quigg v arthur

Post Reply
15829
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3505
Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 13:26

quigg v arthur

Post by 15829 »

jamie arthur is conning out of retirement again to fight quigg, really poor match making from the hattons don't know how the board can justify sanctioning the fight given arthur is coming off a loss to booth

http://news.boxrec.com/news/2011/jamie- ... g-february
leforge
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 7790
Joined: 04 Mar 2005, 12:44

Re: quigg v arthur

Post by leforge »

diggler wrote:jamie arthur is conning out of retirement again to fight quigg, really poor match making from the hattons don't know how the board can justify sanctioning the fight given arthur is coming off a loss to booth
Board sanction anything!
princess
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 900
Joined: 06 Oct 2009, 18:11

Re: quigg v arthur

Post by princess »

Robbie Turley wants the fight But he said Hattons turned him down ?
Dan Dares
Cruiserweight
Posts: 1584
Joined: 29 Nov 2010, 16:33

Re: quigg v arthur

Post by Dan Dares »

I like Jamie Arthur and I hope he's getting a good few quid for this, but I have to agree it ain't exactly matchup of the year. I was expecting Frampton.
Horse
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 22335
Joined: 03 Jul 2005, 17:09

Re: quigg v arthur

Post by Horse »

princess wrote:Robbie Turley wants the fight But he said Hattons turned him down ?
Jamie Arthur deserves it much more than him.
maley1984
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1773
Joined: 13 May 2010, 05:15

Re: quigg v arthur

Post by maley1984 »

hope its not arthur it should only b frampton hattons been calling him out on the net for the fight and he due to fight the week b4 the quigg date of 4th feb. im going to watch my cuz on that show wanna see a good top of the bill
themadmariner
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 43
Joined: 20 Sep 2011, 07:46

Re: quigg v arthur

Post by themadmariner »

Most champions try and get one relatively easy first defence in don't they.

Quigg v Frampton is being saved for a little further down the line and there isn't a problem with that, as it makes sense for both fighters.
ScottDetonator
Cruiserweight
Posts: 1079
Joined: 15 Mar 2011, 04:33

Re: quigg v arthur

Post by ScottDetonator »

Well, it looks a pointless match up on paper but it is for a British Title and the division is not exactly thriving. I think its a matter of Quigg getting the experience of fighting at a slightly higher level than he has previous, meaning a British title defence, I'm not saying Arthur is a step up, more the occasion.

Although, you have to question what he will learn from dominating a much weaker man in Arthur from start to finish(which should be 3 rounds max). Hope the ref stops it before Arthur is hurt :KO:
REEVE
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 776
Joined: 19 Apr 2010, 19:12

Re: quigg v arthur

Post by REEVE »

madness that a fighter can just come back and get a title shot, you should have to work your way into that position not just be handed the chance
dewipowell
Cruiserweight
Posts: 232
Joined: 05 Nov 2010, 21:51

Re: quigg v arthur

Post by dewipowell »

Come on guys, this is harsh on Jamie. He lost his British title fight by a really close decision so he's hardly as undeserving at another shot as some are saying. And I really doubt Arthur will be the weaker man, he used to be at lightweight and he's big at super-bantam.
kamicazze
Cruiserweight
Posts: 721
Joined: 30 Aug 2010, 10:26

Re: quigg v arthur

Post by kamicazze »

Jamie is massive for the weight and will offer a totally different test to Booth. He is fit and strong. But i expect it to prove a mismatch with Arthur being dispatched with in 6. However, i have no qualms with it as if he wants to win the lonsdale outright then it's a defence. it probably makes more sense to win lonsdale outright before facing Frampton as once that fight happens then the winner must advance on from domestic level and leave british title behind.
stujones
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 27513
Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 15:08

Re: quigg v arthur

Post by stujones »

Not a great match up, not much else up there (Frampton aside). Arthur is sanctionable for sure.
Post Reply