Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

jameswilson
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 13448
Joined: 08 Jan 2004, 18:01

Re: Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

Post by jameswilson »

SteveDow wrote:
Coco wrote:It's 4x2's
I thought all fights in the pros had to be 3 minute rounds? Obviously not!
Nah Martin Rogan has had a fight where it was 2 minute rounds.
JLP
Super Middleweight
Posts: 802
Joined: 07 Nov 2012, 05:42

Re: Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

Post by JLP »

SteveDow wrote:
Coco wrote:It's 4x2's
I thought all fights in the pros had to be 3 minute rounds? Obviously not!
No. Get down to some small hall shows and you'll see plenty of 4 x 2 mins and 6 x 2 mins and such like. I'm not a fan but it's there.
mickey1975
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 23149
Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 12:54

Re: Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

Post by mickey1975 »

SteveDow wrote:
Coco wrote:It's 4x2's
I thought all fights in the pros had to be 3 minute rounds? Obviously not!
two minute rounds are very common in british rings. Almost every card has them.
Rogers21
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 248
Joined: 13 Jun 2010, 18:47

Re: Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

Post by Rogers21 »

Riddick Blowe wrote:
Coco wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/boxing ... ntoff.html

The Yank looks little and fat, it should be a stroll for Flintoff
Should it really be a 'stroll' for a 35 year old who has never been in the ring in their life, against someone who is 2-0 with possibly some amateur experience too (can anyone clarify)?

I'm sure I could get myself in good shape and dwarf Ivan Calderon in a press conference, doesn't mean I would beat him.

The thing that keeps occurring to me before this fight is Zelenoff/Hartley. Zelenoff selected a really poor fighter who had the worst record going for his debut. Hartley had a record similar to Eric Crumble, and yet he came into the ring and waxed the floor with Zelenoff, looking like a killer in comparison. Doesn't seem to be much to rule out this being the same scenario. As poor as Dawson might be, he sounds like he has had a tough life and this might mean everything to him, whereas Flintoff has been earning good money playing cricket all his life...relatively comfortable in comparison.
he has an amateur record of 6-2-0 so has some fighting experience, fair play to Flintoff for taking actually stepping in the ring no matter how good or bad this guy may be
GreenLightning
Cruiserweight
Posts: 915
Joined: 20 Jul 2011, 15:23

Re: Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

Post by GreenLightning »

ShadrachSimmo wrote:
milpool wrote:Dawson pulled out of the fight against Kimbo and was replaced last minute by a bloke called Jesse Porter...
Who was subsequently starched in less than 30 seconds :lol:
Kimbos fights are so fixed its hilarious, so if this guy was a supposed Kimbo opponent....
jameswilson
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 13448
Joined: 08 Jan 2004, 18:01

Re: Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

Post by jameswilson »

GreenLightning wrote:
ShadrachSimmo wrote:
milpool wrote:Dawson pulled out of the fight against Kimbo and was replaced last minute by a bloke called Jesse Porter...
Who was subsequently starched in less than 30 seconds :lol:
Kimbos fights are so fixed its hilarious, so if this guy was a supposed Kimbo opponent....
I do remember seeing the end of one of Kimbo's boxing fights on youtube and the consencus seemed to be Kimbo was losing and then the opponent came out and got put down and stopped and it looked really iffy. I have to say to be fair I haven't seen a great many fights that I have immediately said were definately fixed but that was one of them.

Edit - I'v managed to find it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ4fUHNWUNk
housesecond
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 474
Joined: 16 Nov 2008, 10:00

Re: Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

Post by housesecond »

mickey1975 wrote:
SteveDow wrote:
Coco wrote:It's 4x2's
I thought all fights in the pros had to be 3 minute rounds? Obviously not!
two minute rounds are very common in british rings. Almost every card has them.
2 minute rounds yes, but 6x 2's, not 4 x 2's. I've never seen a bout over 4 two minute rounds that either wasn't
an exhibition or a female bout.
Adamj1987
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5400
Joined: 14 Oct 2008, 16:16

Re: Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

Post by Adamj1987 »

That kimbo ko was very soft
lillywhite14
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

Post by lillywhite14 »

TopGun wrote:
SteveDow wrote:Does anyone know who Flintoff has been sparring for this one?

Yeah I know who he has been sparring and let's just say I fancy Flintoff being stopped.
Interesting.

Is it 'biggy' from the behind the scenes show?
Boxingcutsman
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 783
Joined: 30 May 2012, 21:35

Re: Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

Post by Boxingcutsman »

I thought all fights in the pros had to be 3 minute rounds? Obviously not![/quote]
two minute rounds are very common in british rings. Almost every card has them.[/quote]
2 minute rounds yes, but 6x 2's, not 4 x 2's. I've never seen a bout over 4 two minute rounds that either wasn't
an exhibition or a female bout.[/quote]


I'm almost sure I watched Sid Razak fight Kid Galahad over 4 X 2's, but in fairness I think that's because Sid might of been restricted by the board, not sure of it but very possible, I think there used when either a boxer is restricted by the board over concerns or for proper novices like this pair of big sausages fighting tomorrow, they are almost has rare has rocking horse shit though :lol:
Fatsam
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 454
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 11:14

Re: Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

Post by Fatsam »

Unless the fix is in i am totally expecting freddie to see the headlights and get blown away in the first round.
dondada
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 8872
Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 10:55

Re: Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

Post by dondada »

housesecond wrote: 2 minute rounds yes, but 6x 2's, not 4 x 2's. I've never seen a bout over 4 two minute rounds that either wasn't
an exhibition or a female bout.
I've seen four-twos plenty of times. I often pray for four-twos.
Bard of Boxrec
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 13114
Joined: 22 Feb 2002, 20:00

Re: Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

Post by Bard of Boxrec »

Fatsam wrote:Unless the fix is in i am totally expecting freddie to see the headlights and get blown away in the first round.
I agree and that result is in my treble but I am going to cover it with the fight not to go the distance. BUT I can only find Paddy accepting this bet... what's going on
taffytoon
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1762
Joined: 17 Nov 2009, 18:15

Re: Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

Post by taffytoon »

A professional boxing match has to be a minimum of 8 minutes ( on paper, obviously stoppages happen) and has to be a minimum of 2 minutes per round and a max of 3 minutes per round, as long as you get the 8 minutes made up of any combination it is fine.
Last edited by taffytoon on 30 Nov 2012, 09:35, edited 2 times in total.
dberry
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3350
Joined: 05 Jan 2010, 02:15

Re: Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

Post by dberry »

taffytoon wrote:A professional boxing match has to be a minimum of 12 minutes ( on paper, obviously stoppages happen) and has to be a minimum of 2 minutes per round and a max of 3 minutes per round, as long as you get the 12 minutes made up of any combination it is fine.
Source of your information? 4x2's happen here in Australia as well, in fact I have fought a 3x2 pro fight (not my call) as well as 3x2's being common on TV Ringside fight s here in the seventies.
orbtastic
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 12549
Joined: 05 Dec 2006, 11:22

Re: Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

Post by orbtastic »

dberry wrote:
taffytoon wrote:A professional boxing match has to be a minimum of 12 minutes ( on paper, obviously stoppages happen) and has to be a minimum of 2 minutes per round and a max of 3 minutes per round, as long as you get the 12 minutes made up of any combination it is fine.
Source of your information? 4x2's happen here in Australia as well, in fact I have fought a 3x2 pro fight (not my call) as well as 3x2's being common on TV Ringside fight s here in the seventies.
He's wrong, it's 8 minutes:

"In all Contests the number of rounds shall be specified. No contest shall exceed 12 rounds nor be less than 8 minutes of actual boxing. Rounds shall be of 3 minute duration with an interval between each round of 1 minute. In Contests of 10 rounds or less the rounds may be of 2 minute duration."
Bard of Boxrec
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 13114
Joined: 22 Feb 2002, 20:00

Re: Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

Post by Bard of Boxrec »

The Dark Destroyer wrote:Anyone else dreading this fight? I just hope they've matched him well enough.
Whatever happens, it's 'Just Another Black Eye For Boxing'
jessi
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3008
Joined: 11 Jul 2010, 11:59

Re: Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

Post by jessi »

Riddick Blowe wrote:
The Dark Destroyer wrote:Anyone else dreading this fight? I just hope they've matched him well enough.
Whatever happens, it's 'Just Another Black Eye For Boxing'
But is it though ?
Think about all the cricket fans who never really followed boxing before Freddie turned pro, it's going to bring a new audience and give people ideas, if one school boy joins a boxing club because of flintoff or one spectator who never went to a boxing match before now becomes a fan of boxing how can that hurt ?
kells
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

Post by kells »

dawson will hav been paid well and know the script
stujones
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 27514
Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 15:08

Re: Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

Post by stujones »

It's going to be car crash. I saw the Yank at the weigh in and I thought - oh crikey they've just picked this guy up from the steet - he had some impressive jugs on him.

Then I watch the flintoff documentary in bits and saw how (frankly) awful he was sparring.... and I went I thought Jugs or no jugs - surely he's got to beat that.
jessi
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3008
Joined: 11 Jul 2010, 11:59

Re: Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

Post by jessi »

kells wrote:dawson will hav been paid well and know the script
Do you really believe that ? Isn't always better to not read the script and make double for the rematch ? This isn't snatch with one punch Mickey ! :TU:
taffytoon
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1762
Joined: 17 Nov 2009, 18:15

Re: Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

Post by taffytoon »

orbtastic wrote:
dberry wrote:
taffytoon wrote:A professional boxing match has to be a minimum of 12 minutes ( on paper, obviously stoppages happen) and has to be a minimum of 2 minutes per round and a max of 3 minutes per round, as long as you get the 12 minutes made up of any combination it is fine.
Source of your information? 4x2's happen here in Australia as well, in fact I have fought a 3x2 pro fight (not my call) as well as 3x2's being common on TV Ringside fight s here in the seventies.
He's wrong, it's 8 minutes:

"In all Contests the number of rounds shall be specified. No contest shall exceed 12 rounds nor be less than 8 minutes of actual boxing. Rounds shall be of 3 minute duration with an interval between each round of 1 minute. In Contests of 10 rounds or less the rounds may be of 2 minute duration."
Sorry guys Orb is correct ( I was going to go into the max of 12 rounds and edited my post crap- my bad) rule 3.7 covers the duration and is covered very well by Orb in the above
mickey1975
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 23149
Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 12:54

Re: Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

Post by mickey1975 »

kells wrote:dawson will hav been paid well and know the script
I agree. Happy ending to the documentary and then retirement for Andrew. If they were even going to risk him getting beat, they would have given a Brit the job.
whiskey
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 11956
Joined: 27 Mar 2007, 14:52

Re: Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

Post by whiskey »

All the best to him, be interesting regardless.
Bard of Boxrec
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 13114
Joined: 22 Feb 2002, 20:00

Re: Flintoff fight - who has it wrong?

Post by Bard of Boxrec »

jessi wrote:
Riddick Blowe wrote:
The Dark Destroyer wrote:Anyone else dreading this fight? I just hope they've matched him well enough.
Whatever happens, it's 'Just Another Black Eye For Boxing'
But is it though ?
Think about all the cricket fans who never really followed boxing before Freddie turned pro, it's going to bring a new audience and give people ideas, if one school boy joins a boxing club because of flintoff or one spectator who never went to a boxing match before now becomes a fan of boxing how can that hurt ?
By Flintoff being wiped out in seconds. Which is likely to happen.
Post Reply