BoxRec

Posted: **18 Jul 2011, 06:09**

Almost any word is potentially actionable when you're dealing with certain people.

I don't think farce was too strong, personally. As I've said, even if the injury (and there's no doubt whatsoever in my mind that he's badly crocked) was completely unforeseen, the scenes were still farcical. There's no escaping this.

You're right - Burns was in no position to answer questions about Cook - those should have been directed towards his people.

Posted: **18 Jul 2011, 06:12**

Buncey wrote:I would imagine that everybody on here screaming about 'disgrace' etc would be very welcome to meet with Nicky and Paul Cook to discuss their outrage!

Adios.

What a ridiculous, cheap comment to sign off with.
So let's get this right Buncey, people are treated to a 'world title' fight, which subsequently ends in seconds. It then emerges that bookies suspended betting because of suspicious patterns and others report that they were told before the fight that Cook's back was completely 'gone'. In light of that context however, you feel that people are wrong to refer to it as a 'disgrace'?

I suspect you're donning the rose-tinted specs due to personal relationships and would have a very different view if it had been a foreign fighter you had no knowledge of.

Posted: **18 Jul 2011, 06:20**

I was pleased with Sky's more aggressive nature this weekend. I far prefer it to the safety first attitude we've had up to now. I don't think Adam has anything to apologise for, just as I don't think Buncey would apologise for calling something as he sees it. If the viewers have a question, and that question is put forward, then that's a positive thing as far as I'm concerned. I agree Burns shouldn't have had the questions directed at him, I actually felt very sorry for him. However, there is time to comment further after the event and I'm in favour of instinct leading the questioning in these scenarios. If that means sometimes the question is directed to the wrong person in the heat of the moment, I can live with it, as long as the tone continues to the relevant parties - which I felt it did.

Seeing as Adam was getting hammered on here at one point, I think it's only fair to say there has been a much welcomed overall improvement in the coverage over recent weeks/months. McGuigan plays a big part in that for me, as an aside I like Moore and Barker when they're on too. I think Adam Booth would make a good addition, I'd be interested in his reading of fights, in fact I could say that about a lot of coaches, as it would help understand how their minds work when they're in the corner themselves. As I say though, from the stand against Khan, to the approach at the weekend, Sky have made a good and welcome improvement.

For the record, I don't blame Nicky at all, he wanted it and as I've said earlier, I hope it doesn't (and neither should it) tarnish the good times. I do think the betting patterns warrant further investigation though, just leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Posted: **18 Jul 2011, 06:30**

Buncey wrote:
..Bizarre, freak, unbelievable, crazy...all work better than the potentially actionable 'farce' - let's not imagine we don't know what the implication is with that word!

What's the implications with the word farce then Buncey ? Sounds about right to me, because it was a f***ing farce.

Farce : A light dramatic work in which highly improbable plot situations, exaggerated characters, and often slapstick elements are used for humorous effect.

Posted: **18 Jul 2011, 06:30**

Amazing. At a time when the freedom of press is under scrutiny most 'so called' boxing journalists don`t seem to know the meaning of the word investigate.

A SKILLED journalist is not worried about rocking the boat but dedicated to digging out the facts from the fiction.

The way you beat a bully is by standing up to him.

Intimidation must be challenged.

Posted: **18 Jul 2011, 06:33**

Bunce wont criticise anyone in UK boxing, trust me. He's too worried about possibly offending anyone he might have to work with in future. Fact.

Posted: **18 Jul 2011, 06:35**

MightyWarrior wrote:Bunce wont criticise anyone in UK boxing, trust me. He's too worried about possibly offending anyone he might have to work with in future. Fact.

That's pretty clear just on this thread

Posted: **18 Jul 2011, 06:37**

leforge wrote:
gobbles wrote:
hurlock wrote:great opening sentence to robert smith :!:

what did you make of this farce

both him & warren did not like the flack & should just hang there head's :!:

i heard nicky cook tell the doctor that he had taken a cortiszone injection :!: im glad nicky got a pay day, but what does this say for boxing in terms of competing for a so called coveted world title!

sky should be able to give promoters penalties for such farcial outcomes as they will lose viewers intrest which is at a rapid decline.

Why are you pleased Cook got a payday? It was him covering the injury up, it was him ripping off the fans.

That's typical of this - blame the Board, blame the promoter. The people who knew were Cook and his Dad. It wasn't the Board doctor that gave his a cortisone injection. If you want to give him a payday, send him some money. He pulled a fast one on all the fans who turned up and paid. And he's f*cked up his reputation doing it.

Interestingly, betting was suspended on the fight by several bookies after Burns was backed to win in round 3 from 20s down to 7/4. You could get double figure odds on every other round. Fortunately, the back injury prevented finding out if anything dodgy was behind that.
Agree about Cook very shameful behaviour knew he was injured before the fight only went in there to get paid. He should never been allowed to fight for a world title though after one 6 rounder. I did not see his fight at 02 as it was on before I arrived how did he manage 6 rounds that day!

Posted: **18 Jul 2011, 06:49**

Ed and Adam asked the right questions. It was a farce. Yes a farce. People paid hard earned cash to watch that during a time when many are feeling the pinch of cuts.

Can you imagine what Jeremy Paxman might have done?

Are we getting to the stage when it will be against the law for a journalist to actually ask a question?

Cook had an on going condition.

Who was aware of that condition before the fight?

Posted: **18 Jul 2011, 06:53**

OK, fighters have injuries. My point is that in the hours and minutes before the first bell nobody on SKY was talking about the bad back. That's a fact. When it's over everybody on SKY is talking about it...too late!
Adam Smith sanctioned the fight. Fact. He liked the look of it. Fact. He then had a face like a slapped kipper when he talked to Burns at the end. I will watch it again and find his words, but I remember thinking that they were not particularly clever.
I think that keypad warriors need to be reminded that they are writing about boxers - some of the suggestions here are a bit strong and lacking in respect. Brave behind a screen.
I think farce is the wrong word; an opinion based on being ringside as a kid at fights since 1971. I would use another word, but then experience and knowledge are NOT required on an internet forum. However, it does still matter on a newspaper.
And remember that unlike everybody on here and at ringside in the press pit on Saturday I have been sued (3) and banned (1) by promoters for callng fights 'pathetic' and a 'farce' and opponents 'rubbish'. I speak from bitter experience.
Calling it a 'farce' and a 'disgrace' is, trust me, too strong. The suggestion is just a centimetre away from calling it a 'fix'.

Adios.

Posted: **18 Jul 2011, 06:58**

I've only seen The Independent today. Can somebody please post the other papers where the fearless hacks have called the fight a 'disgrace', a 'farce' and generally given it to Frank and Nicky for conning everybody.
If somebody could please post that I would be very happy.

Adios.

Posted: **18 Jul 2011, 06:59**

Buncey wrote:And remember that unlike everybody on here and at ringside in the press pit on Saturday I have been sued (3) and banned (1) by promoters for callng fights 'pathetic' and a 'farce' and opponents 'rubbish'. I speak from bitter experience.

Erm, not quite everyone

You're highly dismissive of the quality of posts on internet forums. Some are sh1te, yes, but this is an excellent forum full of knowledgeable people. Don't throw the internet baby out with the bathwater, Buncey.

Posted: **18 Jul 2011, 07:01**

Buncey wrote:I've only seen The Independent today. Can somebody please post the other papers where the fearless hacks have called the fight a 'disgrace', a 'farce' and generally given it to Frank and Nicky for conning everybody.
If somebody could please post that I would be very happy.

Now, in your genuinely vast experience, why might that be?

I think you've answered this already actually, in your 'bitter experience' post.

Posted: **18 Jul 2011, 07:01**

Did you write this Steve?

http://www.espn.co.uk/boxing/sport/story/101327.html

Posted: **18 Jul 2011, 07:07**

Some people on the net are miles better than MANY of the household journalists. Jeff Powell and Colin Hart. Maybe a couple more but the rest don`t say much worth reading

Posted: **18 Jul 2011, 07:09**

Buncey wrote:
And remember that unlike everybody on here and at ringside in the press pit on Saturday I have been sued (3) and banned (1) by promoters for callng fights 'pathetic' and a 'farce' and opponents 'rubbish'. I speak from bitter experience.

So you don't do that anymore then ? Shame that.

Good job the fans have a forum to tell it like it is then, unlike so called "journalists" towing the party line, making sure they get their press passes sorted for the next one.

Posted: **18 Jul 2011, 07:10**

handsdown33 wrote:Some people on the net are miles better than MANY of the household journalists. Jeff Powell and Colin Hart. Maybe a couple more but the rest don`t say much worth reading

Jeff Powells a shocker. That's why he writes for the mail.

Posted: **18 Jul 2011, 07:14**

I think the 'fair comment' defence was invented for situations like this one.

Posted: **18 Jul 2011, 07:15**

No, I never wrote that. My ESPN column goes up late on a Monday night.
I dismiss people all the time - not just on the internet. I love the forums, I'm on all the time and they are terrific places. But, the quality of the work is still poor. The lines are so confused now that crap is often called good and total shite is called OK. Some of the posts on this forum are rubbish, some are very good. That's the nature of open debate.
The point I was making about newspaper coverage today was in defence of one or two people being highly critical of me. I have attacked promoters and managers as part of my job and not as something I do when I've got a three minute break at work. In my opinion the Cook fight has been targeted, first by SKY on the night and second by many, many posters on many sites. That's just an opinion.
I have mentioned more boxing websites on national and regional radio, in papers and magazines and on TV than any other boxing journalist/broadcaster. That is a fact.

Adios

Adios.

Posted: **18 Jul 2011, 07:18**

MightyWarrior wrote:
Buncey wrote:
And remember that unlike everybody on here and at ringside in the press pit on Saturday I have been sued (3) and banned (1) by promoters for callng fights 'pathetic' and a 'farce' and opponents 'rubbish'. I speak from bitter experience.
So you don't do that anymore then ? Shame that.

Good job the fans have a forum to tell it like it is then, unlike so called "journalists" towing the party line, making sure they get their press passes sorted for the next one.

He's still not snapped out of Hayelord mode yet. Give him time

I can see both sides of the argument with this issue. The fans have every right to be annoyed/frustrated/pissed off *delete was appropriate* because I don't recall anyone saying that Burns vs Cook was a good fight..... mainly because Burns had had two knockover jobs since becoming champion and all Cook had done was beat perennial loser and part time icecream van driver Al-Hamidi.

However, Steve's comment about Adam Smith is valid, in that without the Sky money the fight wouldn't have been signed - so somebody there must have approved it at some stage.

This is the issue here, quality control. They are improving and have made good strides - we've seen less shitty Commonwealth title opponents from deepest Africa, and a proper step up for the likes of David Price, for instance.

What Sky could really do with is a matchmaker of sorts - someone that understands what the paying public are likely to want, and who will put pressure on promoters to deliver these fights.

We want Burns in with world class opponents. We want fights like Hall vs McDonnell, we want Price vs the winner of Fury vs Chisora etc etc.

Posted: **18 Jul 2011, 07:19**

BIGMARK wrote:@Ed, did you have chance to chat again with Robert Smith after the interview off air or are you now on his S**t list?

Never met him but just from hearing his interviews he seems realistic and I'm sure he understands any criticisms.

Posted: **18 Jul 2011, 07:25**

LeedsLad wrote:However, Steve's comment about Adam Smith is valid, in that without the Sky money the fight wouldn't have been signed - so somebody there must have approved it at some stage.

Aye mate but to be fair, had the injury not occurred it might have been a good domestic fight (not a world title, of course). One surely can't expect Adam Smith or Sky to know medical details and, anyway, Cook had passed all of his tests, reportedly. So the fault lies somewhere else - if one takes the tack that this isn't simply a freak happening that could have fallen at anyone at anytime. If one does though, that's that.

Posted: **18 Jul 2011, 07:29**

Buncey wrote: I think that keypad warriors need to be reminded that they are writing about boxers - some of the suggestions here are a bit strong and lacking in respect. Brave behind a screen.

What are you saying Buncey, don't criticise a professional boxer unless you are prepared to have a punch up with him yourself? Pathetic. It was a farce. I hate this "brave behind a screen" talk. You are making boxers out to be thugs, as though they would punch a fan if they had the balls to criticise them face to face.

Posted: **18 Jul 2011, 07:30**

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:
LeedsLad wrote:However, Steve's comment about Adam Smith is valid, in that without the Sky money the fight wouldn't have been signed - so somebody there must have approved it at some stage.
Aye mate but to be fair, had the injury not occurred it might have been a good domestic fight (not a world title, of course). One surely can't expect Adam Smith or Sky to know medical details and, anyway, Cook had passed all of his tests, reportedly. So the fault lies somewhere else - if one takes the tack that this isn't simply a freak happening that could have fallen at anyone at anytime. If one does though, that's that.

Again, that's fair.

I'm probably looking at this issue from the wrong angle, in that Cook shouldn't have been approved as an opponent for Burns because he's simply not got any form in recent years to prove that he's worthy of a world title clash.

Of course Allegedly may just refer Sky to the WBO rankings and point out that Cook was ranked and that might be the end of the matter in that respect.

If Cook passes the medical I suppose there's not a lot else that can be said, other than ''are the medicals stringent enough?''

The board obviously insist on brain scans, eye condition and HIV testing and rightly so - there comes a point though where it's unrealistic to check everything.... it's down to Cook to determine whether or not he's fit to proceed with his back condition, likewise any other fighter that goes into a contest with an injury.

Posted: **18 Jul 2011, 07:31**

BIGMARK wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
BIGMARK wrote:@Ed, did you have chance to chat again with Robert Smith after the interview off air or are you now on his S**t list?
Never met him but just from hearing his interviews he seems realistic and I'm sure he understands any criticisms.
that was addressed to ED ROBINSON but hey i wondered what Sky's relationship with BBOC was like and with Ed's poor choice of word (mistake realised) in the Smith interview did it rattle a few cages once the camera was off?

I know...Dunno why I decided to 'answer'

BoxRec

good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!

Re: good on you ed robinson!!