when hes up north I might send him a tip off Tyson Furys at my house, bring the champ to me.rhino222 wrote:lol, he is crackers. ill look forward to following his journey around the uk, could be fun if he tries to 'out mouth' fury up in the north west.
does shannon have a plan of travel? id love to meet the lunctic!!
#letsgochamp
they licensed Matt Skelton a year and a half ago at 47 to get crushed by AJ, Briggs is 44...keithmoonhangover wrote:The BBBofC wouldn't licence Shannon at his age, definitely not.
He'd have to go through a stringent medical like everyone else but if he's fit and healthy then he'd be fine I'd imagine. They have licensed older than 44 in the past. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a couple of screws missing when they do the CT scan though so he may be on to plumbs! The guy is radio rental!keithmoonhangover wrote:The BBBofC wouldn't licence Shannon at his age, definitely not.
Non British fighters over 40 are usually a no go, like Fury-Botha.wesshaw1985 wrote:they licensed Matt Skelton a year and a half ago at 47 to get crushed by AJ, Briggs is 44...keithmoonhangover wrote:The BBBofC wouldn't licence Shannon at his age, definitely not.
give Briggs a check up and if hes fit to fight let him fight.keithmoonhangover wrote:Non British fighters over 40 are usually a no go, like Fury-Botha.wesshaw1985 wrote:they licensed Matt Skelton a year and a half ago at 47 to get crushed by AJ, Briggs is 44...keithmoonhangover wrote:The BBBofC wouldn't licence Shannon at his age, definitely not.
You really don't like Haye. Can't ever remember you posting anything positive about him.mickey1975 wrote:It will be Briggs. Haye does what he wants. He's proved that time and again to the board.
It is ridiculous because there is no way Haye Vs Browne generates £10m unless its on the Sky ppv platform. Please explain how you get to that figure? The only way that figure can be generated in my opinion is 1/Sky ppv came on board 2/ the opponent in the other corner is either Joshua or Fury. Lets not forget Haye pulled out of 2 ppv events through against Fury so why would Sky or Fury want to risk this happening again? And lets not forget that Haye is gonna have to fight a live opponent first and i don't see that happening on May.freddydoesdallas wrote:I didn't necessarily mean that he pays for it. I meant that he should consider the possibility of taking a smaller than usual purse to ensure that Browne comes over in order to get a vastly improved figure against Joshua or Fury.keithmoonhangover wrote: Haye ain't paying for it mate, his new backers are.
I know it might sound ridiculous to compare a Joshua Haye fight to some of the biggest there have been but i do think the figures that both fighters come away with would be easily £10m+. The public at large would be all over it
I didn't say Haye v Browne would generate that type of money.Muttley wrote:It is ridiculous because there is no way Haye Vs Browne generates £10m unless its on the Sky ppv platform. Please explain how you get to that figure? The only way that figure can be generated in my opinion is 1/Sky ppv came on board 2/ the opponent in the other corner is either Joshua or Fury. Lets not forget Haye pulled out of 2 ppv events through against Fury so why would Sky or Fury want to risk this happening again? And lets not forget that Haye is gonna have to fight a live opponent first and i don't see that happening on May.freddydoesdallas wrote:I didn't necessarily mean that he pays for it. I meant that he should consider the possibility of taking a smaller than usual purse to ensure that Browne comes over in order to get a vastly improved figure against Joshua or Fury.keithmoonhangover wrote: Haye ain't paying for it mate, his new backers are.
I know it might sound ridiculous to compare a Joshua Haye fight to some of the biggest there have been but i do think the figures that both fighters come away with would be easily £10m+. The public at large would be all over it
I did pre Wlad. I would put money on it its Briggs.keithmoonhangover wrote:You really don't like Haye. Can't ever remember you posting anything positive about him.mickey1975 wrote:It will be Briggs. Haye does what he wants. He's proved that time and again to the board.
TBH I don't like Haye either, but he manages to handle the media in such a way it allways turns out to be positive for him.mickey1975 wrote:I did pre Wlad. I would put money on it its Briggs.keithmoonhangover wrote:You really don't like Haye. Can't ever remember you posting anything positive about him.mickey1975 wrote:It will be Briggs. Haye does what he wants. He's proved that time and again to the board.
Got to agree with you.asdfjkl wrote:TBH I don't like Haye either, but he manages to handle the media in such a way it allways turns out to be positive for him.mickey1975 wrote:I did pre Wlad. I would put money on it its Briggs.keithmoonhangover wrote:
You really don't like Haye. Can't ever remember you posting anything positive about him.
He fought one bum in three years and people are already talking about titlefights straight away, ignoring all the boxers in between that deserve it way more. How on earth is that possible?
In fact, even on boxrec Briggs is ranked (a little) higher as David Haye, so the fight between Briggs and Haye would actually make sense.
Utter nonsense. Hayes been out for three years and had a walk over so his ranking is irrelevant - We're not talking about a prospect climbing the rankings here. Briggs is a 44 year old man who is shot to bits, hasn't had a win of any relevance since he beat Liakhovich (a last gasp KO in a fight he was losing) around ten years ago and has fought at barely area title level since his return from getting the most one sided 12 round beating from Vitali I can remember seeing in a world title fight. Fannying around on social media and trecking around the place shouting "Let's go Champ" does not a worthwhile challenger for a relevant heavyweight fight make.asdfjkl wrote:TBH I don't like Haye either, but he manages to handle the media in such a way it allways turns out to be positive for him.mickey1975 wrote:I did pre Wlad. I would put money on it its Briggs.keithmoonhangover wrote:
You really don't like Haye. Can't ever remember you posting anything positive about him.
He fought one bum in three years and people are already talking about titlefights straight away, ignoring all the boxers in between that deserve it way more. How on earth is that possible?
In fact, even on boxrec Briggs is ranked (a little) higher as David Haye, so the fight between Briggs and Haye would actually make sense.
Sounds like David Haye TBH, nice talks in the media, did some nice things in the lower weightclasses, has a very selected cowardish list of opponends in the heavyweights and that's about it. Oh yea and a onesided fight against Klitschko indeed and unlike Shannon who's arm was torn apart, I don't really consider Hayes toe as a good excuse for such a bad performance. Oh, he had a walkover against another very carefully selected guy we have never heard of? Congratz, even Briggs won recently against several guys who were ranked higher.fizzjambo wrote:Utter nonsense. Hayes been out for three years and had a walk over so his ranking is irrelevant - We're not talking about a prospect climbing the rankings here. Briggs is a 44 year old man who is shot to bits, hasn't had a win of any relevance since he beat Liakhovich (a last gasp KO in a fight he was losing) around ten years ago and has fought at barely area title level since his return from getting the most one sided 12 round beating from Vitali I can remember seeing in a world title fight. Fannying around on social media and trecking around the place shouting "Let's go Champ" does not a worthwhile challenger for a relevant heavyweight fight make.asdfjkl wrote:TBH I don't like Haye either, but he manages to handle the media in such a way it allways turns out to be positive for him.mickey1975 wrote: I did pre Wlad. I would put money on it its Briggs.
He fought one bum in three years and people are already talking about titlefights straight away, ignoring all the boxers in between that deserve it way more. How on earth is that possible?
In fact, even on boxrec Briggs is ranked (a little) higher as David Haye, so the fight between Briggs and Haye would actually make sense.
vs. Hughie Fury April 30th?broomy7s wrote:Shannon Briggs said he's at a press conference on Tuesday..... I reckon it's already signed. He's just hyping it up with this tour of Britain.
Sounds like David Haye TBH, nice talks in the media, did some nice things in the lower weightclasses, has a very selected cowardish list of opponends in the heavyweights and that's about it. Oh yea and a onesided fight against Klitschko indeed and unlike Shannon who's arm was torn apart, I don't really consider Hayes toe as a good excuse for such a bad performance. Oh, he had a walkover against another very carefully selected guy we have never heard of? Congratz, even Briggs won recently against several guys who were ranked higher.[/quoteasdfjkl wrote:fizzjambo wrote:Utter nonsense. Hayes been out for three years and had a walk over so his ranking is irrelevant - We're not talking about a prospect climbing the rankings here. Briggs is a 44 year old man who is shot to bits, hasn't had a win of any relevance since he beat Liakhovich (a last gasp KO in a fight he was losing) around ten years ago and has fought at barely area title level since his return from getting the most one sided 12 round beating from Vitali I can remember seeing in a world title fight. Fannying around on social media and trecking around the place shouting "Let's go Champ" does not a worthwhile challenger for a relevant heavyweight fight make.asdfjkl wrote: TBH I don't like Haye either, but he manages to handle the media in such a way it allways turns out to be positive for him.
He fought one bum in three years and people are already talking about titlefights straight away, ignoring all the boxers in between that deserve it way more. How on earth is that possible?
In fact, even on boxrec Briggs is ranked (a little) higher as David Haye, so the fight between Briggs and Haye would actually make sense.
Achieved a higher rank as David Haye and being unbeaten for well over 5 years now. Also, I'm not saying Briggs deserves a titleshot, but Haye should fight him to prove he's better. Haye clearly doesn't deserve a titleshot either.fizzjambo wrote:Sounds like David Haye TBH, nice talks in the media, did some nice things in the lower weightclasses, has a very selected cowardish list of opponends in the heavyweights and that's about it. Oh yea and a onesided fight against Klitschko indeed and unlike Shannon who's arm was torn apart, I don't really consider Hayes toe as a good excuse for such a bad performance. Oh, he had a walkover against another very carefully selected guy we have never heard of? Congratz, even Briggs won recently against several guys who were ranked higher.[/quoteasdfjkl wrote:fizzjambo wrote:
Utter nonsense. Hayes been out for three years and had a walk over so his ranking is irrelevant - We're not talking about a prospect climbing the rankings here. Briggs is a 44 year old man who is shot to bits, hasn't had a win of any relevance since he beat Liakhovich (a last gasp KO in a fight he was losing) around ten years ago and has fought at barely area title level since his return from getting the most one sided 12 round beating from Vitali I can remember seeing in a world title fight. Fannying around on social media and trecking around the place shouting "Let's go Champ" does not a worthwhile challenger for a relevant heavyweight fight make.
You seem obsessed about rankings. They might mean something when someone is trying to force a mandatory or a prospect is trying to climb them but common sense tells anyone they are irrelevant for guys like Briggs and Haye at this stage in their careers. They'll talk their way into fights, not earn them.
Haye was a world class cruiser but as a heavy you are correct, he beat B- guys like Valuev and Ruiz. The problem with Briggs is that his best wins are Mercer and Laikhovich, arguably lower level fighters - plus the last of these were a decade ago since when he has retired twice, almost been seriously hurt by Vitali (have you watched the fight to appreciate how unsuited he was to operate at that level at that age?) and failed a drugs test. All he has done is beat club standard journey men and wander around shouting and chanting on social media.
Haye doesn't deserve a title shot but if he wants one he needs to fight someone like Chagev, Jennings, Ustinov, Takam, Perez, Scott, etc. Even most of them are uninspiring but Briggs would be an absolute joke.
Simple question. What has Briggs ever done in the past ten to suggest he should even still be in the ring with anyone with semi serious world title ambitions?
Neither deserve a title shot, we can agree on that. Briggs being undefeated in five years (active in only three of those) means nowt though as he's fought appallingly poor opposition for an ex world champ. His wins mean nothing. Briggs should be retired or banned (failed drugs test). Haye should be earning a shot at a top ten heavy by beating a top 25 type guy. Beating Briggs means nothingasdfjkl wrote:Achieved a higher rank as David Haye and being unbeaten for well over 5 years now. Also, I'm not saying Briggs deserves a titleshot, but Haye should fight him to prove he's better. Haye clearly doesn't deserve a titleshot either.fizzjambo wrote:Sounds like David Haye TBH, nice talks in the media, did some nice things in the lower weightclasses, has a very selected cowardish list of opponends in the heavyweights and that's about it. Oh yea and a onesided fight against Klitschko indeed and unlike Shannon who's arm was torn apart, I don't really consider Hayes toe as a good excuse for such a bad performance. Oh, he had a walkover against another very carefully selected guy we have never heard of? Congratz, even Briggs won recently against several guys who were ranked higher.[/quoteasdfjkl wrote:
You seem obsessed about rankings. They might mean something when someone is trying to force a mandatory or a prospect is trying to climb them but common sense tells anyone they are irrelevant for guys like Briggs and Haye at this stage in their careers. They'll talk their way into fights, not earn them.
Haye was a world class cruiser but as a heavy you are correct, he beat B- guys like Valuev and Ruiz. The problem with Briggs is that his best wins are Mercer and Laikhovich, arguably lower level fighters - plus the last of these were a decade ago since when he has retired twice, almost been seriously hurt by Vitali (have you watched the fight to appreciate how unsuited he was to operate at that level at that age?) and failed a drugs test. All he has done is beat club standard journey men and wander around shouting and chanting on social media.
Haye doesn't deserve a title shot but if he wants one he needs to fight someone like Chagev, Jennings, Ustinov, Takam, Perez, Scott, etc. Even most of them are uninspiring but Briggs would be an absolute joke.
Simple question. What has Briggs ever done in the past ten to suggest he should even still be in the ring with anyone with semi serious world title ambitions?
He could offer Ortiz the same thing and both can make each other happy actually, but that's probably too risky according to Haye.mikiesb wrote:Bit random mike Perez resides in Ireland and is ranked number 22 world rank. Haye could offer him a fight ?
Haye can earn his shot after beatingBriggs. Why would a top contender risk his status against a lowranker? It doesn't make sense, he has to fight someone at least around his own rank.fizzjambo wrote:Neither deserve a title shot, we can agree on that. Briggs being undefeated in five years (active in only three of those) means nowt though as he's fought appallingly poor opposition for an ex world champ. His wins mean nothing. Briggs should be retired or banned (failed drugs test). Haye should be earning a shot at a top ten heavy by beating a top 25 type guy. Beating Briggs means nothingasdfjkl wrote:Achieved a higher rank as David Haye and being unbeaten for well over 5 years now. Also, I'm not saying Briggs deserves a titleshot, but Haye should fight him to prove he's better. Haye clearly doesn't deserve a titleshot either.fizzjambo wrote: Sounds like David Haye TBH, nice talks in the media, did some nice things in the lower weightclasses, has a very selected cowardish list of opponends in the heavyweights and that's about it. Oh yea and a onesided fight against Klitschko indeed and unlike Shannon who's arm was torn apart, I don't really consider Hayes toe as a good excuse for such a bad performance. Oh, he had a walkover against another very carefully selected guy we have never heard of? Congratz, even Briggs won recently against several guys who were ranked higher.[/quote
You seem obsessed about rankings. They might mean something when someone is trying to force a mandatory or a prospect is trying to climb them but common sense tells anyone they are irrelevant for guys like Briggs and Haye at this stage in their careers. They'll talk their way into fights, not earn them.
Haye was a world class cruiser but as a heavy you are correct, he beat B- guys like Valuev and Ruiz. The problem with Briggs is that his best wins are Mercer and Laikhovich, arguably lower level fighters - plus the last of these were a decade ago since when he has retired twice, almost been seriously hurt by Vitali (have you watched the fight to appreciate how unsuited he was to operate at that level at that age?) and failed a drugs test. All he has done is beat club standard journey men and wander around shouting and chanting on social media.
Haye doesn't deserve a title shot but if he wants one he needs to fight someone like Chagev, Jennings, Ustinov, Takam, Perez, Scott, etc. Even most of them are uninspiring but Briggs would be an absolute joke.
Simple question. What has Briggs ever done in the past ten to suggest he should even still be in the ring with anyone with semi serious world title ambitions?