Anthony Crolla (c) vs. Jorge Linares - September 24th 2016

[wesshaw1985]

You are a matchroom fanboy clearly

Really proving to be someone capable of reasoned debate there Wes.

there is not reasoning with fanboys Jimbo.
Eddie Hearn is god to you, nothing I say can change that.

[jameswilson]

You are a matchroom fanboy clearly

Really proving to be someone capable of reasoned debate there Wes.

there is not reasoning with fanboys Jimbo.
Eddie Hearn is god to you, nothing I say can change that.

There is reasoning if you can put a valid argument on why allegedly runs things better.

Fanboy and hater are phrases that just confirm you as current scene. Along with your issues with Kugan Cassius and feeling the need to post videos of some socially inept looking bloke talking about boxing. Which again you've been ridiculed for in the past.

[Boxerbeetle]

Matchroom's piss poor 'regular' events and ridiculous PPVs have led me to recently cancel Sky Sports. But let's be honest, if Fwank had the exclusive Sky contract instead of Hearn, it would be just as bad if not worse. Fvck em both

[jameswilson]

Matchroom's piss poor 'regular' events and ridiculous PPVs have led me to recently cancel Sky Sports. But let's be honest, if Fwank had the exclusive Sky contract instead of Hearn, it would be just as bad if not worse. Fvck em both

Hater.

[wesshaw1985]

Really proving to be someone capable of reasoned debate there Wes.

there is not reasoning with fanboys Jimbo.
Eddie Hearn is god to you, nothing I say can change that.

There is reasoning if you can put a valid argument on why allegedly runs things better.

Fanboy and hater are phrases that just confirm you as current scene. Along with your issues with Kugan Cassius and feeling the need to post videos of some socially inept looking bloke talking about boxing. Which again you've been ridiculed for in the past.

ridiculed by?
enlighten me Jimmy, how do you get "ridiculed" on a boxing forum?

anyway, the opinions are my own, some people agree some don't, this is a forum for debating boxing subjects.
Facts are W@rren and Flanagan want the Crolla fight, Crollas team does not so we have Crolla vs. Linares for the WBA Title. Kugan Cassius is an Eddie Hearn bumsniffer and I have toned down on the "socially inept bloke talking about boxing" videos simply to please you. Hows that?
Don't get your panties in a wad Jimbo, just remember "all the world's a stage"

[jameswilson]

He works for allegedly too. I doubt Frank would give an Eddie Hearn bum sniffer a job.

You've stated opinions as facts there. I'd say it's a fact that Crolla and Flanagan want the fight, thats the fighters mentality. You've been ridiculed earlier in this thread for saying Crolla himself doesn't want it. I believe both promoters want the fight too, however they want it on their terms. One side has a horrendously out of proportion opinion on what percentage of the money they should get. Thus the fight isn't happening just yet. It's telling that one side go and get a quality fight against Linares which then sets up a possible fight against Zlaticanin while the other side do what they are doing.

[wesshaw1985]

He works for allegedly too. I doubt Frank would give an Eddie Hearn bum sniffer a job.

You've stated opinions as facts there. I'd say it's a fact that Crolla and Flanagan want the fight, thats the fighters mentality. You've been ridiculed earlier in this thread for saying Crolla himself doesn't want it. I believe both promoters want the fight too, however they want it on their terms. One side has a horrendously out of proportion opinion on what percentage of the money they should get. Thus the fight isn't happening just yet. It's telling that one side go and get a quality fight against Linares which then sets up a possible fight against Zlaticanin while the other side do what they are doing.

maybe you will be in line for a job from Frank being a fellow Hearn lover?
it sets up a possible fight against Zlaticanin because that is ordered by the WBC not because Hearn, Joe or Crolla are wanting it that way.
Just because that is what is going to happen doesn't mean the master manipulator Eddie Hearn has orchestrated it, the boxing world doesn't revolve around Mr. Hearn.
Don't be so easily fooled by Eddies charm and wit my friend, I thought you were a little smarter than that

[Furey]

Linares is a good fighter and his style is very easy on the eye, but I fancy Crolla to do him.

Linares is vulnerable and Crolla is in the form of his career... boxing very well and taking opponents out.

Good to see him challenging himself and taking risky fights instead of milking the title.

[crusader]

I see it as completely the other way around, and Autobarn was pointing this out to crusader earlier on or in another thread somewhere. Every thread regardless of subject descends into people moaning about Hearn. I see more complaining in the Crolla v Linares thread than I do in the Flanagan v Fana one. You don't see the usual suspects in the thread about allegedly's WT challengers giving it some like they do in the satuday night RBR thread when a fight 4 or 5 fights down the card isn't a blood and guts 50-50 World title fight.

Since the Fana fight has been made i havent heard W@rren attempt to pull the wool and talk it up once. It is what it is.
Hearn stating Crolla/Linares is for the number 1 in the division is bollocks also it is not a unification fight thus more bollocks.
People dont hate the Crolla vs. Linares fight they hate the bullshit that is spewed by Hearn in an attempt to hoodwink the casual market.
Take the blinders off and understand where the hate is coming from...

I haven't heard him talk about it at all. Just make daft demands to make the Crolla fight.

Ring magazine have decided the winner of this will be considered the no1 by them. The person who wins will have better wins on their resume at lightweight than Barthelemy, Flanagan and Zlaticanin. And it's ring magazine that believe that hence they have their belt on the line for it.

Oh you and crusader and expe don't agree? You can't have anyone at no1 until they beat Zlaticanin? Oh how convenient! Why not fill a thread about a completely different subject with it.

And the sales pitch on Crolla v Linares compared to the sales pitch on fights like Hatton v Oliveira and Smith's last fight are on different levels. Keep falling in love with those fights and hoping for Canelo and Cotto. It aint happening. You hate the IFL interviews then don't watch them. We could go back to the days of old where pretty much the only dialogue with the promoters was via their newspaper column and the post fight interviews which are always a load of propaganda crap.

Why the fuckk do you keep mentioning me? My post about the Linares-Crolla winner not proving they're the best until they beat Zlat was in this thread, which is very relevant considering there was discussion of The Ring deciding to award their title despite having Zlat at #2.

Unlike you I rarely (if ever?) engage in protracted debate about Hearn/Warren, and I criticize bad match-ups regardless of promoter. I also point out the hypocrisy of someone constantly moaning about others being moaners, which Autobarn has been doing a lot of; if you want an actual example of someone bringing up a topic in an unrelated thread, check his recent posts and you can see him whining about people underrating Crolla in a that had no mention of AC until Autobarn arrived.

[lefty]

Really proving to be someone capable of reasoned debate there Wes.

there is not reasoning with fanboys Jimbo.
Eddie Hearn is god to you, nothing I say can change that.

There is reasoning if you can put a valid argument on why allegedly runs things better.

Fanboy and hater are phrases that just confirm you as current scene. Along with your issues with Kugan Cassius and feeling the need to post videos of some socially inept looking bloke talking about boxing. Which again you've been ridiculed for in the past.

savage haha. He's actually a nice fella I think and pretty knowledgeable when it comes to picking fights.

[crusader]

Also, I remember a year or so ago that I posted "Eddie always making sure to get in the shot" as he walked to the ring with a fighter (does anyone deny that he likes the cameras? Not necessarily a bad thing), and you laughably suggested in another thread that I 'was going off' on him

Relax about Eddie/Matchroom bro...they're doing very well and don't need your sensitivity. Considering they have the bulk of high-profile UK fighters, there are going to attract more attention and hence more criticism than most.

[jameswilson]

Why the fuckk do you keep mentioning me? My post about the Linares-Crolla winner not proving they're the best until they beat Zlat was in this thread, which is very relevant considering there was discussion of The Ring deciding to award their title despite having Zlat at #2.

Unlike you I rarely (if ever?) engage in protracted debate about Hearn/Warren, and I criticize bad match-ups regardless of promoter. I also point out the hypocrisy of someone constantly moaning about others being moaners, which Autobarn has been doing a lot of; if you want an actual example of someone bringing up a topic in an unrelated thread, check his recent posts and you can see him whining about people underrating Crolla in a that had no mention of AC until Autobarn arrived.

Steady on crusader I'v mentioned you twice then you give it 'what the fuckk' and say I'm too sensitive? Every thread, as Autbobarn points out, seems to degenerate into Matchroom, Gallagher, Sky, everyone associated with that group basically.

[crusader]

Sensitive about criticism of Hearn/MR, absolutely.

And I guess if noting that big Ed likes the cameras equates to me going off on him, you must think I m in a seething diatribe now that I used a naughty word.

[jameswilson]

Sensitive about criticism of Hearn/MR, absolutely.

And I guess if noting that big Ed likes the cameras equates to me going off on him, you must think I m in a seething diatribe now that I used a naughty word.

You know you can just say 'really angry' rather than trying to confuse us little people with your long words.

I never see you mention Barry McGuigan's love of the cameras when he's jumping in front of his man pointing and jumping down the interviewers throat to get a word in. But hey, you're the self styled voice of reason, you don't get involved in protracted debates about Hearn, is that the moral high ground over there with you wrestling someone for it?

Come on crusader, your not above having the piss taken out of you, and if your gonna swan around the forums like some kind of pompous upper class toff, the type who gives graduates bad reputations then don't be surprised if someone comes and pops your balloon. Especially when you try and have this air of 'I am not British, I am neutral, I am therefore the voice of reason and the independent adjudicator.' If Autobarn starts having a go at the people being negative and not giving credit to a good match made I'd say that's a perfectly reasonable opinion to have given some of the negativity in this thread.

Also the fact your trying to come across nice and calm (I can't think of a long word that is the opposite of seething diatribe) but bringing something up that apparently happened a year back (how many people on here remember what they posted at someone a year ago?) conflict slightly. As does your claim to be the perfectly neutral man. 'Point out the hypocrisy of someone moaning about others moaning' ? So your moaning that someones moaning about others moaning, in other words. And moaning that I moaned at you a year ago.

[wesshaw1985]

You know you can just say 'really angry' rather than trying to confuse us little people with your long words.

I never see you mention Barry McGuigan's love of the cameras when he's jumping in front of his man pointing and jumping down the interviewers throat to get a word in. But hey, you're the self styled voice of reason, you don't get involved in protracted debates about Hearn, is that the moral high ground over there with you wrestling someone for it?

Come on crusader, your not above having the piss taken out of you, and if your gonna swan around the forums like some kind of pompous upper class toff, the type who gives graduates bad reputations then don't be surprised if someone comes and pops your balloon. Especially when you try and have this air of 'I am not British, I am neutral, I am therefore the voice of reason and the independent adjudicator.' If Autobarn starts having a go at the people being negative and not giving credit to a good match made I'd say that's a perfectly reasonable opinion to have given some of the negativity in this thread.

Also the fact your trying to come across nice and calm (I can't think of a long word that is the opposite of seething diatribe) but bringing something up that apparently happened a year back (how many people on here remember what they posted at someone a year ago?) conflict slightly. As does your claim to be the perfectly neutral man. 'Point out the hypocrisy of someone moaning about others moaning' ? So your moaning that someones moaning about others moaning, in other words. And moaning that I moaned at you a year ago.

Jesus, i cant be bothered to read through all that verbose tripe.
i'm guessing this is Jimbo attacking someone in an attempt to defend himself for constantly defending Eddie.
What a predictable boring individual you are

[jameswilson]

What a predictable boring individual you are

You've managed to narrow the posts you make down a bit to be fair. You used to have your mates vids and defensive posts about condensing threads down. Now it literally is just bile aimed at Matchroom, cheerleading posts about Frank and 1 liners with emoticons when people call you out on it.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Jesus, i cant be bothered to read through all that verbose tripe.

And what is wrong with the art of being 'verbose' I know cartoons and colouring books kind of meet your requirements in the lack of verbose discourse but some of us like to be intellectually stimulated - you don't - fine.

[Counter-puncher]

so who's the socially awkward bloke then?

[wesshaw1985]

Jesus, i cant be bothered to read through all that verbose tripe.

And what is wrong with the art of being 'verbose' I know cartoons and colouring books kind of meet your requirements in the lack of verbose discourse but some of us like to be intellectually stimulated - you don't - fine.

Fat Git...

[wesshaw1985]

What a predictable boring individual you are

You've managed to narrow the posts you make down a bit to be fair. You used to have your mates vids and defensive posts about condensing threads down. Now it literally is just bile aimed at Matchroom, cheerleading posts about Frank and 1 liners with emoticons when people call you out on it.

Now, if I were to just switch these around like so -
Bile aimed at Frank and cheerleading posts about Matchroom.
Sound like anyone we know Jimmy?

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Jesus, i cant be bothered to read through all that verbose tripe.

And what is wrong with the art of being 'verbose' I know cartoons and colouring books kind of meet your requirements in the lack of verbose discourse but some of us like to be intellectually stimulated - you don't - fine.

Fat Git...

You called...

[crusader]

Sensitive about criticism of Hearn/MR, absolutely.

And I guess if noting that big Ed likes the cameras equates to me going off on him, you must think I m in a seething diatribe now that I used a naughty word.

You know you can just say 'really angry' rather than trying to confuse us little people with your long words.

I never see you mention Barry McGuigan's love of the cameras when he's jumping in front of his man pointing and jumping down the interviewers throat to get a word in. But hey, you're the self styled voice of reason, you don't get involved in protracted debates about Hearn, is that the moral high ground over there with you wrestling someone for it?

Come on crusader, your not above having the piss taken out of you, and if your gonna swan around the forums like some kind of pompous upper class toff, the type who gives graduates bad reputations then don't be surprised if someone comes and pops your balloon. Especially when you try and have this air of 'I am not British, I am neutral, I am therefore the voice of reason and the independent adjudicator.' If Autobarn starts having a go at the people being negative and not giving credit to a good match made I'd say that's a perfectly reasonable opinion to have given some of the negativity in this thread.

Also the fact your trying to come across nice and calm (I can't think of a long word that is the opposite of seething diatribe) but bringing something up that apparently happened a year back (how many people on here remember what they posted at someone a year ago?) conflict slightly. As does your claim to be the perfectly neutral man. 'Point out the hypocrisy of someone moaning about others moaning' ? So your moaning that someones moaning about others moaning, in other words. And moaning that I moaned at you a year ago.

Why is writing 'seething diatribe' instead of 'really angry' that much of a deal? You were obviously able to discern the meaning and surely it only takes a few seconds to look those words up if you don't know them. Is there a feature we can use that informs us of each poster's level of tolerable vocabulary, allowing us to craft our posts accordingly?

As for Ed, McG, and cameras, I hardly ever see McGuigan on TV, which is to be expected given that he has nowhere near the talent pool that MR does. I usually don't watch post-fight interviews or the between fight banter, which means that the few times McGuigan is on I usually don't catch him. Due to his much larger group of fighters and televised cards I catch Eddie far more often, he's more frequently brought up in general, and by extension he got a light-hearted comment while McGuigan didn't, big whoop. McGuigan is really a non-factor apart from his involvment with Frampton and I can't recall the last time he crossed my mind prior to this thread, so it would be odd if I posted about him as much as I post about Hearn.

I'm not sure how I've been going around the forum like a pompous upper-class toff and I don't believe any of my posts have been unreasonable. As noted, I rarely engage in long debate about British promoters and do not frequently claim or even hint that one is doing a better job than another (though if asked I'd say that currently Eddie >>>> Frank); that's not really a topic that interests me and I loathe the extent to which discussion of the business side has supplanted discussion of what actually happens in the ring. By the way, here is everything I posted before you mentioned me:

Good fight and no need for the disingenuous unification crap.

Hopefully the winner fights Zlaticanin, just as Linares was supposed to. I can't consider either Crolla or Linares 'the man' of the division with Zlat right there.

I'm not really sure why you keep going on about Zlaticanin like that. He's hardly being made out to be a monster, just one of the top lightweights, and I can't recall many suggestions that he'd be far too much for Crolla.

Linares didn't lose the belt in the ring, but defending against his dangerous mandatory was part of his obligation as champ. Hopefully the winner of this fight will square off with Zlat in the near future.

Where are you reading all that?

Crolla didn't start slow in either Perez fight, although the late stoppage on Linares's record may be taken as a sign that he's vulnerable to the stereotypical Gallagher approach. Linares does have early losses as well, but I don't see Crolla as someone who would try to blast him out early.

Any of that unreasonable? Any of it irrelevant to Crolla fighting Linares in a bout where the winner being the supposed divisional #1 is a key billing point? As for my interaction with Autobarn on other threads, I think it's fair to point out if people are being overly negative, but to me it's a very different thing when someone does that constantly, does it without prompting, attributes positions to others that they're not actually taking, and injects them into unrelated threads. Autobarn started whining about Crolla being underrated in a thread where Crolla hadn't been mentioned or even alluded to once, while his repeated suggestions that people are protraying Zlaticanin as a monster who would wreck AC are pure strawmen, which is probably why he had no response for me when I was asked where he was seeing all these people hype Zlat like that.

Now am I moaning? I don't believe so, as I'm not jumping from thread to thread complaining about how biased everyone is while ascribing false beliefs in order to fortify my own positions, but even if I am moaning my point it doesn't impair the legitimacy of my claims. I'm also unsure of how someone having a good memory and therefore being able to retrieve and mention an interaction from a year ago conflicts with being nice and calm (which I haven't claimed to be!).

[jameswilson]

You do have to laugh at the dynamic of this multi way argument. Wes is accusing me of going being verbose, I'm accusing crusader of being verbose. Now Fatgits joined the battle royal.

crusader my issue isn't with regard to any comments in this thread. It's that you claim not to engage in Hearn v Warren mud slinging and other things I alluded to earlier. You do it even in your reply (some of the other things I mentioned not mudslinging) I mean I'm not sure I'm going to bother arguing if your counter argument is 'people should get a dictionary out.' I get the impression that if you were sat in a job interview and someone said 'can you point to your left ear please' you'd take your right hand and in an over the top way circle it above your head and go 'it's ovvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvver here' before reciting chapter and verse of the magna carta. Rather than just pointing at your left ear. You also list your posts and then say 'any of that unreasonable?' Well no, obviously not, your the voice of reason afterall.

With regards to wes, yeah you could definitely make a case that you and me are the opposite of each other, which is fine, if we all say round agreeing it would be boring. I definitely think you defend Warren/Queensbury with the same passion that I defend Matchroom. However I'd disagree that I attack Queensbury/Warren with the same passion that you attack Matchroom. Your in so many threads just going on and on. I tend to limit it to just making a sarcastic 'he's tough, he's game, he'll come to win' comment when horrendous opponents are announced.

[wesshaw1985]

You do have to laugh at the dynamic of this multi way argument. Wes is accusing me of going being verbose, I'm accusing crusader of being verbose. Now Fatgits joined the battle royal.

crusader my issue isn't with regard to any comments in this thread. It's that you claim not to engage in Hearn v Warren mud slinging and other things I alluded to earlier. You do it even in your reply (some of the other things I mentioned not mudslinging) I mean I'm not sure I'm going to bother arguing if your counter argument is 'people should get a dictionary out.' I get the impression that if you were sat in a job interview and someone said 'can you point to your left ear please' you'd take your right hand and in an over the top way circle it above your head and go 'it's ovvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvver here' before reciting chapter and verse of the magna carta. Rather than just pointing at your left ear. You also list your posts and then say 'any of that unreasonable?' Well no, obviously not, your the voice of reason afterall.

With regards to wes, yeah you could definitely make a case that you and me are the opposite of each other, which is fine, if we all say round agreeing it would be boring. I definitely think you defend Warren/Queensbury with the same passion that I defend Matchroom. However I'd disagree that I attack Queensbury/Warren with the same passion that you attack Matchroom. Your in so many threads just going on and on. I tend to limit it to just making a sarcastic 'he's tough, he's game, he'll come to win' comment when horrendous opponents are announced.

its all good fun jimbo, opposite views make for good debates...

[Stuffs]

First under card fight announced...

Isaac Lowe v Tshifhiwa Munyai