BoxRec

dbflex wrote:

Coco wrote:Be careful of describing FW's bills as awful, BN doesn't have deep enough pockets for libel action

in fairness, the mitchell and saunders fights were more competitive than they appeared on
paper

But in all honesty, was the opponent ever really in with a chance of winning? As a gambling man, I wouldn't have bet on Greaves at 100-1, Spitko, maybe 50-1.

In any other sport that would seem outrageous. Like Liverpool V Lancaster.

Mathroom's undercards are pretty uninspiring at the best of times as well.

whicker wrote:

dbflex wrote:

Coco wrote:Be careful of describing FW's bills as awful, BN doesn't have deep enough pockets for libel action

in fairness, the mitchell and saunders fights were more competitive than they appeared on
paper

But in all honesty, was the opponent ever really in with a chance of winning? As a gambling man, I wouldn't have bet on Greaves at 100-1, Spitko, maybe 50-1.

In any other sport that would seem outrageous. Like Liverpool V Lancaster.

Mate, the way we r playing, i wdnt fancy Lancaster away!

dbflex wrote:

hitman_hatton1 wrote:u could argue a top prospect blasts that guy in no more than 1 or 2 rds. :>

Really? because both Naz and Ricky Hatton were taken the 6 round distance, by Peter Buckley and Mark Ramsey respectively, in their 6th fights. not saying Walsh is that good but ur logic isnt sound

yeah true enuff.

just being picky really.

he's the best of the 3 brothers.

definitely a future domestic class contender for me.

just a bit early to go beyond that yet.

hitman_hatton1 wrote:

dbflex wrote:

hitman_hatton1 wrote:u could argue a top prospect blasts that guy in no more than 1 or 2 rds. :>

Really? because both Naz and Ricky Hatton were taken the 6 round distance, by Peter Buckley and Mark Ramsey respectively, in their 6th fights. not saying Walsh is that good but ur logic isnt sound

yeah true enuff.

just being picky really.

he's the best of the 3 brothers.

definitely a future domestic class contender for me.

just a bit early to go beyond that yet.

Agreed.

So I suppose Maloney puts on the best shows for depth and quality. A good main event is one thing but sometimes we see that and then total one-sided, uneven support bouts. When I see a poster with 3 or 4 different bouts that could be headliners, it means a good show!

steve689 wrote:So I suppose Maloney puts on the best shows for depth and quality. A good main event is one thing but sometimes we see that and then total one-sided, uneven support bouts. When I see a poster with 3 or 4 different bouts that could be headliners, it means a good show!

Ye he constantly puts on good shows with competitive bouts I also liked Hatton's promotional debut I thought he put on a competitive show. But agreed with everyone else terrible undercard last night

Coco wrote:

dbflex wrote:Completely agree. compared to the Maloney Bolton bill, which has at least 6 relatively even fights on paper, its awful.

Be careful of describing FW's bills as awful, BN doesn't have deep enough pockets for libel action

Nothing remotely defamatory in Danny's statement - entirely fair comment.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Coco wrote:

dbflex wrote:Completely agree. compared to the Maloney Bolton bill, which has at least 6 relatively even fights on paper, its awful.

Be careful of describing FW's bills as awful, BN doesn't have deep enough pockets for libel action

Nothing remotely defamatory in Danny's statement - entirely fair comment.

x2

Couldn't even be bothered with the main event, let alone the undercard.

Glad I turned over at caught Liam Walsh though. I wasn't expecting much at all, from all the negative Walsh bothers comments I'd seen, but I came away really impressed. He looks a real genuine talent. There's something about him, he has a relaxed way of throwing punches and avoiding the replies, makes it look easy - he looks a real natural talent.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Coco wrote:

dbflex wrote:Completely agree. compared to the Maloney Bolton bill, which has at least 6 relatively even fights on paper, its awful.

Be careful of describing FW's bills as awful, BN doesn't have deep enough pockets for libel action

Nothing remotely defamatory in Danny's statement - entirely fair comment.

However fair, FW and libel are not necessarily 3 words which work in tandem!
Unfortunately in life money has far more strength then fairness

Coco wrote:
However fair, FW and libel are not necessarily 3 words which work in tandem!
Unfortunately in life money has far more strength then fairness

Oh, I'm singing from that hymn sheet Coco and drowning you out with my noise

Certainly with these ridiculous libel laws in Britain. But young Danny is safe there.

Did you know that self-confessed rapist-paedophile Roman Polanski once won 50k in a British libel court because an article said he'd groped someone? I kid you not. How the F*CK would he have a reputation to defend in the first instance?! That's British justice and libel for you.

He might have to pay that 50k now though!

steve689 wrote:He might have to pay that 50k now though!

No mate...he'd already admitted the sex with an under age girl BEFORE he sued (in Britain, nowhere else) for defamation. That's my point. Insanity.

I always watch Friday Fight Night but I just couldnt be arsed with this one. I hate the Walsh brothers, Cleverly was always gonna win and Derek Chisora is a dick.

The Khan bill was ok with Hall v Small and one or two other ok fights, but there is no comparison between allegedly and Maloney's bills.

Maloney always puts good fighters on his shows, he matches them well and we see plenty of title bouts, not all of these prospects who knock some Georgians out in the first round.