BoxRec

According to Burns it was the punch that did the damage!

BIGMARK wrote:

leforge wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote: Don't get me wrong, Ed got in there and asked the question that a lot of people are saying they wanted answered. You can't do better than that as any form of interviewer. It's just typical of the man Ed is that he worried so much about it afterwards, questioned himself. Translation? He's a good pro.

Ed comes accross a nice bloke. I still think it should have been rejected as world title fight by sky.

I have to agree with this and after the fight i was looking through the BM rankings and no sign of Nicky Cook. I'm not saying he wouldnt of been deserving of a shot but i think the one fight (against a journey man) in 2 years doesnt show enough to warrent it in this case. Surely he needed to beat at least someone raked top 15 by the WBO to get the shot, saying that i dread to think how the WBO top 15 most look.

I know how he got in the WBO top 15 down to being past champ and promotor. Sky might have accepted this due to fact Bellew v mckenzie was on the bill and first fight was a cracker. Sky should do follow up on ringside about this fight.

Honestly before this fight happened do you think Cook would have beaten Gary Sykes.

BIGMARK wrote:

leforge wrote:According to Burns it was the punch that did the damage!

i think it is possible a punch to the body caused a reaction from the back and earlier i said i wouldnt of been surprised with all the rumours flying round before Burns didnt target it.

Dunno if Burns targeted it but Cook definitely ducked into a right hander that seemed to land in the lower spine region. Some people have said that shot was borderline illegal, but I really don't think Burns intended it — to me it looked like a body shot that caught Nicky around the back because he'd ducked into it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1MfVEjo ... ture=feedu

Even Colin Hart said it was a farce on allegedly . TVs own video. Wonder if he'll be banned from commentating?

leforge wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:

wrimc wrote: That is a fair enough point and I guess it comes down to what sort of line that Sky want to take as obviously Ed doesn't want to be to inflammatory or state opinions that might not be that of Sky as a whole. He surely needs to be given allowed to ask the questions with an opinion that echo's the viewing public's. Everybody has a different job. The promoter to defend the show, the boxer to explain his performance, the board official to give a neutral appraisal of the events from an officiating point of view and the interviewer to ask the best questions possible to get the best responses from each of these characters.

Don't get me wrong, Ed got in there and asked the question that a lot of people are saying they wanted answered. You can't do better than that as any form of interviewer. It's just typical of the man Ed is that he worried so much about it afterwards, questioned himself. Translation? He's a good pro.

Ed comes accross a nice bloke. I still think it should have been rejected as world title fight by sky.

But is it really Skys place to reject the badges that support a fight? To my mind Burns v Cook, if sold as a UK title match-up, would have been perfectly acceptable. Sky don't hand out the belts, that's the fault of the WBO. It is the alphabet organisations who should be criticised for allowing a cheap defence of their title, particularly after 2 fairly cheap defences in Burns previous 2 fights. The history of allegedly with the WBO suggests that they are not going to turn down similar fights anytime soon.

If Burns (and his team) wants to continue to be seen as a World Champion, he needs to start making World Champion defining defences. He is a decent guy and a quality fighter and an opponent such as Cook, even without the back drama, doesn't do justice to his talent.

The fight of the night, and the one I was most anticipating, was a fight that had nothing of importance attached to it (Intercontinental belts are meaningless in this age of arbitrary rankings decisions by each of the bodies). Ask Kevin Mitchell what means more this morning - the win, redemption and regained respect across the boxing world or the belt he won? That's one thing I'd like Sky to really take a lead on - good fighters in good match ups make interesting fights, not meaningless baubles of close to zero consequence.

Yes well done Ed - Say what you see just like Catchphrase!!!

It has been generally agreed that the fight has been a farce, and it makes the sport of boxing look stupid.

Its good to see so many good valid opinions on here - well done Boxrec first and foremost for giving us the platform to speak with some of the top pundits in the UK.

Buncey wrote:
BBC London 94.9's 81st consecutive show this Thursday...Khan, Chisora, Arthur, Fury...and don't forget The Fixer as your summer book!
.

I hope Boxrec are charging you advertising fees.

Jeff Thomas wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1MfVEjo ... ture=feedu

Even Colin Hart said it was a farce on allegedly . TVs own video. Wonder if he'll be banned from commentating?

Ed Robinson probably referred to Cooper as a national treasure somewhere, and Hart's getting his own back?

How about Ringside Question Time with Ed Robinson? Promoters, trainers, maybe a couple of journos etc on the panel. Stick a load of boxers/fans/sky subscribers in the audience. It would make great telly.

You could even do it a'la Gerry Springer, where it kicks off every five minutes. I'd buy that for a dollar.

I can understand where Ed is coming from saying he wished he'd asked more considered questions whilst still probing, but as a fan i thought it was bloody brilliant the way it was.

Buncey wrote:Ed has done the right thing: Farce was too strong, but perfectly understandable in the chaotic circumstances.
Nobody mentioned the 'back' issue before the first bell. Fact. I keep hearing from people who knew 'the back would not last' but just failed to mention it until...the back went! Odd that.
Ed was in a noisy place, people were shouting and screaming and he picked the wrong word. Look at Robert's face...he's an ex-fighter and a good one and he is shocked at that word. Bizarre, freak, unbelievable, crazy...all work better than the potentially actionable 'farce' - let's not imagine we don't know what the implication is with that word!
Watch the fight again. Cook is in savage agony - I bet Ed has not slept very well since watching a replay. He was big enough to come on here. Smith by the way was equally out of order with his loaded questions to Burns. It was certainly an entertaining night from the grey Men at Sky. I would like to think Smith would also apologise to Burns for his chosen line of questions. It was NOT Ricky's fault in any way.
I would imagine that everybody on here screaming about 'disgrace' etc would be very welcome to meet with Nicky and Paul Cook to discuss their outrage!

Adios.

You are a farce. You made me sick when you were on TV and am glad you are relegated to the back burners. The back was mentioned and the betting patterns tell the tale. Disgrace.

King Geedorah wrote:Given the betting scandal whispers surrounding the third round, and the fact that it was over one in one, I think it is safe to presume that the World's Worse Betting Sting...Ever wasn't put together by Lou Gossett Junior and Robert Redford?

Jeff Thomas wrote:I find it interesting this new channel has popped up on satellite; could it be that someone is thinking of going alone?

Was just thinking that myself. I haven't seen it, but heard that its been showing quite a lot of old allegedly cards.

Dan Dares wrote:

Jeff Thomas wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1MfVEjo ... ture=feedu

Even Colin Hart said it was a farce on allegedly . TVs own video. Wonder if he'll be banned from commentating?

Ed Robinson probably referred to Cooper as a national treasure somewhere, and Hart's getting his own back?

How about Ringside Question Time with Ed Robinson? Promoters, trainers, maybe a couple of journos etc on the panel. Stick a load of boxers/fans/sky subscribers in the audience. It would make great telly.

You could even do it a'la Gerry Springer, where it kicks off every five minutes. I'd buy that for a dollar.

I would love to do this...if it was done under the auspices of a Parliamentary Select Committee so the usual suspects couldn't sue my arse!

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Dan Dares wrote:

Jeff Thomas wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1MfVEjo ... ture=feedu

Even Colin Hart said it was a farce on allegedly . TVs own video. Wonder if he'll be banned from commentating?

Ed Robinson probably referred to Cooper as a national treasure somewhere, and Hart's getting his own back?

How about Ringside Question Time with Ed Robinson? Promoters, trainers, maybe a couple of journos etc on the panel. Stick a load of boxers/fans/sky subscribers in the audience. It would make great telly.

You could even do it a'la Gerry Springer, where it kicks off every five minutes. I'd buy that for a dollar.

I would love to do this...if it was done under the auspices of a Parliamentary Select Committee so the usual suspects couldn't sue my arse!

I would love to watch

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Dan Dares wrote:

Jeff Thomas wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1MfVEjo ... ture=feedu

Even Colin Hart said it was a farce on allegedly . TVs own video. Wonder if he'll be banned from commentating?

Ed Robinson probably referred to Cooper as a national treasure somewhere, and Hart's getting his own back?

How about Ringside Question Time with Ed Robinson? Promoters, trainers, maybe a couple of journos etc on the panel. Stick a load of boxers/fans/sky subscribers in the audience. It would make great telly.

You could even do it a'la Gerry Springer, where it kicks off every five minutes. I'd buy that for a dollar.

I would love to do this...if it was done under the auspices of a Parliamentary Select Committee so the usual suspects couldn't sue my arse!

Maybe they could silhouette you and overdub Frank Bruno's voice or something. Who would be on the first panel then Ian?

MachoMan09 wrote:

Final round wrote:

King Geedorah wrote:Given the betting scandal whispers surrounding the third round, and the fact that it was over one in one, I think it is safe to presume that the World's Worse Betting Sting...Ever wasn't put together by Lou Gossett Junior and Robert Redford?

He's an Entertainer is our Terry.

It was a clever quip

MachoMan09 wrote:

Jeff Thomas wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1MfVEjo ... ture=feedu

Even Colin Hart said it was a farce on allegedly . TVs own video. Wonder if he'll be banned from commentating?

Hart calls is "a farce" and the other geezer said "there were rumours beforehand that Nicky Cook had hurt his back".

But Frank said there were no rumours didn't he? Weird!

Jeff Thomas wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:

Jeff Thomas wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1MfVEjo ... ture=feedu

Even Colin Hart said it was a farce on allegedly . TVs own video. Wonder if he'll be banned from commentating?

Hart calls is "a farce" and the other geezer said "there were rumours beforehand that Nicky Cook had hurt his back".

But Frank said there were no rumours didn't he? Weird!

Facts aren't rumours perhaps Jeffro?

Nicky was open about his back problems in the press before the fight, blaming them for his inactivity, and the bookies definitely had suspended betting according to the article in Saturday's Racing Post.

See where I'm coming from?

Frank said noone mentioned it before the fight, not that there were no rumours.

Sky shouldn't gone with the fight. It was a poor match up. Ed asked the right question. Bunce may be bitter he's been black balled by Sky.

This thread is fantastic!

As a 40 year old fan I remember the pre-internet days. Okay we had boxing on BBC and ITV (brilliant) but we didn’t have the chance to discuss and interact with people within the game and from TV. Really enjoy the words from all you people within the game – all with differing opinions.

You have to remember though that everyone puts their opinions across in emails and msg boards in a way they never would if they were just having a pint.

I am loving this thread!

I THINK IT WAS DISGUSTING THAT SKYS FIRST REACTION AFTER COOKS INJURY WAS TO DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM THE FIGHT AND TRY AND LAY THE BOOT IN!!

Ed went down dramatically in my estimations when he described the fight as a farce (sensationalism), although he was probably under orders from above to be a prick!

Chambers2 wrote:I THINK IT WAS DISGUSTING THAT SKYS FIRST REACTION AFTER COOKS INJURY WAS TO DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM THE FIGHT AND TRY AND LAY THE BOOT IN!!

Ed went down dramatically in my estimations when he described the fight as a farce (sensationalism), although he was probably under orders from above to be a prick!

Says the man with the enviable track record of being a cheerleader for Haye and Audley

Deserter wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:I THINK IT WAS DISGUSTING THAT SKYS FIRST REACTION AFTER COOKS INJURY WAS TO DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM THE FIGHT AND TRY AND LAY THE BOOT IN!!

Ed went down dramatically in my estimations when he described the fight as a farce (sensationalism), although he was probably under orders from above to be a prick!

Says the man with the enviable track record of being a cheerleader for Haye and Audley

Struggling to see the link

BIGMARK wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:
And am I that predictable these days Mark

I have to say when i was reading through the thread i was quite surprised that you hadnt steamed in with your opinion (educated opinion of course) I thought maybe the Ron Borges' thread had taken over your life

HAAAAAAAAAAA! Mark, that just made me do a gut-buster laugh in a very quiet room of people enjoying a peaceful lunch.



Col/T.M.K