FW on Bombers defeat
FW on Bombers defeat
http://www.BS.com/frank-warren ... urm--72470 ...... Pretty harsh words.
Re: FW on Bombers defeat
Tends to happen after an acrimonious split. Pretty harsh indeed but not totally unexpected. The Bomber has been credited with leading the charge in terms of fighters jumping ship to Matchroom. I can't see either of them seeing eye to eye on anything ever again. allegedly still clearly bitter.
-
TheLeprechaun
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 5199
- Joined: 27 Jun 2013, 20:42
Re: FW on Bombers defeat
If you talk the talk and dont walk the walk, this is what happens.
You have to respect fighters who put themselves on the line like that.
There is only so much the fans will take though.
You have to respect fighters who put themselves on the line like that.
There is only so much the fans will take though.
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 45238
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
Re: FW on Bombers defeat
If you looked up the phrase 'Acrimonious split' in an illustrated book of phrases, I'm sure warren's face would be there.
He's never got a good thing to say about anyone he split with, and it never seems to mellow over time either.
Although he's a businessman, he seems to take things VERY personally. It's odd. Think he must take it as a real personal slight if someone doesn't want to work with him any more. I mean I don't know the ins and outs of what has transpired, but surely it isn't necessary to heap so much scorn on former business associates?
He's never got a good thing to say about anyone he split with, and it never seems to mellow over time either.
Although he's a businessman, he seems to take things VERY personally. It's odd. Think he must take it as a real personal slight if someone doesn't want to work with him any more. I mean I don't know the ins and outs of what has transpired, but surely it isn't necessary to heap so much scorn on former business associates?
Re: FW on Bombers defeat
He writes 4,000 words on fighters and fights he has no involvement at all (mostly derogatory)
Before a one-liner about how Buglioni was impressive the other night.
Before a one-liner about how Buglioni was impressive the other night.
-
squared circle
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 518
- Joined: 21 Oct 2011, 07:38
Re: FW on Bombers defeat
Like the way he quietly brackets clev with Stevenson as well
Re: FW on Bombers defeat
He's paid by The Sun to write about the boxing scene in the UK. His problem is most fighters worth writing about, and the big fights they've participated in, are outwith his stable. He pretty much uses The Sun to air his dirty laundry. Why someone at The Sun hasn't tried to curb this, I'll never know.G0mez wrote:He writes 4,000 words on fighters and fights he has no involvement at all (mostly derogatory)
Before a one-liner about how Buglioni was impressive the other night.
-
mickey1975
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 23193
- Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 12:54
Re: FW on Bombers defeat
Except Benn, Hamed and Hatton?jamesmcdonnell wrote:If you looked up the phrase 'Acrimonious split' in an illustrated book of phrases, I'm sure warren's face would be there.
He's never got a good thing to say about anyone he split with, and it never seems to mellow over time either.
Although he's a businessman, he seems to take things VERY personally. It's odd. Think he must take it as a real personal slight if someone doesn't want to work with him any more. I mean I don't know the ins and outs of what has transpired, but surely it isn't necessary to heap so much scorn on former business associates?
-
stevieb_8006
- Heavyweight

Re: FW on Bombers defeat
To be fair, him and groves parted very amicablymickey1975 wrote:Except Benn, Hamed and Hatton?jamesmcdonnell wrote:If you looked up the phrase 'Acrimonious split' in an illustrated book of phrases, I'm sure warren's face would be there.
He's never got a good thing to say about anyone he split with, and it never seems to mellow over time either.
Although he's a businessman, he seems to take things VERY personally. It's odd. Think he must take it as a real personal slight if someone doesn't want to work with him any more. I mean I don't know the ins and outs of what has transpired, but surely it isn't necessary to heap so much scorn on former business associates?
-
Yes We Can
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 2087
- Joined: 29 Sep 2010, 17:16
Re: FW on Bombers defeat
Read that back to yourself and you may just understand why.chad wrote:He's paid by The Sun to write about the boxing scene in the UK. His problem is most fighters worth writing about, and the big fights they've participated in, are outwith his stable. He pretty much uses The Sun to air his dirty laundry. Why someone at The Sun hasn't tried to curb this, I'll never know.G0mez wrote:He writes 4,000 words on fighters and fights he has no involvement at all (mostly derogatory)
Before a one-liner about how Buglioni was impressive the other night.
-
Khaosai-Galaxy
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 2739
- Joined: 29 Apr 2007, 12:15
Re: FW on Bombers defeat
jamesmcdonnell wrote:If you looked up the phrase 'Acrimonious split' in an illustrated book of phrases, I'm sure warren's face would be there.
He's never got a good thing to say about anyone he split with, and it never seems to mellow over time either.
Although he's a businessman, he seems to take things VERY personally. It's odd. Think he must take it as a real personal slight if someone doesn't want to work with him any more. I mean I don't know the ins and outs of what has transpired, but surely it isn't necessary to heap so much scorn on former business associates?
He made up with Hamed after the dust settled.