good on you ed robinson!!

Deserter · Post by **Deserter** » 20 Jul 2011, 00:38

Des1 wrote: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.

This is the critical point for me and by 'coincidence', it's also the point being ducked by certain individuals attempting to defend what played out on Saturday night.

Counter-puncher · Post by **Counter-puncher** » 20 Jul 2011, 03:58

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've told you about mincing your words before gomez......

Chambers2 · Post by **Chambers2** » 20 Jul 2011, 04:41

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.

Cheesr for the clarification Ed. I'm glad you regret using the word 'farce'

I can't fully appreciate how hard live TV must be, but it must be a nightmare

Counter-puncher · Post by **Counter-puncher** » 20 Jul 2011, 04:44

Gazmac81 wrote:straight away when he got up i thought of Lee Evans in something about mary trying to pick up his keys :P

good call gaz

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 20 Jul 2011, 05:09

All this talk about Cook being "seriously injured in there.." and "paralysed" seem massively over blown, as if to try and justify the whole farce.
It's head shots that do damage to fighters, not light taps to the back. If the above was in any way a possibility, it would have been the first time in the history of the sport.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 20 Jul 2011, 05:13

Coco wrote: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.

I don't think anyone thinks he wasn't in agony - it was clear he was. And the question is, were the Cook camp well aware that the chances it would hold up were slim to none ?

Coco · Post by **Coco** » 20 Jul 2011, 05:17

MightyWarrior wrote:
Coco wrote: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.
I don't think anyone thinks he wasn't in agony - it was clear he was. And the question is, were the Cook camp well aware that the chances it would hold up were slim to none ?

I agree that certainly is the crucial question

Jamie Sanigar · Post by **Jamie Sanigar** » 20 Jul 2011, 06:06

Wow nice tread just spent 20 mins reading through when I have loads of work to be getting on with!

IMO I think its just an unfortunate set of circumstances for all concerned from Promoter, SKY, Cook and BBBofC. Burns on the other hand must be happy - nice payday, still champion and no wear and tear!

@ Ed - Obviously "farce" was the wrong word but with live TV these things happen. It was good to see Ed asking strong questions but as Ed said with hindsight it could have been approached in a better manner. A lesson learned and one Ed will probably not make the mistake in doing again.

@ Adam Smith - Now as head of boxing I think he has brought a fresh approach to boxing on sky, bringing back Ringside and some great interviews with Hopkins, etc. SKY have obviously put more consideration into fights broadcasted and overall I think its been a decent season. My only concern with Smith is that as Head of Boxing he is obviously under pressure to ensure great fights for SKY viewers, etc so may not be the best person to conduct an interview after a fight like Cook v Burns as he is clearly disappointed from a business perspective as well as a boxing fan. In 2011 it seems he has taken a step back from the live tv fights so he is probably aware of this.

@ Robert Smith - Boxing man, ex boxer, imo does a very good job and it’s probably a thankless task at times. I think when he speaks its genuine and from a boxing perspective rather than some political PR sitting on the fence nonsense just to please everyone.

@ Team Cook - Nicky was clearly in agony and fighters are never 100% going into fights. Only last week we sent Lee Haskins to Morocco with a weeks notice and whilst he was in good shape and did 12 rounds we were obviously taking a risk. Only Team Cook will know how much of a risk they were taking with the back but obvioulsy with hindsight it does not look good especially now with the alledged betting patterns. Hopefully the betting is just a coincidence as I am sure Cook would not like to end his good boxing career with this hanging over it, innocent until proven guilty in my book.

Jamie Sanigar · Post by **Jamie Sanigar** » 20 Jul 2011, 06:29

MachoMan09 wrote:Jamie, do you have an opinion on the betting patterns?

Actually just editted my post, I just hope that its not true. Cook was stopped early by Martinez so its obviously not out of the question to think Burns could stop Cook early but there clearly seems to be an issue with the bookies now reporting it to the gambling commission.

Hopefully the betting is just a coincidence as I am sure Cook would not like to end his good boxing career with this hanging over it, innocent until proven guilty in my book.

I guess I am a boxing romantic and in all my years from boxing journeyman to champions one common thing is apparent in fighters and thats "pride" and "respect". All fighters thrive on earning respect from fans and I am sure Cook is no different, he would realise any money earned from a bet would be much less than what could be earned in the future with a respectiable boxing reputation.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 20 Jul 2011, 06:39

Jamie Sanigar wrote: @ Ed - Obviously "farce" was the wrong word but with live TV these things happen. It was good to see Ed asking strong questions but as Ed said with hindsight it could have been approached in a better manner. A lesson learned and one Ed will probably not make the mistake in doing again.

Don't agree, boxing needs a few hard questions, not molly coddling around the issue - gently lobbing nice easy questions so the high and mighty don't get offended - god forbid !

Jamie Sanigar · Post by **Jamie Sanigar** » 20 Jul 2011, 06:50

MightyWarrior wrote:
Jamie Sanigar wrote: @ Ed - Obviously "farce" was the wrong word but with live TV these things happen. It was good to see Ed asking strong questions but as Ed said with hindsight it could have been approached in a better manner. A lesson learned and one Ed will probably not make the mistake in doing again.
Don't agree, boxing needs a few hard questions, not molly coddling around the issue - gently lobbing nice easy questions so the high and mighty don't get offended - god forbid !

Like I said I was glad to see Ed ask strong questions but there is an art in how to do this to obtain the answer the viewers want. I have no idea on interview technique but the likes of Parkinson, Piers Morgan seem to manipulate guests into getting the right answers....... bulldozing in first thing with things like "farce" puts the guest on the defensive as Robert Smith did and no suitable answers are obtained.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 20 Jul 2011, 06:53

Well there was no way Ed was going to get an insightful answer there, RS was always going to say "let's see...the poor lads in pain...we'll look into things and let you know in good time etc etc "

Ie zip.

So it was good he sent a rocket out, just to let the guys at the top know they wont always get an easy ride, after the public had to put up with such an absolute farce. Trouble is, he wont do it again.

Gary Newborn used to be pretty good with the tough questions.

Jamie Sanigar · Post by **Jamie Sanigar** » 20 Jul 2011, 07:05

MightyWarrior wrote:Well there was no way Ed was going to get an insightful answer there, RS was always going to say "let's see...the poor lads in pain...we'll look into things and let you know in good time etc etc "

To be honest what response were people wanting from Robert Smith?

The fight has only just ended, Robert's main concern is Nicky Cook's health and considering its a back injury we all know how dangerous this coule be. Robert has had no time to analyse what has happened, etc maybe an interview on Ringside the following week would be more suitable when the dust has settled and more facts are known.

Scottrf · Post by **Scottrf** » 20 Jul 2011, 07:06

Yep, Ed is probably kicking himself for nothing. It’s live TV, Smith can give time wasting non-committal answers and they will have to move on rather than wait for him to give an interesting answer.

Glyn Leach · Post by **Glyn Leach** » 20 Jul 2011, 07:57

Jamie Sanigar wrote:
MightyWarrior wrote:Well there was no way Ed was going to get an insightful answer there, RS was always going to say "let's see...the poor lads in pain...we'll look into things and let you know in good time etc etc "
To be honest what response were people wanting from Robert Smith?

The fight has only just ended, Robert's main concern is Nicky Cook's health and considering its a back injury we all know how dangerous this coule be. Robert has had no time to analyse what has happened, etc maybe an interview on Ringside the following week would be more suitable when the dust has settled and more facts are known.

The essence of Robert's response was fine, but in my opinion he really does have to adopt a more 'statesman-like' manner. He is the figurehead of a sport, after all. Being one of the lads (and he genuinely is) is fine off camera and has its benefits, but in the public eye he is representing the boxing industry and I believe he needs to wise up on the PR front, make efforts to present himself as the figure of authority he is.

dbf · Post by **dbf** » 20 Jul 2011, 09:20

Glyn Leach wrote:
Jamie Sanigar wrote:
MightyWarrior wrote:Well there was no way Ed was going to get an insightful answer there, RS was always going to say "let's see...the poor lads in pain...we'll look into things and let you know in good time etc etc "
To be honest what response were people wanting from Robert Smith?

The fight has only just ended, Robert's main concern is Nicky Cook's health and considering its a back injury we all know how dangerous this coule be. Robert has had no time to analyse what has happened, etc maybe an interview on Ringside the following week would be more suitable when the dust has settled and more facts are known.
The essence of Robert's response was fine, but in my opinion he really does have to adopt a more 'statesman-like' manner. He is the figurehead of a sport, after all. Being one of the lads (and he genuinely is) is fine off camera and has its benefits, but in the public eye he is representing the boxing industry and I believe he needs to wise up on the PR front, make efforts to present himself as the figure of authority he is.

Agreed. I might be completely wrong but I never remember seeing Simon Block at every big fight?

Simon seemed a lot more 'statesmen-like'. I remember interviewing him when I worked on the Student Radio station at University and he certainly wasn't one of the lads!

Chambers2 · Post by **Chambers2** » 20 Jul 2011, 09:37

dbf wrote:
Glyn Leach wrote:
Jamie Sanigar wrote: To be honest what response were people wanting from Robert Smith?

The fight has only just ended, Robert's main concern is Nicky Cook's health and considering its a back injury we all know how dangerous this coule be. Robert has had no time to analyse what has happened, etc maybe an interview on Ringside the following week would be more suitable when the dust has settled and more facts are known.
The essence of Robert's response was fine, but in my opinion he really does have to adopt a more 'statesman-like' manner. He is the figurehead of a sport, after all. Being one of the lads (and he genuinely is) is fine off camera and has its benefits, but in the public eye he is representing the boxing industry and I believe he needs to wise up on the PR front, make efforts to present himself as the figure of authority he is.
Agreed. I might be completely wrong but I never remember seeing Simon Block at every big fight?

Simon seemed a lot more 'statesmen-like'. I remember interviewing him when I worked on the Student Radio station at University and he certainly wasn't one of the lads!

I prefer the head of the BBBC to be visible. I never saw Simon Block once in the numerous years he was in charge and I don't recall him doing much whilst in charge (other than bringing in 3 judges for British title fight), he was too 'statesman-like' IMO. I much prefer Robert Smiths approach to the job and he doesn't seemed scared to make a decision (changed the cuts rule, hauled judges in front of the board)

Counter-puncher · Post by **Counter-puncher** » 20 Jul 2011, 09:38

Chambers2 wrote:
I prefer the head of the BBBC to be visible. I never saw Simon Block once in the numerous years he was in charge and I don't recall him doing much whilst in charge (other than bringing in 3 judges for British title fight), he was too 'statesman-like' IMO. I much prefer Robert Smiths approach to the job and he doesn't seemed scared to make a decision (changed the cuts rule, hauled judges in front of the board)

agreed

hitman_hatton1 · Post by **hitman_hatton1** » 20 Jul 2011, 10:06

thought adam smith bottled it a bit with warren.

the injury wasn't as big an issue as cook getting the title shot in the first place.

cook has 1 fight against a journeyman in 2 and a bit yrs.

before that he'd lost to martinez in 4 rds.

a guy that ricky burns beat.

how the hell did cook deserve that shot.

insult from all concerned.

world titles mean nothing with awful matchmaking like that.

Chambers2 · Post by **Chambers2** » 20 Jul 2011, 10:35

hitman_hatton1 wrote:thought adam smith bottled it a bit with warren.

the injury wasn't as big an issue as cook getting the title shot in the first place.

cook has 1 fight against a journeyman in 2 and a bit yrs.

before that he'd lost to martinez in 4 rds.

a guy that ricky burns beat.

how the hell did cook deserve that shot.

insult from all concerned.

world titles mean nothing with awful matchmaking like that.

Good point about Cook not deserving to be in the ring in the first place, more should be being made of that (what a farce)

hurlock · Post by **hurlock** » 20 Jul 2011, 10:37

when we are talking on drawing more from interview's, i felt once the blow was landed to smith he lost his composure,but he did say that cook had past all screening's & inspection's & put this to ed who could of carried out more question's but maybe ed felt in hot water???

like any line of work we learn unfortunately most times through error's & boxing was exposed once again & i wonder what statement will be getting realeased to insure greater measure's are taken out to prevent this happening in the future?

all in all it was a good show in terms of talent & bout's & that has been shadowed by this outcome, which is a shame.

Cholo_cws · Post by **Cholo_cws** » 20 Jul 2011, 11:22

It seems odd that Smith took acception to the word farce when boxers under his jurisdiction talk of gang-rape, killing their opponent etc and he seems okay with it, certainly to the actual point of not doing much about it (as far as I'm aware.) Perhaps that's different? Anyway, to those looking on it was farcical so I don't see why Ed should lose any sleep over it. I just wish Cook's entry into the WBO rankings was able to stir a similar depth of feeling from the likes of Bunce and Smith. I also wonder how this would have all been received by the general public if it had been shown on the BBC?

Counter-puncher · Post by **Counter-puncher** » 20 Jul 2011, 11:23

Cholo_cws wrote: I just wish Cook's entry into the WBO rankings was able to stir a similar depth of feeling from the likes of Bunce and Smith.

Scottrf · Post by **Scottrf** » 20 Jul 2011, 11:24

You're right cholo, are far as injustices in boxing go, the use of the word farce is a bit minor. But it's one of the easiest and safest to jump on.

Jon Saxon · Post by **Jon Saxon** » 20 Jul 2011, 18:00

hitman_hatton1 wrote:thought adam smith bottled it a bit with warren.

the injury wasn't as big an issue as cook getting the title shot in the first place.

cook has 1 fight against a journeyman in 2 and a bit yrs.

before that he'd lost to martinez in 4 rds.

a guy that ricky burns beat.

how the hell did cook deserve that shot.

insult from all concerned.

world titles mean nothing with awful matchmaking like that.

THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

Sorry for the uppercase but this needs to be heard.

I rememeber watching that crazy old fuker Larry Merchant sticking his thumbs down to Lou Dibella at one of his cuban fighters) before the desicion was even announced at a recent fight.
HBO take no shit (commentry wise, matchup wise they leave a lot to be disired) and neither should sky

Sky need to get hardcore on Warren & Hearn's ass's regarding matchups and they need to shout them down when they fail to deliver.

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!!