been picked up by the board

Gazmac81 · Post by **Gazmac81** » 19 Jul 2011, 18:42

straight away when he got up i thought of Lee Evans in something about mary trying to pick up his keys :P

Des1 · Post by **Des1** » 19 Jul 2011, 19:32

The betting wasn't solely on a 3rd round win for Burns, it was for a Burns win in the first three rounds. Also word is that a big volume of betting was from the Ilford Essex area and that the bookies refused to continue taking bets. I have to say that after seeing many of Cook's fights I've never seen him walk to the ring so relaxed and unfocused as I saw him come out for this fight. Warming up he appeared fine, once in the ring he made plenty of movements using his back. After he got up from each knock down and showing 'great pain' he seemed fine dipping, rolling, throwing punches rotating the back then when after the fight was stopped suddenly he couldn't stand. Can a prolapse disc have that effect? can the effects be off and on or once its gone is that it? Also, yes Cook looked in great shape, obviously trained and was fit but then many get in that condition without going into a fight and getting paid for it, was he 'fitting fit' (other than the back obviously)? There's a difference between being fit and fitting fit. Did he know he wasn't up to doing 12 hard rounds? .....Was he content with just a large pay day? These are just my own questions ;;-)

good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!