BoxRec

mickeyb wrote:Funny things, backs.

Yes, they are. Absolute, draining agony for those genuinely living with a back problem.

However, due to their mysterious nature they are often cited by people who have no injury whatsoever.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

mickeyb wrote:Funny things, backs.

Yes, they are. Absolute, draining agony for those genuinely living with a back problem.

However, due to their mysterious nature they are often cited by people who have no injury whatsoever.

As Jim Watt comically mentioned - when people want to skive off work they say they've done their back in!

Surely the betting patterns before the fight reflected the fact that some people were clearly aware that it wasn't an 'out of the blue' problem?

mickeyb wrote:My back went when I was 20, and has gone again maybe 6 times in the following 13 years. Funny things, backs. I live with a certain amount of stiffness and discomfort on a daily basis, but it doesn't stop me doing anything. Strenuous physical activity is actually pretty good, because anything that gets the adrenaline pumping blows away any pain - although I'm usually hobbling around like an old man the next day. I've blown my back out doing such strenuous activities as picking up the cat. The last time it went, I'd finished spending two days bent double decking my garden and was fine. Two days later I was pushing the vacuum about and spent most of the next 3 days laying on the living room floor (which still needed hoovering!)

I'm guessing most of you calling it a farce don't have a clue what living with back damage is like?

On a side note, will John Murray ever move his head?

Apparently not...

I don't think anyone is saying that back problems are a laugh or that they are not incredibly painful.

What I am saying (and others) is that a guy who apparently has been seeing medical staff about chronic back issues (that contributed to his inactivity) needs to sort those problems out before accepting a world title shot where fans have paid big money and given up their time to attend. There was seemingly (according to Sky) great concern about his back before the fight (by those in the know) and the fact it only lasted 5 seconds in the fight after these back issues has to be more than a coincidence.

Yes, a slipped disc is not the same back issue that he had leading into the fight. However, you have to assume that his back wasn't stable going into the fight hence the concern.

Perhaps i'm only annoyed because my friends travelled a long way to attend to be rewarded with a farce, but this is David Haye all over again with posters saying "I've had a broken toe and it is agony". No-one is saying a broken toe or a back injury aren't extremely painful - what we are saying is that the product has to be better and fighters who are severely hampered by injury should be pulling out or forced to pull out. Otherwise the sport just becomes more and more of a laughing stock.

I also agree with others that the money being piled on Burns for a 1-3 round stoppage maybe indicated that people had heard about the back. I assume none of these punters had a crystal ball and foresaw a "freak, random injury" near the start of the fight!

TheCobra wrote:I think maybe we should give a bit more benefit of the doubt to Cook. It looked like he twisted awkwardly and it was just one of those freak things, yes he might have a bit of a bad back but I'm sure he never expected that to happen, who would want that sort of embarassment?

I think it's disappointing yep, but a farce, nope I don't think so, a back injur like that can be done ina split second, he was hitting the pads hard when they showed the backstage and if he had any sort of injury of bad back then he wouldn't have even been able to do that. Plus he had the Al hamidi fight where nothing like this happened, just a freak injury imho.

Agree with all of this. Sad for Cook, will surely end his career.

Goz wrote:

TheCobra wrote:I think maybe we should give a bit more benefit of the doubt to Cook. It looked like he twisted awkwardly and it was just one of those freak things, yes he might have a bit of a bad back but I'm sure he never expected that to happen, who would want that sort of embarassment?

I think it's disappointing yep, but a farce, nope I don't think so, a back injur like that can be done ina split second, he was hitting the pads hard when they showed the backstage and if he had any sort of injury of bad back then he wouldn't have even been able to do that. Plus he had the Al hamidi fight where nothing like this happened, just a freak injury imho.

Agree with all of this. Sad for Cook, will surely end his career.

So how do you guys explain the betting patterns then?

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

leforge wrote:

mkirkhope wrote: Ed was right. Boxing just doesn't need this - the sport just becomes such a laughing stock.

Cook was apparently consulting doctors about his back before the fight - why was it allowed to go ahead?

Good question, Frank did not like SMith comment either.

Yes, he took umbrage about Cook's physical state even being questioned. I mean, how dare Smith - the representative of the company who put up the money for the fight - dare ask about the physical state of a man who was obviously unable to continue effectively after less than 10 seconds of a 'world' title contest?

In saying that, I'm sure the injury is genuine and 'these things do happen'.

The thing being mate Nicky so im told has had this problem for years,if Burns would have been beat in the same manner with no history of a back problem would Adam Smith asked nicky Cook should Burns have been in the other corner.Shocking question to ask someone,not rickys problem whatsoever

To be fair, Smith could quite easily have veto'd the fight and asked Allegedly to get a live opponent for Burns.

A win over an icecream van driver since a previous KO loss two years before simply isn't good enough, and it's not doing Burns any favours.

Either Sykes or Buckland should have been chosen instead of any of the shite they've served up for Ricky thus far if they are wanting to line his pockets a bit with non-top 10 opponents first.

Should be Fana next, no more bums.

billy nelson wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

leforge wrote: Good question, Frank did not like SMith comment either.

Yes, he took umbrage about Cook's physical state even being questioned. I mean, how dare Smith - the representative of the company who put up the money for the fight - dare ask about the physical state of a man who was obviously unable to continue effectively after less than 10 seconds of a 'world' title contest?

In saying that, I'm sure the injury is genuine and 'these things do happen'.

The thing being mate Nicky so im told has had this problem for years,if Burns would have been beat in the same manner with no history of a back problem would Adam Smith asked nicky Cook should Burns have been in the other corner.Shocking question to ask someone,not rickys problem whatsoever

Billy, the fact that Cook has a history is the reason why the question is asked. Its not Ricky's problem though I grant you that. These questions were also addressed (although maybe not in the most direct way) to Warren and Robert Smith.

LeedsLad wrote:To be fair, Smith could quite easily have veto'd the fight and asked Allegedly to get a live opponent for Burns.

A win over an icecream van driver since a previous KO loss two years before simply isn't good enough, and it's not doing Burns any favours.

Either Sykes or Buckland should have been chosen instead of any of the shite they've served up for Ricky thus far if they are wanting to line his pockets a bit with non-top 10 opponents first.

Should be Fana next, no more bums.

Harsh to call Cook a bum IMO - I maintain we need to know more facts before labelling the fight a farce.

Agree that it should be Fana next.... its such a winnable fight. Fana is the worst #1 ranked fighter in a devision I can ever remember.

stujones wrote:

LeedsLad wrote:To be fair, Smith could quite easily have veto'd the fight and asked Allegedly to get a live opponent for Burns.

A win over an icecream van driver since a previous KO loss two years before simply isn't good enough, and it's not doing Burns any favours.

Either Sykes or Buckland should have been chosen instead of any of the shite they've served up for Ricky thus far if they are wanting to line his pockets a bit with non-top 10 opponents first.

Should be Fana next, no more bums.

Harsh to call Cook a bum IMO - I maintain we need to know more facts before labelling the fight a farce.

Agree that it should be Fana next.... its such a winnable fight. Fana is the worst #1 ranked fighter in a devision I can ever remember.

Cook isn't a bum but Laryea was, and Evensen wasn't much better.

I just think that we need to demand more, men like Froch should be the norm rather than the exception, I've had enough of these Allegedly ''world champions'' that never face world class opposition.

Burns would beat Fana relatively easily in my opinion, but it won't happen. It'll be a feather fisted, never been stopped opponent I expect

billy nelson wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

leforge wrote: Good question, Frank did not like SMith comment either.

Yes, he took umbrage about Cook's physical state even being questioned. I mean, how dare Smith - the representative of the company who put up the money for the fight - dare ask about the physical state of a man who was obviously unable to continue effectively after less than 10 seconds of a 'world' title contest?

In saying that, I'm sure the injury is genuine and 'these things do happen'.

The thing being mate Nicky so im told has had this problem for years,if Burns would have been beat in the same manner with no history of a back problem would Adam Smith asked nicky Cook should Burns have been in the other corner.Shocking question to ask someone,not rickys problem whatsoever

Billy if this has been a bad problem for Cook for years why was he chosen as an opponent for Ricky? You'll know better than us that 10 seconds of action isn't giving Ricky the best chance to go on to bigger things.

Or are you saying this problem only came out after the fight?

Either way, no-one is blaming Ricky, we are just wondering why this fight went ahead.

Cook dogged it. On plane now back to Spain, via Ladbrokes. Enjoy your retirement you dog. Who next for Burns? Ronnie Corbett?

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

mickeyb wrote:Funny things, backs.

Yes, they are. Absolute, draining agony for those genuinely living with a back problem.

However, due to their mysterious nature they are often cited by people who have no injury whatsoever.

I live with a back problem, and it's not 'absolute, draining agony' on a daily basis, so let's tone the melodrama down a notch. When it flairs up it can be debilitating, but most days it's just uncomfortable. Lots of people have 'bad backs', and the vast majority of us just get on with life. Anyway, whiplash is better if you want an unprovable injury!

As for the betting patterns, well maybe there's something to them and maybe there isn't (like maybe Cook's back was f@cked when he was winging hooks into the pads, and maybe it wasn't). It's not like unsubstantiated rumours don't spread like wilfire through the boxing community at the drop of a hat, is it?

you never see such heavy betting patterns in Boxing usually and that's why I always saw it finishing very early.

Cook shouldnt have been elevated to fight for a WBO title and I blame them a lot as how can he get a top 10 ranking by beating El Hamidi over six rounds? Disgraceful.

TheGoods wrote:Cook dogged it. On plane now back to Spain, via Ladbrokes. Enjoy your retirement you dog. Who next for Burns? Ronnie Corbett?

Des1
Post subject: Re: Burns-Cook set for July 16
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2011 10:42 am
Online

Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 736
To be honest this just discredits the WBO as a 'World title'. How is it justified?

Des1 had this sport on. In that thread I said Cook was not bum but had done nothing to challenge for the title.