BoxRec

leforge wrote:

lefty wrote:This is embarrasing

You are a bit if knob with a comment like that!

wow what does that make you ??

oh dear...Stevie had a virus


Fcuk virus ...That Belgian was on fire

gobbles wrote:

leforge wrote:

gobbles wrote:Why not show us Murray or Towers?

Typical bloody Sky. Puffing next week's crappy fight rather than show us some action.

Next week fight will be good though. They should show 3 hours of boxing.

They had plenty of time to put another fight on, but they prefer talking heads and sell, sell, sell.

Even interviewed Gary Buckland, who was obviously lined up for Foster on the Khan PPV undercard from what he said. What was the point of that?

Flipping heck pal; Gary Buckland got about 30 seconds air time ; he knocked the British Champion out in less than a round and is obviously in the mix; more play to em.

I'm looking forward to next week.

mrpedigree wrote:oh dear...Stevie had a virus


Fcuk virus ...That Belgian was on fire

You don't think he had a virus?

Foster was very brave but Fegatelli was a lot better than his record suggested. A great result for Belgian boxing.

Horse wrote:

mrpedigree wrote:oh dear...Stevie had a virus


Fcuk virus ...That Belgian was on fire

You don't think he had a virus?

oh yeh he did ........................................................................................................a virus of body shots

Why not just say ...i got beat by a better man on the night ?..

simon fox wrote:

gobbles wrote:

leforge wrote: Next week fight will be good though. They should show 3 hours of boxing.

They had plenty of time to put another fight on, but they prefer talking heads and sell, sell, sell.

Even interviewed Gary Buckland, who was obviously lined up for Foster on the Khan PPV undercard from what he said. What was the point of that?

Flipping heck pal; Gary Buckland got about 30 seconds air time ; he knocked the British Champion out in less than a round and is obviously in the mix; more play to em.

I'm looking forward to next week.

Why was he on? Because he was supposed to be on a PPV and it was another plug for it, just like the endless mentions of "a date for your diary".

I was looking forward to seeing Murray. First fight went seven rounds short. They had the time. It's not as if Sykes v Johanesson will not be plugged endlessly in the next week on Sky Sports News and Ringside. This is the only action we get all week.

gobbles wrote:

simon fox wrote:

gobbles wrote:
They had plenty of time to put another fight on, but they prefer talking heads and sell, sell, sell.

Even interviewed Gary Buckland, who was obviously lined up for Foster on the Khan PPV undercard from what he said. What was the point of that?

Flipping heck pal; Gary Buckland got about 30 seconds air time ; he knocked the British Champion out in less than a round and is obviously in the mix; more play to em.

I'm looking forward to next week.

Why was he on? Because he was supposed to be on a PPV and it was another plug for it, just like the endless mentions of "a date for your diary".

I was looking forward to seeing Murray. First fight went seven rounds short. They had the time. It's not as if Sykes v Johanesson will not be plugged endlessly in the next week on Sky Sports News and Ringside. This is the only action we get all week.

Adam Smith needs to improve the boxing coverage as I said on another thread no Hatton v Alvarez or Vitali next fight very poor!

Did anyone honestly really rate Foster ?? he would of done well to beat his dads achievements

leforge wrote:

gobbles wrote:

simon fox wrote: Flipping heck pal; Gary Buckland got about 30 seconds air time ; he knocked the British Champion out in less than a round and is obviously in the mix; more play to em.

I'm looking forward to next week.

Why was he on? Because he was supposed to be on a PPV and it was another plug for it, just like the endless mentions of "a date for your diary".

I was looking forward to seeing Murray. First fight went seven rounds short. They had the time. It's not as if Sykes v Johanesson will not be plugged endlessly in the next week on Sky Sports News and Ringside. This is the only action we get all week.

Adam Smith needs to improve the boxing coverage as I said on another thread no Hatton v Alvarez or Vitali next fight very poor!

Whatever you think of Hatton v Alvarez as a fight, it's a British guy boxing for a world title. Very strange that they are doing a big interview with the fight's promoter on Ringside, yet no mention of covering the fight.

lefty wrote:Look at the record of fegattili's last 8 opponents,their records are shocking!How did he get a european title shot?!He looks ok to be fair tonight though.

Jesus Facking Wept

Hagler2002 wrote:

lefty wrote:Look at the record of fegattili's last 8 opponents,their records are shocking!How did he get a european title shot?!He looks ok to be fair tonight though.

Jesus Facking Wept

Completely spot on analysis by me

So much for Ricky's prediction.

What fights did Sky show? Out lastnight got it recorded to watch later

saturday_kid wrote:What fights did Sky show? Out lastnight got it recorded to watch later

The Foster fight&Lyon-Wale was all they shown

I had it 115-108 Fagetilli, Foster looked like he was coming on strong after 4 rounds but the boy's body shots were really troubling him. Great fight (as per usual for SFN ) Hopefully Buckland gets a crack at him that would be a cracker

why fight if your so badly weight drained? if foster was in with a big puncher he would of got seriously hurt last nite. his corner were a fckin disgrace.

petr wrote:why fight if your so badly weight drained? if foster was in with a big puncher he would of got seriously hurt last nite. his corner were a fckin disgrace.

You don't get paid for sitting at home, defending a major title can give you financial security. Otherwise at 30 he could vacate and hope for a chance that may never come at a higher weight.
Often as well the weight is very much a fine line and you won't know untill you get in there.
I would also like to say what enormous bollox Foster has, what a warrior

I like Foster but he can't have it both ways. I know he wouldn't get paid for pulling out but if he feels that something wasn't right then he shouldn't have fought - he should've given the belt up and moved up in weight. As a EBU champ, he'd get another shot for sure. If he was ill, then pulling out is a no-brainer, IMO.

Dioufy wrote:I like Foster but he can't have it both ways. I know he wouldn't get paid for pulling out but if he feels that something wasn't right then he shouldn't have fought - he should've given the belt up and moved up in weight. As a EBU champ, he'd get another shot for sure. If he was ill, then pulling out is a no-brainer, IMO.

If he moved up in weight he would have to fight John Murray which would be a much harder fight than the Belgian, on top of that he would have to hope that he got the fight, can he afford to have 6 months without a payday?
More realisticly with Big Mick promoting he would be getting chump change and would be waiting about untill he is the wrong side of 40!
In fact it was a no brainer to defend his title and hope that he came through

I personally had the fight scored to the belgian by 10 points im suprised the judges had it so close.

Coco wrote:

Dioufy wrote:I like Foster but he can't have it both ways. I know he wouldn't get paid for pulling out but if he feels that something wasn't right then he shouldn't have fought - he should've given the belt up and moved up in weight. As a EBU champ, he'd get another shot for sure. If he was ill, then pulling out is a no-brainer, IMO.

If he moved up in weight he would have to fight John Murray which would be a much harder fight than the Belgian, on top of that he would have to hope that he got the fight, can he afford to have 6 months without a payday?
More realisticly with Big Mick promoting he would be getting chump change and would be waiting about untill he is the wrong side of 40!
In fact it was a no brainer to defend his title and hope that he came through

I do understand what you're saying and I do agree with you to a certain degree, but my initial point remains. He can't have it both ways. If he wanted to take the risk then it's his own fault that it may have contributed to the loss. Therefore, IMO, it isn't a valid reason why he lost, because it was his decision.

Coco wrote:

Dioufy wrote:I like Foster but he can't have it both ways. I know he wouldn't get paid for pulling out but if he feels that something wasn't right then he shouldn't have fought - he should've given the belt up and moved up in weight. As a EBU champ, he'd get another shot for sure. If he was ill, then pulling out is a no-brainer, IMO.

If he moved up in weight he would have to fight John Murray which would be a much harder fight than the Belgian, on top of that he would have to hope that he got the fight, can he afford to have 6 months without a payday?
More realisticly with Big Mick promoting he would be getting chump change and would be waiting about untill he is the wrong side of 40!
In fact it was a no brainer to defend his title and hope that he came through

Basically he was doomed whatever he did then!Ha

maybe he gets a rematch and if all goes well, it can be written off as a michael gomez v laszlo bognar type of fight. gomez was ill that night, i recall, losing to the hungarian but winning a tough rematch. let's see a rematch and see what foster is made of.