BoxRec

Wrists wrote:I am chilled.

You're transparent

Enjoy

twenty six wrote:In addition, can anyne tell me why it is consistantly Sheffield boxers that come in for this type of criticism ?
The opening thread also has a carp at another Sheffield lad, Naz.
For a boring boxer who not many rated, Johnny isn't half getting the column inches.
If not this, it's his kidnap threat from 9 years ago.
Then there's the thread about a wife staring at his thighs
I would much rather re visit for instance the absolute travesty of Jimmy Vincent v David Barnes where a rematch WAS ordered but never took place.
I wonder why.

Final round wrote:

twenty six wrote:In addition, can anyne tell me why it is consistantly Sheffield boxers that come in for this type of criticism ?
The opening thread also has a carp at another Sheffield lad, Naz.
For a boring boxer who not many rated, Johnny isn't half getting the column inches.
If not this, it's his kidnap threat from 9 years ago.
Then there's the thread about a wife staring at his thighs
I would much rather re visit for instance the absolute travesty of Jimmy Vincent v David Barnes where a rematch WAS ordered but never took place.
I wonder why.

I think Johnny probably gets a fair bit more interest than he has for a while because the ringside show has put him back in the public eye.

black panther wrote:

twenty six wrote:Art,
So the failed drugs test, proving Jones was on performance hencing drugs is of no importance then ?
Still think it was robbery, or do you prefer drugs cheats ?
By the way, as the fight was a draw, how is that worse than Thompson losing ?

Worse in that Thompson looked like he was going to lose the fight and although you can argue about the stoppage, no way could you argue that Thompson was winning that fight. The Jones decision was a disgrace. Sure it would have been declared a NC following the drugs test, but it still doesn't make it right that it was scored so badly.