BoxRec

DMA1987 wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:In a top ten, FW's greatest fights make Eddie and his dads look like crap. I dare you to compare the two. You probably don't even know some of the fights FW has been involved with...

And since Eddie has started promoting? Because that's who we are really talking about here. I am not arguing Warren has been involved in mega fights, I'm arguing that present day Matchroom > FW Promotions, but listening to people, you would never believe it.

columbo wrote:
There's double standards on here Mickey. Warren gets absolutely slated for some of the matches he makes but yet Eddie can do no wrong.

And you aren't part of that double standard, albeit in reverse?

Il criticise both! However FW doesnt try and come across as your best mate and say how he came into boxing because he loves the sport and how it's been marginalised by mismatches. When Eddie came onto the scene he said he wanted to make 50-50 fights and make boxing mainstream again. He hasnt lived up to his promises.

columbo wrote:

ThereByTheGrace wrote:Columbo I told you it was Senchenko last week; it was written in the stars!!!

It's not a bad step up for Brook - he'll stop him late and it'll get more on the bandwagon if Senchenko beat a past-it Hatton.

You did say it to be fair .... still think it's a joke though. Is Senchenko definietly a better fighter than Carson Jones though? He beat a shot Hatton but aside from that who has he beaten? Jones beat Said Quali who is a decent fringe level guy. Better than anyone Senchenko has beaten IMO.

Hatton said he quit because he knew he didn't have it in him but he could have took it 12 rounds and got the points verdict if he wanted to. So if Ricky was shot .......... well

macaca wrote:

columbo wrote:

ThereByTheGrace wrote:Columbo I told you it was Senchenko last week; it was written in the stars!!!

It's not a bad step up for Brook - he'll stop him late and it'll get more on the bandwagon if Senchenko beat a past-it Hatton.

You did say it to be fair .... still think it's a joke though. Is Senchenko definietly a better fighter than Carson Jones though? He beat a shot Hatton but aside from that who has he beaten? Jones beat Said Quali who is a decent fringe level guy. Better than anyone Senchenko has beaten IMO.

Hatton said he quit because he knew he didn't have it in him but he could have took it 12 rounds and got the points verdict if he wanted to. So if Ricky was shot .......... well

He was stopped by a body shot. I dont think he was getting up from that to be fair.

columbo wrote: Il criticise both! However FW doesnt try and come across as your best mate and say how he came into boxing because he loves the sport and how it's been marginalised by mismatches. When Eddie came onto the scene he said he wanted to make 50-50 fights and make boxing mainstream again. He hasnt lived up to his promises.

Do you? All I ever see from you is jumping to criticise matchroom whenever, and I mean literally whenever, you smell the opportunity. By the same token you always make excuses for Warren.

This months excuse is that 'he doesn't try and be your mate', which apparently means he can do whatever he wants.

Hearn has made some great matchups, and has been involved in some great fights, especially in his still young promoting career.

DMA1987 wrote:

columbo wrote: Il criticise both! However FW doesnt try and come across as your best mate and say how he came into boxing because he loves the sport and how it's been marginalised by mismatches. When Eddie came onto the scene he said he wanted to make 50-50 fights and make boxing mainstream again. He hasnt lived up to his promises.

Do you? All I ever see from you is jumping to criticise matchroom whenever, and I mean literally whenever, you smell the opportunity. By the same token you always make excuses for Warren.

This months excuse is that 'he doesn't try and be your mate', which apparently means he can do whatever he wants.

Hearn has made some great matchups, and has been involved in some great fights, especially in his still young promoting career.

I could say the same for you mate. You defend Hearn at every opportunity. The same goes for Brook. Serious question, if Brook wasnt from Sheffield like yourself would you defend him so vigourously?

columbo wrote:

DMA1987 wrote:

columbo wrote: Il criticise both! However FW doesnt try and come across as your best mate and say how he came into boxing because he loves the sport and how it's been marginalised by mismatches. When Eddie came onto the scene he said he wanted to make 50-50 fights and make boxing mainstream again. He hasnt lived up to his promises.

Do you? All I ever see from you is jumping to criticise matchroom whenever, and I mean literally whenever, you smell the opportunity. By the same token you always make excuses for Warren.

This months excuse is that 'he doesn't try and be your mate', which apparently means he can do whatever he wants.

Hearn has made some great matchups, and has been involved in some great fights, especially in his still young promoting career.

I could say the same for you mate. You defend Hearn at every opportunity. The same goes for Brook. Serious question, if Brook wasnt from Sheffield like yourself would you defend him so vigourously?

. I defend Brook against unfair criticism, its not like I continually make Bnovelist-esque posts about how incredible he is.

As for Matchroom. I have said this fight is disappointing, that's not a defence. You called the fight a joke, it isn't - but it isn't 'massive' or 'huge' either.

[

columbo wrote:

DMA1987 wrote:

columbo wrote: Il criticise both! However FW doesnt try and come across as your best mate and say how he came into boxing because he loves the sport and how it's been marginalised by mismatches. When Eddie came onto the scene he said he wanted to make 50-50 fights and make boxing mainstream again. He hasnt lived up to his promises.

Do you? All I ever see from you is jumping to criticise matchroom whenever, and I mean literally whenever, you smell the opportunity. By the same token you always make excuses for Warren.

This months excuse is that 'he doesn't try and be your mate', which apparently means he can do whatever he wants.

Hearn has made some great matchups, and has been involved in some great fights, especially in his still young promoting career.

I could say the same for you mate. You defend Hearn at every opportunity. The same goes for Brook. Serious question, if Brook wasnt from Sheffield like yourself would you defend him so vigourously?

. I defend Brook against unfair criticism, its not like I continually make Bnovelist-esque posts about how incredible he is.

As for Matchroom. I have said this fight is disappointing, that's not a defence. You called the fight a joke, it isn't - but it isn't 'massive' or 'huge' either.[/quote]


Why is the criticism against Brook unfair though? He's been a pro for 9/10 years and he still hasnt fought for a world title or even a top level opponent and he's 30-0.

The detective has a point

I don't see why it's a poor fight.

It's obviously not a huge name, but Senchenko is decent and coming off a win over a British boxing legend.

crusader wrote:I don't see why it's a poor fight.

It's obviously not a huge name, but Senchenko is decent and coming off a win over a British boxing legend.

A shot british legend who hadnt fought for over 3 years. Ps getting stopped by Malignaggi doesnt show great form.

And?

The win over Hatton, however shot he was, makes Senchenko far more marketable.

crusader wrote:And?

The win over Hatton, however shot he was, makes Senchenko far more marketable.

What do you mean and....

Not a terrible fight at all.If Kell can do a proper job on Senchenko his stock will rise.
Stevenson, Geale plus Grovesey Eddie is making some good fights.
Shite how about access to Sky boxing only subscription?

Final round wrote:Not a terrible fight at all.If Kell can do a proper job on Senchenko his stock will rise.
Stevenson, Geale plus Grovesey Eddie is making some good fights.
Shite how about access to Sky boxing only subscription?

Senchenko has already been stopped by Malignaggi so it doesnt mean shit.

columbo wrote:

crusader wrote:And?

The win over Hatton, however shot he was, makes Senchenko far more marketable.

What do you mean and....

Your take on Hatton's state misses my point,which is that Sencenko's win over him makes this fight marketable.

crusader wrote:

columbo wrote:

crusader wrote:And?

The win over Hatton, however shot he was, makes Senchenko far more marketable.

What do you mean and....

Your take on Hatton's state misses my point,which is that Sencenko's win over him makes this fight marketable.

I dont give a shit how marketable it makes him, it's still a rubbish fight.

columbo wrote:

Final round wrote:Not a terrible fight at all.If Kell can do a proper job on Senchenko his stock will rise.
Stevenson, Geale plus Grovesey Eddie is making some good fights.
Shite how about access to Sky boxing only subscription?

Senchenko has already been stopped by Malignaggi so it doesnt mean poo.

Paulie almost beat Broner Columbo! He's a good fighter as is Brook who should if he's that good stop Senchenko in style

Final round wrote:

columbo wrote:

Final round wrote:Not a terrible fight at all.If Kell can do a proper job on Senchenko his stock will rise.
Stevenson, Geale plus Grovesey Eddie is making some good fights.
Shite how about access to Sky boxing only subscription?

Senchenko has already been stopped by Malignaggi so it doesnt mean poo.

Paulie almost beat Broner Columbo! He's a good fighter as is Brook who should if he's that good stop Senchenko in style

Broner was also fighting his first fight up at welterweight though and he didnt fight a very smart fight.

columbo wrote: Broner was also fighting his first fight up at welterweight though and he didnt fight a very smart fight.

Oh mate. Excuse after excuse. So determined.

It's not a good fight, but I don't think it's poor either.

Senchenko is probably top 15 or so, has momentum due to his high-profile KO of Hatton, and is arguably among the best 2 fighters that Brook has faced; it's not as if Brook is an established world-beater like Bradley, Pacquiao, Marquez, etc, and dropping a level below where's he tends to fight. I'd like Brook to fight a legitimate world-class opponent, but this isn't bad.

DMA1987 wrote:

columbo wrote: Broner was also fighting his first fight up at welterweight though and he didnt fight a very smart fight.

Oh mate. Excuse after excuse. So determined.

Mate I could say likewise. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this

Don't see much wrong with it - if anything people expecting/hoping for a Guerrero were the fools. Would Guerrero seriously go from fighting Mayweather in Vegas to fighting a bloke he's probably never heard of at Sheffield Arena? Not likely is it.

Senchenko, whilst not an elite 147lb-er, is a solid pro. Probably not at the same level as other recent world champions given the way he won it but at the same time he's relatively durable, technically pretty good and does represent a step up in opponent for Kell. A win over Senchenko probably gets him in the world title mix fairly soon, even a possibility of a Mayweather fight if he really does want to fight in Britain.

I think at this stage it would be a bit too much of a jump up for Kell to face the likes of Guerrero, especially coming off a long lay-off.

crusader wrote:It's not a good fight, but I don't think it's poor either.

Senchenko is probably top 15 or so, has momentum due to his high-profile KO of Hatton, and is arguably among the best 2 fighters that Brook has faced; it's not as if Brook is an established world-beater like Bradley, Pacquiao, Marquez, etc, and dropping a level below where's he tends to fight. I'd like Brook to fight a legitimate world-class opponent, but this isn't bad.

Hatton wasnt even established at welterweight though so that adds to the argument that it's a mediocre fight. Also saying he is arguably among the two best fighters Brook has fought says more about Brook's opposition than anything else.

crusader wrote:It's not a good fight, but I don't think it's poor either.

Senchenko is probably top 15 or so, has momentum due to his high-profile KO of Hatton, and is arguably among the best 2 fighters that Brook has faced; it's not as if Brook is an established world-beater like Bradley, Pacquiao, Marquez, etc, and dropping a level below where's he tends to fight. I'd like Brook to fight a legitimate world-class opponent, but this isn't bad.

Pretty much exactly where I'm at with it.

columbo wrote: Senchenko has already been stopped by Malignaggi so it doesnt mean poo.

Paulie almost beat Broner Columbo! He's a good fighter as is Brook who should if he's that good stop Senchenko in style[/quote]
Broner was also fighting his first fight up at welterweight though and he didnt fight a very smart fight.[/quote]

That's by the by , pretty much everyone thought he'd get tenderised but he's a smart clever fighter better than Senchenko! Look I would have prefered a Maidana, Guerroro or even a Lopez but Kells just beat Carson Jones so you can understand why they are not clambering to get in with him.