Vaudeville Villain wrote:That would be a cracking film, Warren Beatty could star, but it doesn’t sound like the man I’ve sat next to at fights and had to embrace just to keep myself warm in various small halls and by the hour hotels (we were there for dinner shows, get a grip). I actually had to look back at my own perspectives as outlined in my last post to understand the subsequent posts.dondada wrote:Blimey, been on the forum a couple of months and think you can come mud-slinging, eh?JLP wrote:What about Perspective E, that of the scorned journalist bent on a quest of revenge which includes maligning practically anything FWP ever do.D
Good summary though.
Given VV's earlier criteria, I would normally be a C but in this case I'm an A, though replacing the word 'tardiness' with 'unfairness'.
My main hope, the only hope in fact, is that Walsh gets to fight Burns instead. What’s Burns doing effing about with this unification lark when he’s got a ‘bitter domestic rivalry’ on the go? Burns has done for Mitchell, so if he did for Walsh then took on Rees, who is pissing about a bit himself by taking on Broner, we’d have Benn-Eubank-Watson-Collins redux on the cards. Years down the line, we could all sit and weep about ‘good old-fashioned’ British rivals who were at the top of the world. We’d talk about them for, erm, ever and throw the carcases of rotting, rabid swans at anyone who said such filthy words as: ‘American fighters who were perceived as better boxers’, ‘title unifications’ and whatnot, which isn’t part of this filthy word line up.
Burns Vs Walsh. Let’s get it done.
The Auld rivalry! War Walsh and Burnsie