BoxRec

twenty six wrote:Columbo,
I know the lad, I know his team.
Anyway I don't have to justify my comments I know what is true and I know what is bollocks.

Would you post anything but 'the party line'?

palooka wrote:

DMA1987 wrote:

TJ77 wrote:A welcome run out for twenty six good to see

I prefer twenty six! A welcome slip up . Columbo is clutching at straws on this thread, not quite sure why.

Do you 2 know each other outside of 'the internet'?

I don't think so. Was a welcome slip up as I do like the posts of twenty six. I didn't know they were the same person.

columbo wrote: I wasnt clutching at straws, I was just being honest.

By honest you mean speculate wildly. To be honest Columbo, I don't think honesty has played a part in this thread for you.

Columbo would not be the worlds greatest detective if he hasn't worked out 26/Parsons cross is friends with brook and has been for years.

mickey1975 wrote:Columbo would not be the worlds greatest detective if he hasn't worked out 26/Parsons cross is friends with brook and has been for years.

Doesn't make him the most objective of posters about kell (or rhodes) then does it mickey?

palooka wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:Columbo would not be the worlds greatest detective if he hasn't worked out 26/Parsons cross is friends with brook and has been for years.

Doesn't make him the most objective of posters about kell (or rhodes) then does it mickey?

But it makes him a knowledgable one Palooka.

He is definitely biased, but well placed to report facts from the camp.

Palooka,
I think if you look back through the history of my posts I've never been anything than honest and forthright about my views on the Sheffield lads.

I'm not knocking anyone; you know the boxers and trainers well and other posters have questions and points of view; if columbo had a point would you not respond or feel able to allude more than the camp wanted you to let slip?

Mickey,
Every now and then I do see things through rose tinted glasses but biased ? I don't think so.
Been around here too long and there are too many people who know their stuff to try and be a blagger.
It's the new kids on the block who seem to give it large - "I know this that and the other" and enter into wild speculation not based on facts.

fornicate me Palooka do you want my soul ?
Of course things get said that remain private.

Parson Cross wrote:eff me Palooka do you want my soul ?
Of course things get said that remain private.

No use for a soul but thanks for being honest.

Ok, bias might be a bit strong, but you know what I mean. It's hard to be impartial when you are close to a boxer.

Agreed my friend

DMA1987 wrote:

columbo wrote: How do you know he was in amazing shape? The fight didnt last long enough to tell us anything about his conditioning.

Behave, did you not see him? Never had he looked so good?

columbo wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:9 year career - two injuries.
Good job it's not Barker getting fired at FFS.

How do you know he's only had two injuries within that time period? A lot of them you wouldnt even know about.

Well then by that reasoning every fighter in the world could be secretly injury prone.

You cant base someones overall conditioning on how good their physique looks!

palooka wrote:

DMA1987 wrote:

TJ77 wrote:A welcome run out for twenty six good to see

I prefer twenty six! A welcome slip up . Columbo is clutching at straws on this thread, not quite sure why.

Do you 2 know each other outside of 'the internet'?

I don't think so. Was a welcome slip up as I do like the posts of twenty six. I didn't know they were the same person.

columbo wrote: I wasnt clutching at straws, I was just being honest.

By honest you mean speculate wildly. To be honest Columbo, I don't think honesty has played a part in this thread for you.[/quote]

How hasnt honesty played a part in this thread then? so Im not entitled to my opinion which is based on how i 'honestly' feel?

columbo wrote: You cant base someones overall conditioning on how good their physique looks!

I would say if a fighter looks clearly in better SHAPE than he has done in another fight, it is because he has been working to get in better condition.

Unless his training was based around looking cosmetically fit without being fit .

Feelngs can't be 'honest' columbo; a thought or a judgement could be said to be honest but not a feeling.

DMA1987 wrote:

columbo wrote: You cant base someones overall conditioning on how good their physique looks!

I would say if a fighter looks clearly in better SHAPE than he has done in another fight, it is because he has been working to get in better condition.

Unless his training was based around looking cosmetically fit without being fit .

And that's never happened before in boxing has it?

palooka wrote:

DMA1987 wrote:

columbo wrote: You cant base someones overall conditioning on how good their physique looks!

I would say if a fighter looks clearly in better SHAPE than he has done in another fight, it is because he has been working to get in better condition.

Unless his training was based around looking cosmetically fit without being fit .

And that's never happened before in boxing has it?

Has it?

I'm old enough to remember Mohammed Ali using slimming aids to look good in the run up to Holmes; not sure if it's been done in the 30 odd tears since though.

So your example is a 38 year old Mohammed Ali who was probably already feeling the effects of parkinsons?

Hardly like for like Palooka. It's night and day.

DMA1987 wrote:So your example is a 38 year old Mohammed Ali who was probably already feeling the effects of parkinsons?

Hardly like for like Palooka. It's night and day.

You asked if 'it' had happened before in boxing and my reply was a little facetious; of course many boxers use dietery supplements, fat strippers and diuretics and cutting agents; some of them are sponsored by supplement manufacturers and have body builders as coaches. They look brilliantly healthy with not a gram of fat, sometimes it's down to hard work and a bit of help and sometimes down to a lot of help.

DMA1987 wrote:

columbo wrote: You cant base someones overall conditioning on how good their physique looks!

I would say if a fighter looks clearly in better SHAPE than he has done in another fight, it is because he has been working to get in better condition.

Unless his training was based around looking cosmetically fit without being fit .

Joe calzaghe had amazing stamina and conditioning but in terms of aestetics he didnt look that great. Having a great looking body doesnt equal great conditioning.

palooka wrote:Feelngs can't be 'honest' columbo; a thought or a judgement could be said to be honest but not a feeling.

This is all getting very pedantic now.

palooka wrote:

DMA1987 wrote:So your example is a 38 year old Mohammed Ali who was probably already feeling the effects of parkinsons?

Hardly like for like Palooka. It's night and day.

You asked if 'it' had happened before in boxing and my reply was a little facetious; of course many boxers use dietery supplements, fat strippers and diuretics and cutting agents; some of them are sponsored by supplement manufacturers and have body builders as coaches. They look brilliantly healthy with not a gram of fat, sometimes it's down to hard work and a bit of help and sometimes down to a lot of help.

I think you are right and I would agree with you in principle (though I'm not sure using them is to the detriment of fitness). In the case of Brook - I think if you have nutritionists and strength coaches brought in, as well as an obvious lack of fitness in your last fight, then you will be working on making sure your fighter is damn fit, which is what I am positive he was - but I can see that I made it too general in my response to Columbo.