BoxRec

Posted: **09 Oct 2015, 12:52**

Lydell Rhodes is the guy who smacked down Charlie Zelenoff after he attacked Floyd Mayweather Sr. from behind. He had Zelenoff cowering like a little girl. But he was very lucky that is all that happened to him. Jumping an old man from behind in his own gym and with all his boys aroubnd is normally punished by much worse than Rhodes did to him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0xkyhbs85E

As for the HW fight. Unless Thompson has hit the age wall and fallen way down he should clean up Scott.

Posted: **12 Oct 2015, 01:32**

malik scott is featherfisted and tony thompson is older then the hills so its malik scott via dec

Posted: **12 Oct 2015, 05:54**

asdfjkl wrote:

Well I'm sorry, but if that fight isn't fixed, then America got a serious problem, their league simply can't be this bad, despite he couldn't win against any European either.

Not sure how a fight not being fixed means America has a serious problem. Surely a somewhat overrated and quite fragile fighter quitting against a big puncher would be less of a problem than the next big thing in the US heavyweight scene and future champion being involved in a fixed fight.

Anyway, conspiracy theories aside, Scott is a decent boxer and looks ok when fighting opponents clearly below him, but he seems to lack mental toughness and folds when things don't go his way.
I think the wily old dog, Thompson, will have enough in his locker and will find a way to win, even if he has to make it ugly.

Posted: **12 Oct 2015, 07:30**

PredatorHayds wrote:
Tony1244 wrote:
asdfjkl wrote:For me Thompson is still the favorit, especially is Malik Scott dives again, just like against Deontay Wilder.

It's almost impossible to prove or disprove a dive. I have dive suspicions on Bonecrusher Smith-Tim Witherspoon, Ali-Liston 2, and I hate to say it, Foreman-Moorer.

But who really knows? I think Wilder-Scott was legit, but we can argue about it till the cows come home because no one can prove, or disprove anything.

I was always sceptical of Moorer-Foreman. Until

Read Teddy Atlas book and he said the ending punch was that hard it actually completly split Moorers gumshield.

Seems legit. Also didn't help Moorer was in cruise control at that point and didn't see it coming.

In this documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbfjlJoqZv8 it's said that Moorer was out on his feet from the 1,2 that Foreman landed before the KO. He disguised it but didn't get out of the way so Foreman repeated it and flattened him. I can believe that. About 20.35 of the video

Posted: **12 Oct 2015, 13:15**

I was always sceptical of Moorer-Foreman. Until

Read Teddy Atlas book and he said the ending punch was that hard it actually completly split Moorers gumshield.

Seems legit. Also didn't help Moorer was in cruise control at that point and didn't see it coming.[/quote]

In this documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbfjlJoqZv8 it's said that Moorer was out on his feet from the 1,2 that Foreman landed before the KO. He disguised it but didn't get out of the way so Foreman repeated it and flattened him. I can believe that. About 20.35 of the video[/quote]

Foreman-Moorer was likely legit. So was Wilder-Scott IMO.

Posted: **12 Oct 2015, 17:14**

PredatorHayds wrote:
Tony1244 wrote:
asdfjkl wrote:For me Thompson is still the favorit, especially is Malik Scott dives again, just like against Deontay Wilder.

It's almost impossible to prove or disprove a dive. I have dive suspicions on Bonecrusher Smith-Tim Witherspoon, Ali-Liston 2, and I hate to say it, Foreman-Moorer.

But who really knows? I think Wilder-Scott was legit, but we can argue about it till the cows come home because no one can prove, or disprove anything.

I was always sceptical of Moorer-Foreman. Until

Read Teddy Atlas book and he said the ending punch was that hard it actually completly split Moorers gumshield.

Seems legit. Also didn't help Moorer was in cruise control at that point and didn't see it coming.

Posted: **12 Oct 2015, 17:15**

PredatorHayds wrote:
Tony1244 wrote:
asdfjkl wrote:For me Thompson is still the favorit, especially is Malik Scott dives again, just like against Deontay Wilder.

It's almost impossible to prove or disprove a dive. I have dive suspicions on Bonecrusher Smith-Tim Witherspoon, Ali-Liston 2, and I hate to say it, Foreman-Moorer.

But who really knows? I think Wilder-Scott was legit, but we can argue about it till the cows come home because no one can prove, or disprove anything.

I was always sceptical of Moorer-Foreman. Until

Read Teddy Atlas book and he said the ending punch was that hard it actually completly split Moorers gumshield.

Seems legit. Also didn't help Moorer was in cruise control at that point and didn't see it coming.

Though it was an arm punch, George was one of the heaviest arm punchers I've ever seen, he generated so much power from those kind of shots.

Posted: **13 Oct 2015, 11:17**

Perseus wrote:
Badhusker wrote:Did Thompson ever get a ban in the US from failing his PED test a while back? I read that he said it was his high blood pressure meds, but didn't provide evidence to satisfy people over-seas. I believe he was banned in the UK and Australia?

Anyway, If Tony gets to have his "Tiger juice", he may be favored. Personally I would lean towards Scott for a decision win. Tony is getting old.
Depends on who you decide to believe.
A statement from Thompson's attorney said the BBBC and UKAD accepted his paperwork.
Here is a link to the BS article:http://www.BS.com/tony-thompso ... est--94059

Can anybody here check fightfax?

Also, saying he didn't provide evidence just means the commission decided not to recognize any documents he provides.
Don't buy into the illusion that a prescription is automatic permission to have whatever was prescribed in your system.
Doctors have no authority over boxing commissions, they are under no obligation at all to honor perfectly legit prescriptions.
Commissions can say: " Yep, you have a valid prescription, we the commission recognize your prescription and we're still going to suspend you for X amount of time".

A fair description of Thompson would be: overweight male in his early 40's
Yeah, guys that fit that description are never on high blood pressure medication

As for the Thompson/Scott fight..............I like this fight although I don't expect it to be a particularly good fight.
Tough call, I've never been impressed with Scott but TT is old and has always been slow.........I'm going with Scott via tight decision.

Worth clarifying one point. Thompson's ban was by UK Anti-Doping, not the BBBofC. UKAD deals with pretty much all sports in the UK (and is not connected to the BBBofC), and its detailed decisions for all recent bans can be found on its websites - so it administers bans to rugby players, weightlifters etc, not just boxers. The pro boxing cases are at http://www.ukad.org.uk/anti-doping-rule ... tegory=521 , including the Thompson one. Click on the downward arrow on the right of the entry, then on the pdf link that comes up in the details box.

Posted: **16 Oct 2015, 11:09**

olij999 wrote:
Perseus wrote:
Badhusker wrote:Did Thompson ever get a ban in the US from failing his PED test a while back? I read that he said it was his high blood pressure meds, but didn't provide evidence to satisfy people over-seas. I believe he was banned in the UK and Australia?

Anyway, If Tony gets to have his "Tiger juice", he may be favored. Personally I would lean towards Scott for a decision win. Tony is getting old.
Depends on who you decide to believe.
A statement from Thompson's attorney said the BBBC and UKAD accepted his paperwork.
Here is a link to the BS article:http://www.BS.com/tony-thompso ... est--94059

Can anybody here check fightfax?

Also, saying he didn't provide evidence just means the commission decided not to recognize any documents he provides.
Don't buy into the illusion that a prescription is automatic permission to have whatever was prescribed in your system.
Doctors have no authority over boxing commissions, they are under no obligation at all to honor perfectly legit prescriptions.
Commissions can say: " Yep, you have a valid prescription, we the commission recognize your prescription and we're still going to suspend you for X amount of time".

A fair description of Thompson would be: overweight male in his early 40's
Yeah, guys that fit that description are never on high blood pressure medication

As for the Thompson/Scott fight..............I like this fight although I don't expect it to be a particularly good fight.
Tough call, I've never been impressed with Scott but TT is old and has always been slow.........I'm going with Scott via tight decision.
Worth clarifying one point. Thompson's ban was by UK Anti-Doping, not the BBBofC. UKAD deals with pretty much all sports in the UK (and is not connected to the BBBofC), and its detailed decisions for all recent bans can be found on its websites - so it administers bans to rugby players, weightlifters etc, not just boxers. The pro boxing cases are at http://www.ukad.org.uk/anti-doping-rule ... tegory=521 , including the Thompson one. Click on the downward arrow on the right of the entry, then on the pdf link that comes up in the details box.

Nice link, thank you for providing it, very interesting.
I read the pdf and I feel like it pretty much confirmed my above statement.
UKAD being under no obligation to recognize prescriptons or any other medical documents decided they were going to reject anything Thompson provided.

The first thing that jumped out at me:
Section 4: The Athlete was unrepresented and appeared via video-link from the USA.
WHAT?
If you don't get an attorney, you just are not giving yourself a reasonable chance of success.

At sections 32 and 33 it says: Mr Thompson had given a convincing explanation as to how the hydrochlorothiazide had entered his body as a result of his use of Losartan HCTZ 50/12.5mg; a medication which he was taking for his high blood pressure.
- 8 -
33. UKAD accepted as did the Tribunal the medical evidence supporting Mr Thompson's assertion that his use of hydrochlorothiazide was purely therapeutic, and was not intended to enhance his performance. The Tribunal was also satisfied on this issue from the evidence set out in the correspondence from Alexandria Healthcare Centre dated 23 September 2013 and 11 November 2013, and the disclosure by Mr Thompson of "high blood pressure" in his DCF.

They then issued the suspension regardless.
I'm thinking an actual attorney may have been able to help Mr. Thompson here.

At section 7 of the pdf: The boxer must also provide evidence of his authorisation to box from his domestic governing body.

First off that statement tells me that they will recognize suspensions from foreign commissions(if they are made aware of the suspension) which is great.
I wish commissions here would do the same but as long we have boxers with legitimate prescriptions for high blood pressure medication getting suspended commissions around the world have a valid reason for ignoring suspensions from other jurisdictions.

The catch-22 in this case is: The subject boxer has high blood pressure that needs to be controlled with medication.
If he stops taking that medication would he be allowed in the ring to begin with?
With a good commission overseeing the event, not likely.

They keep referencing a"partially complete" TUE form which is merely legalese for failing to cross a "T", dot an "I" or some other such mistake on on the document.
Considering the fact that they repeatedly use such a vague statement without ever saying what was actually not done it can be reasonably assumed something of that nature is the problem with his "partially complete" document. Everything else in the pdf is detailed, the "partially complete" document is the one and only part left to interpretation by the reader.

Section 57: This is no doubt the result of his strict discipline in adhering to a rigorous training regime.
Really?
Anybody can look at the spare tire TT is carrying around and see that by any reasonable measure he is at least 30 lbs overweight.
Nobody gets fat by "adhering to a rigorous training regime".

The pdf very clearly states that Thompson convinced UKAD that his medication is for legitimate use but they issued the suspension anyway.
Thompson should have hired a lawyer...

Posted: **18 Oct 2015, 04:51**

Not a bad match-up in terms of their places in the division and how competitive I think the bout will be, but I suspect that it will be a tough watch.

Posted: **21 Oct 2015, 00:45**

crusader wrote:Not a bad match-up in terms of their places in the division and how competitive I think the bout will be, but I suspect that it will be a tough watch.

ANY Malik Scott fight is a tough watch.

Posted: **22 Oct 2015, 07:08**

Scott 1/1
Thompson 4/5
Paddy Power
No MOV odds at present though TT has been backed....

Posted: **22 Oct 2015, 14:29**

wasnt malik scott banned ?

this should be a snore fest

i bet no punches are thrown in the first 3 rounds

Posted: **22 Oct 2015, 20:23**

funso banjo baby wrote:wasnt malik scott banned ?

this should be a snore fest

i bet no punches are thrown in the first 3 rounds

What would Scott be banned for? If anyone should be out of the two, it should be Thompson for failing his PED test.

Posted: **22 Oct 2015, 21:30**

I don't think this would be a very interesting fight..

Posted: **23 Oct 2015, 11:34**

who cares about this fight.
when my hemroids act up an I cant sleep, I watch VHS of these 2 guys. they are boring as hell. especially that malik

Posted: **29 Oct 2015, 18:59**

WEIGHTS:

Thompson 263, Scott 235

Rhodes 138.8, Lipinets 139.8

Starks 148, Figueroa 149.2

Cruz 150, Abbruzzese 155.6

McGirt 162, Walker 167.4 (Walker has 1 hour to lose 2.4 pounds)

Russell 121, Melendez 121.2

Davis 134, Cruz 133.2

King Figueroa 186.6, Miller 180.2

Posted: **30 Oct 2015, 19:34**

littlekinny wrote:Scott 1/1
Thompson 4/5
Paddy Power
No MOV odds at present though TT has been backed....

Taken a pretty heavy punt on Thompson by ko/tko/dq.

He hits pretty hard and Scott has zero heart (wilder/chisora).

Posted: **30 Oct 2015, 21:57**

I think Thompson wins this. We won't have to wait much longer to find out.

Posted: **30 Oct 2015, 23:55**

That was painful viewing.

Posted: **30 Oct 2015, 23:58**

That was awful announcing/fight. Thompson old and Malik still sucks.

Posted: **31 Oct 2015, 00:04**

So what's happening? Is it over?

Posted: **31 Oct 2015, 00:19**

Did anyone at all really expect a barnburner from this match up?
We got exactly what could be expected of it, a tepid 10 round affair.
But, let's give credit where credit is due. Scott came in & did exactly what he was supposed to do. He was the busier, more focused fighter & he showed heart by getting up off the floor to win fairly wide on points.
It was a good, solid win for him at this stage of his career & should lead to another couple of paydays in crossroads-type match ups in the future. And, imo, this puts to rest all those theories about his having "laid down" & "dogged it" vs Wilder.
As for Thompson, he's really beginning to show his age, but can still be a factor by separating the men from the boys. Especially at the international level.

Posted: **31 Oct 2015, 00:34**

Scott was way faster than Thompson. Turned out to be a good styles match-up for Scott, since he was too fast and big enough that his vulnerable chin wasn't in major danger. Also, Thompson seems like he's slipping.

Posted: **31 Oct 2015, 01:14**

Tony Thompson really showed his age tonight, first time i've seem him super sluggish but yet he still knocked Scott down, was the similar side of the head shot Dentoy Ko'd him with, seems like he has a weak spot in that area, both looked pretty bad

BoxRec

Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th

Re: Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th

Re: Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th

Re: Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th

Re: Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th

Re: Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th

Re: Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th

Re: Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th

Re: Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th

Re: Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th

Re: Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th

Re: Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th

Re: Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th

Re: Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th

Re: Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th

Re: Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th

Re: Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th

Re: Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th

Re: Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th

Re: Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th

Re: Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th

Re: Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th

Re: Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th

Re: Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th

Re: Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th

Re: Tony Thompson vs Malik Scott - October 30th