Page 2 of 2
Posted: 08 Apr 2006, 13:53
by steve689
On a totally unrelated matter where is Boxingchat these days?
Posted: 08 Apr 2006, 19:56
by KO Artist
steve689 wrote:on a totally unrelated matter where is Boxingchat these days?
He's got his old chap stuck in the back of a bloke who was tried for rape at the old bailey. The same bloke was a member of the NF, years ago.
Posted: 09 Apr 2006, 20:19
by Mick Sturbs
Tell us more, strong statements you must have facts?
Posted: 10 Apr 2006, 05:11
by KO Artist
Mick Sturbs wrote:Tell us more, strong statements you must have facts?
Yes. Statement one has been public knowledge for 30 years. Statement two relates to the same period and is well known within government intelligence departments.
Posted: 10 Apr 2006, 05:42
by Lenny
Just going by boxrec records max the fight was at 147 and Cassiani has mostly fought at around that weight. Looks a big puncher and at 6ft 1 is obviously big for the weight.
Collazo looked quite good til he got caught, boxing in and out very well although didn't look to have much power at all. If the fight goes ahead is going to be easily the slickest guy Hatton has ever fought and should cause Hatton a few problems if Ricky is not up for this.
Posted: 10 Apr 2006, 08:07
by Max Molyneux
Lenny Albert wrote:Just going by boxrec records max the fight was at 147 and Cassiani has mostly fought at around that weight. Looks a big puncher and at 6ft 1 is obviously big for the weight.
Collazo looked quite good til he got caught, boxing in and out very well although didn't look to have much power at all. If the fight goes ahead is going to be easily the slickest guy Hatton has ever fought and should cause Hatton a few problems if Ricky is not up for this.
Checking the schedule though it said Light Middle.
147½ Collazo Edwin Cassiani 147½
Yeah it's light middle as their half a pound over.
Posted: 10 Apr 2006, 19:08
by Mick Sturbs
KO Artist wrote:Mick Sturbs wrote:Tell us more, strong statements you must have facts?
Yes. Statement one has been public knowledge for 30 years. Statement two relates to the same period and is well known within government intelligence departments.
What is, cut the cryptic stuff and say who and what you are talking about. If you have facts it is okay to spill the beans is it not?
Either shit or get of the toilet.
Posted: 11 Apr 2006, 06:43
by KO Artist
Mick Sturbs wrote:KO Artist wrote:Mick Sturbs wrote:Tell us more, strong statements you must have facts?
Yes. Statement one has been public knowledge for 30 years. Statement two relates to the same period and is well known within government intelligence departments.
What is, cut the cryptic stuff and say who and what you are talking about. If you have facts it is okay to spill the beans is it not?
Either shit or get of the toilet.
The facts will not be published by me. They may however be published by a sunday newspaper.
Posted: 11 Apr 2006, 09:32
by boxingchat
KO Artist wrote:Mick Sturbs wrote:KO Artist wrote:
Yes. Statement one has been public knowledge for 30 years. Statement two relates to the same period and is well known within government intelligence departments.
What is, cut the cryptic stuff and say who and what you are talking about. If you have facts it is okay to spill the beans is it not?
Either shit or get of the toilet.
The facts will not be published by me. They may however be published by a sunday newspaper.
Yawn, Yawn, Yawn....Another one who lacks the minerals to state what they are hinting at. You cannot be sued for facts so go ahead and say what you are getting at or crawl back into your grubby little hole.
Posted: 11 Apr 2006, 09:34
by nickd
