BoxRec

Naandrew wrote:

Autobarn wrote:Most likely the strategy against Baroso, will not be the strategy against Linares - given the different styles of Baroso and Linares. I'd think the plan would be to start breaking down Linares a bit sooner, not allowing him to get into a smooth rhythm. There's a chance it could involve that.

Or are we so literal minded that we assume one game plan will be every game plan? That all we be identical?

Jamie McDonnell is another fighter who starts slowly and finishes with great authority - without even carrying as much power as Crolla, this approach has enabled him to grind out narrow decisions in his home town of Doncaster and on Al Haymon shows in America, against UK, US, Mexican and Japanese opponents of varying styles. It's an efficient and effective approach to combat. And he isn't trained by Joe Gallagher.

Almost every thread finds a way to attack Crolla, Hearn or Gallagher, interestingly. People can even moan about a matchup as good and worthy as Crolla v Linares, and find something to be miserable or cynical about. A matchup as positive as on September 24 can actually be criticised as a way to duck Flanagan. And Joe Gallagher gets criticised for over thinking things?

I get the point in fighters warming into a fight but Jamie McDonnell doesn't purposefully give rounds away though by hardly throwing punches at all. To be honest these tactics haven't been detrimental to Crolla it worked perfectly against Barroso. The fighter it has been detrimental to is Scott Quigg but that will have been discussed enough on here.

the slow start approach was best utilised in Crolla's fights with Murray and Baroso, both of whom were much physically stronger than Crolla. In addition Baroso has the harder single shot. It's good to fight on your own terms.

It may be a challenge for Crolla to start sooner, show more urgency - but I'm certain he will have a good go, not allowing Linares to get into a rhythm. Baroso's strength was dealt with. This is a very different assignment due to Linares' mobility.

Let's look at the alternative. Crolla could have fought Baroso the way Ricky Burns fought Raymundo Beltran, getting nailed early suffering jaw damage throughout the fight and unable to successfully fend off a physically stronger, nastier opponent...burns getting worked over by Beltran, that's a nice alternative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5lWJM7ZFIc

why, when Hearn is saying Crolla vs. Linares is to determine the number 1 in the division, does Kugan not even slightly question it? Why doesnt he think to mention Rances Barthelemy?
He just sits there and agrees with everything Hearn says, very frustrating...

I wonder why people are upset that FW is being deliberately left behind and excluded.

Was boxing so good when FW was "the man"?

if boxing is frustrating now, it was exasperating then, post Naz and Benn with the more cautious approach.

Anyone remember Showtime decisding not to show any more Calzaghe fights (I think it was around the time of the Robin Reid fight); anyone remember Sky dumping boxing to Friday nights?

Granted Warren promoted some of the very biggest nights such as Hatton v Tszyu and Calzaghe v Lacy but the in between stuff was often turgid and patronising.

One thing of interest, one concern of mine. If you make someone too big, there is the risk of them leaving. Will anyone leave Hearn one day, to set up their own company and get carried by say Showtime or HBO?

Autobarn wrote:I wonder why people are upset that FW is being deliberately left behind and excluded.

Was boxing so good when FW was "the man"?

if boxing is frustrating now, it was exasperating then, post Naz and Benn with the more cautious approach.

When you get frustrated with certain attitudes on here Autobarn, just sit and picture their infuriated faces when good fights like these are made. Just watch in amusement at their backwards arguments. You know, arguments such as 'ohhh this isn't a good fight really! It isn't a unificaton so can't be! And it's on PPV.....no wait sh1t it isn't! Oh well the other promoter still should be allowed to demand 50-50 even tho he brings naff all to the table from a promotional point of view! Right I have to stop now while I go burn an effigee of Kugan Cassius!'

jameswilson wrote:

Autobarn wrote:I wonder why people are upset that FW is being deliberately left behind and excluded.

Was boxing so good when FW was "the man"?

if boxing is frustrating now, it was exasperating then, post Naz and Benn with the more cautious approach.

When you get frustrated with certain attitudes on here Autobarn, just sit and picture their infuriated faces when good fights like these are made. Just watch in amusement at their backwards arguments. You know, arguments such as 'ohhh this isn't a good fight really! It isn't a unificaton so can't be! And it's on PPV.....no wait sh1t it isn't! Oh well the other promoter still should be allowed to demand 50-50 even tho he brings naff all to the table from a promotional point of view! Right I have to stop now while I go burn an effigee of Kugan Cassius!'

not sure anybody is infuriated with Crolla vs. Linares. I think most people are just disappointed Crolla vs. Flanagan wasn't made instead.
Crolla vs. Linares is a decent fight, it isn't a unification and its not on PPV...

There's no doubting its a great fight but Hearn going on about a fight to find out who's the best lightweight in the world is clearly ridiculous .
We don't even know who the best lightweight in Manchester is yet ! .

The Fana fight on the fury undercard Should be an easy defence for Flanagan but I'm sure he and his team had hoped it would be a tick over before the Crolla fight in September .
That's obviously not happening so It wouldn't surprise me if they try and force the issue further by getting zlaticanin over for a unification around that time instead .
Hopefully the two Manchester lads can come through and then surely no more excuses from Hearn and Gallagher .

Fortynineandout wrote:There's no doubting its a great fight but Hearn going on about a fight to find out who's the best lightweight in the world is clearly ridiculous .
We don't even know who the best lightweight in Manchester is yet ! .

The Fana fight on the fury undercard Should be an easy defence for Flanagan but I'm sure he and his team had hoped it would be a tick over before the Crolla fight in September .
That's obviously not happening so It wouldn't surprise me if they try and force the issue further by getting zlaticanin over for a unification around that time instead .
Hopefully the two Manchester lads can come through and then surely no more excuses from Hearn and Gallagher .

If Flanagan fights Zlaticanin this year I will personally post a picture of my bare arse with 'property of wesshaw1985' written on it.

Fancy Linares to get the win. But then I picked Perez (twice) and Barosso to beat Crolla , just keeps proving me very wrong.

Burton v Buglioni on the undercard apparently

Manchester Massive wrote:Burton v Buglioni on the undercard apparently

It's been ordered, not sure any deal or purse bid has been done tho, although I may be wrong.

jameswilson wrote:

Autobarn wrote:I wonder why people are upset that FW is being deliberately left behind and excluded.

Was boxing so good when FW was "the man"?

if boxing is frustrating now, it was exasperating then, post Naz and Benn with the more cautious approach.

When you get frustrated with certain attitudes on here Autobarn, just sit and picture their infuriated faces when good fights like these are made. Just watch in amusement at their backwards arguments. You know, arguments such as 'ohhh this isn't a good fight really! It isn't a unificaton so can't be! And it's on PPV.....no wait sh1t it isn't! Oh well the other promoter still should be allowed to demand 50-50 even tho he brings naff all to the table from a promotional point of view! Right I have to stop now while I go burn an effigee of Kugan Cassius!'

You be fair mate- both FW and EH can serve up utter garbage if we're being objective.

I believe it's completely different levels. That's my opinion. Autobarn seems to share my view on both promoters based off of what we had to put up with when the other promoter had the Sky backing. It was just several years of absolute agony. Calzaghe and Hatton's reigns up to the Lacy and Tszyu fights just seemed to last forever, and had Enzo Mac and Scott Harrison's reigns in there too which were equally annoying (I know Harrison was taken care of by Mr Maloney but I'm fairly sure they were still Sports network promoted shows.)

I also don't think Yusaf Mack or Breazeale (Matchrooms naff voluntaries) compare to Monzenke Fana or Jimmy Kelly, and the sh1te voluntaries don't seem to go on and on with Matchroom like they do with the reigns of Nathan Cleverly and others before him. I'm absolutely all for a soft defence if you've just won a World title, I'd do the same if I was a promoter but when it stretches to several soft voluntaries and somehow no mandatory. I can see the same thing going on with Smith and Flanagan, it'll be guys like this for a long old while unless a deal can be done with Matchroom, and a deal won't be done as a 50-50 co-promotion, and it's no good moaning about greed as when the shoe was on the other foot I didn't see other promoters doing co-promotions with other UK promoters who had fighters with less to bring to the table. And all the while it will be 'we wanna make the Cotto/Canelo/Brook/Crolla fight.' It is interesting that it's gone from we wanna make these fights and we can put them on PPV, we've found this amazing loophole, and now it's oh actually put it on yourself, but we demand a 50-50 split.

jameswilson wrote:I believe it's completely different levels. That's my opinion. Autobarn seems to share my view on both promoters based off of what we had to put up with when the other promoter had the Sky backing. It was just several years of absolute agony. Calzaghe and Hatton's reigns up to the Lacy and Tszyu fights just seemed to last forever, and had Enzo Mac and Scott Harrison's reigns in there too which were equally annoying (I know Harrison was taken care of by Mr Maloney but I'm fairly sure they were still Sports network promoted shows.)

I also don't think Yusaf Mack or Breazeale (Matchrooms naff voluntaries) compare to Monzenke Fana or Jimmy Kelly, and the sh1te voluntaries don't seem to go on and on with Matchroom like they do with the reigns of Nathan Cleverly and others before him. I'm absolutely all for a soft defence if you've just won a World title, I'd do the same if I was a promoter but when it stretches to several soft voluntaries and somehow no mandatory. I can see the same thing going on with Smith and Flanagan, it'll be guys like this for a long old while unless a deal can be done with Matchroom, and a deal won't be done as a 50-50 co-promotion, and it's no good moaning about greed as when the shoe was on the other foot I didn't see other promoters doing co-promotions with other UK promoters who had fighters with less to bring to the table. And all the while it will be 'we wanna make the Cotto/Canelo/Brook/Crolla fight.' It is interesting that it's gone from we wanna make these fights and we can put them on PPV, we've found this amazing loophole, and now it's oh actually put it on yourself, but we demand a 50-50 split.

Cleverly shite defences? Murat (future Hopkins opponent), Mohammedi (future Kovalev opponent), Bellew (WBC CW Champion), Karpency (future Fonfara and Stevenson opponent), Krasniqi (future Braehmer opponent) and finally Kovalev.
All very respectable defences and i believe all were on subscription tv not 1 PPV...
Cleverly vs. Kovalev was not PPV but Brook vs. Gavin was.
Calzaghe vs. Lacy was also on ITV for free...

wesshaw1985 wrote:

jameswilson wrote:I believe it's completely different levels. That's my opinion. Autobarn seems to share my view on both promoters based off of what we had to put up with when the other promoter had the Sky backing. It was just several years of absolute agony. Calzaghe and Hatton's reigns up to the Lacy and Tszyu fights just seemed to last forever, and had Enzo Mac and Scott Harrison's reigns in there too which were equally annoying (I know Harrison was taken care of by Mr Maloney but I'm fairly sure they were still Sports network promoted shows.)

I also don't think Yusaf Mack or Breazeale (Matchrooms naff voluntaries) compare to Monzenke Fana or Jimmy Kelly, and the sh1te voluntaries don't seem to go on and on with Matchroom like they do with the reigns of Nathan Cleverly and others before him. I'm absolutely all for a soft defence if you've just won a World title, I'd do the same if I was a promoter but when it stretches to several soft voluntaries and somehow no mandatory. I can see the same thing going on with Smith and Flanagan, it'll be guys like this for a long old while unless a deal can be done with Matchroom, and a deal won't be done as a 50-50 co-promotion, and it's no good moaning about greed as when the shoe was on the other foot I didn't see other promoters doing co-promotions with other UK promoters who had fighters with less to bring to the table. And all the while it will be 'we wanna make the Cotto/Canelo/Brook/Crolla fight.' It is interesting that it's gone from we wanna make these fights and we can put them on PPV, we've found this amazing loophole, and now it's oh actually put it on yourself, but we demand a 50-50 split.

Cleverly shite defences? Murat (future Hopkins opponent), Mohammedi (future Kovalev opponent), Bellew (WBC CW Champion), Karpency (future Fonfara and Stevenson opponent), Krasniqi (future Braehmer opponent) and finally Kovalev.
All very respectable defences and i believe all were on subscription tv not 1 PPV...
Cleverly vs. Kovalev was not PPV but Brook vs. Gavin was.
Calzaghe vs. Lacy was also on ITV for free...

Clev v Kuzmieski or whatever his name is was a PPV with a British title fight as the other main fight on the bill, beneath that was Young Muttley. Brook v Gavin had 2 other World title fights on the bill with the champs being bought over. I'm not sure how being a future opponent of someone makes them good. But then you're arguing that Cleverly had a respectable reign and just solidifying your' reputation as a lost Current scene poster.

I'v obviously no complaints about Lacy, my gripe was the god knows how many years leading up to that point.

Chin up tho, Liam Smith v Canelo is gonna be made later in the year isn't it! Frank said it! And if you can't believe what he says, then what can you believe!

jameswilson wrote:I'm not sure how being a future opponent of someone makes them good.

if the names mentioned were good enough for Hopkins, Kovalev and Stevenson then are they not good enough for Cleverly?

I would say it was very "current scene" to defend the level of shite Hearn makes you pay over the odds for and attack another promoter for spending very big on Fury vs. Klitschko 2 and giving one of his local champions a run out on the undercard.
Anyway, you keep sucking off Eddie and buying his Joshua vs. Breazeale, Brook vs. GAVIN and Froch vs. MACK level PPVs.
Don't forget to tweet at him and tell him how much you are looking forward to next weeks card

wesshaw1985 wrote:

jameswilson wrote:I'm not sure how being a future opponent of someone makes them good.

if the names mentioned were good enough for Hopkins, Kovalev and Stevenson then are they not good enough for Cleverly?

I would say it was very "current scene" to defend the level of shite Hearn makes you pay over the odds for and attack another promoter for spending very big on Fury vs. Klitschko 2 and giving one of his local champions a run out on the undercard.
Anyway, you keep sucking off Eddie and buying his Joshua vs. Breazeale, Brook vs. GAVIN and Froch vs. MACK level PPVs.
Don't forget to tweet at him and tell him how much you are looking forward to next weeks card

I don't have twitter shipmate, your mixing me up with someone else on here if you think I'm the perma tanned, combover, tweeting type.

It's your double standards that are the reason people are calling you 'Current scene.' You'd get more respect if you just came out and said 'I hate Eddie Hearn and regardless of what he does I'm gonna slag him off and complain and hail the other promoter regardless of anything, even if it comes to saying that Nathan Cleverly had a respectable reign as champion.'

Those fights for the Kovalev and co were clear easy defences leading up to bigger fights. Nobody said when they were announced 'ohhhh good fight that!'

jameswilson wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote:

jameswilson wrote:I'm not sure how being a future opponent of someone makes them good.

if the names mentioned were good enough for Hopkins, Kovalev and Stevenson then are they not good enough for Cleverly?

I would say it was very "current scene" to defend the level of shite Hearn makes you pay over the odds for and attack another promoter for spending very big on Fury vs. Klitschko 2 and giving one of his local champions a run out on the undercard.
Anyway, you keep sucking off Eddie and buying his Joshua vs. Breazeale, Brook vs. GAVIN and Froch vs. MACK level PPVs.
Don't forget to tweet at him and tell him how much you are looking forward to next weeks card

I don't have twitter shipmate, your mixing me up with someone else on here if you think I'm the perma tanned, combover, tweeting type.

It's your double standards that are the reason people are calling you 'Current scene.' You'd get more respect if you just came out and said 'I hate Eddie Hearn and regardless of what he does I'm gonna slag him off and complain and hail the other promoter regardless of anything, even if it comes to saying that Nathan Cleverly had a respectable reign as champion.'

Those fights for the Kovalev and co were clear easy defences leading up to bigger fights. Nobody said when they were announced 'ohhhh good fight that!'

Never said they were good fights, i said they were respectable. He could have gotten much much worse.
In terms of Hearn, i dont dislike the man i just see through his bullshit unlike some on here.
Hearn and W@rren are as bad as each other but people only call Frank on the crap and give Edward a pass, so i just like to point out Eddies crap.
Dick-riding Hearn will only leave you potless and disappointed shipmate. Sweet dreams

with the internet now the only fights i have bought in the last years was manny v floyd. granted froch fights , watched tyson in the pub

wesshaw1985 wrote: Hearn and W@rren are as bad as each other but people only call Frank on the crap and give Edward a pass, so i just like to point out Eddies crap.

I see it as completely the other way around, and Autobarn was pointing this out to crusader earlier on or in another thread somewhere. Every thread regardless of subject descends into people moaning about Hearn. I see more complaining in the Crolla v Linares thread than I do in the Flanagan v Fana one. You don't see the usual suspects in the thread about allegedly's WT challengers giving it some like they do in the satuday night RBR thread when a fight 4 or 5 fights down the card isn't a blood and guts 50-50 World title fight.

jameswilson wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote: Hearn and W@rren are as bad as each other but people only call Frank on the crap and give Edward a pass, so i just like to point out Eddies crap.

I see it as completely the other way around, and Autobarn was pointing this out to crusader earlier on or in another thread somewhere. Every thread regardless of subject descends into people moaning about Hearn. I see more complaining in the Crolla v Linares thread than I do in the Flanagan v Fana one. You don't see the usual suspects in the thread about allegedly's WT challengers giving it some like they do in the satuday night RBR thread when a fight 4 or 5 fights down the card isn't a blood and guts 50-50 World title fight.

Since the Fana fight has been made i havent heard W@rren attempt to pull the wool and talk it up once. It is what it is.
Hearn stating Crolla/Linares is for the number 1 in the division is bollocks also it is not a unification fight thus more bollocks.
People dont hate the Crolla vs. Linares fight they hate the bullshit that is spewed by Hearn in an attempt to hoodwink the casual market.
Take the blinders off and understand where the hate is coming from...

wesshaw1985 wrote:

jameswilson wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote: Hearn and W@rren are as bad as each other but people only call Frank on the crap and give Edward a pass, so i just like to point out Eddies crap.

I see it as completely the other way around, and Autobarn was pointing this out to crusader earlier on or in another thread somewhere. Every thread regardless of subject descends into people moaning about Hearn. I see more complaining in the Crolla v Linares thread than I do in the Flanagan v Fana one. You don't see the usual suspects in the thread about allegedly's WT challengers giving it some like they do in the satuday night RBR thread when a fight 4 or 5 fights down the card isn't a blood and guts 50-50 World title fight.

Since the Fana fight has been made i havent heard W@rren attempt to pull the wool and talk it up once. It is what it is.
Hearn stating Crolla/Linares is for the number 1 in the division is bollocks also it is not a unification fight thus more bollocks.
People dont hate the Crolla vs. Linares fight they hate the bullshit that is spewed by Hearn in an attempt to hoodwink the casual market.
Take the blinders off and understand where the hate is coming from...

I haven't heard him talk about it at all. Just make daft demands to make the Crolla fight.

Ring magazine have decided the winner of this will be considered the no1 by them. The person who wins will have better wins on their resume at lightweight than Barthelemy, Flanagan and Zlaticanin. And it's ring magazine that believe that hence they have their belt on the line for it.

Oh you and crusader and expe don't agree? You can't have anyone at no1 until they beat Zlaticanin? Oh how convenient! Why not fill a thread about a completely different subject with it.

And the sales pitch on Crolla v Linares compared to the sales pitch on fights like Hatton v Oliveira and Smith's last fight are on different levels. Keep falling in love with those fights and hoping for Canelo and Cotto. It aint happening. You hate the IFL interviews then don't watch them. We could go back to the days of old where pretty much the only dialogue with the promoters was via their newspaper column and the post fight interviews which are always a load of propaganda crap.

How is this for the ring belt when there are 3 other champions? Makes no sense. The ring magazine is owned by golden boy who promotes linares. That all I can think of.

jameswilson wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote:

jameswilson wrote:

I see it as completely the other way around, and Autobarn was pointing this out to crusader earlier on or in another thread somewhere. Every thread regardless of subject descends into people moaning about Hearn. I see more complaining in the Crolla v Linares thread than I do in the Flanagan v Fana one. You don't see the usual suspects in the thread about allegedly's WT challengers giving it some like they do in the satuday night RBR thread when a fight 4 or 5 fights down the card isn't a blood and guts 50-50 World title fight.

Since the Fana fight has been made i havent heard W@rren attempt to pull the wool and talk it up once. It is what it is.
Hearn stating Crolla/Linares is for the number 1 in the division is bollocks also it is not a unification fight thus more bollocks.
People dont hate the Crolla vs. Linares fight they hate the bullshit that is spewed by Hearn in an attempt to hoodwink the casual market.
Take the blinders off and understand where the hate is coming from...

I haven't heard him talk about it at all. Just make daft demands to make the Crolla fight.

Ring magazine have decided the winner of this will be considered the no1 by them. The person who wins will have better wins on their resume at lightweight than Barthelemy, Flanagan and Zlaticanin. And it's ring magazine that believe that hence they have their belt on the line for it.

Oh you and crusader and expe don't agree? You can't have anyone at no1 until they beat Zlaticanin? Oh how convenient! Why not fill a thread about a completely different subject with it.

And the sales pitch on Crolla v Linares compared to the sales pitch on fights like Hatton v Oliveira and Smith's last fight are on different levels. Keep falling in love with those fights and hoping for Canelo and Cotto. It aint happening. You hate the IFL interviews then don't watch them. We could go back to the days of old where pretty much the only dialogue with the promoters was via their newspaper column and the post fight interviews which are always a load of propaganda crap.

You are a matchroom fanboy clearly

jameswilson wrote:

Manchester Massive wrote:Burton v Buglioni on the undercard apparently

It's been ordered, not sure any deal or purse bid has been done tho, although I may be wrong.

That's straight from Burton this weekend

wesshaw1985 wrote: You are a matchroom fanboy clearly

Really proving to be someone capable of reasoned debate there Wes.