BoxRec

DG. wrote:

Spud wrote:DG,

Why not answer the questions in hand - name another promoter in this country who puts on the shows W arren does - throughout the year - I have acknowledged I dislike many many things that he may have done or said - but there simply is not a promoter in this country to touch him!!!

Tell me otherwise DG - and please do give examples of consistency instead of the rare occasion!!!

And with regards your allegations of me looking for a job with W arren Promotions - they simply would not pay enough for somebody of my quality and knowledge - now please - now we have that out of the way - could you or anyone else on this forum answer my questions giving examples of CONSISTENCY where another promoter matches the quality of W arren's shows - or is it simply a FACT you and others only answer is to belittle or insult me??

Namer me one Promoter that 'allegedly' owes one of his ex fighters £1.8M?

Fwank is the biggest Promoter, but he served up so much rubbish ( allegedly) on SKY that lots of us cancelled SKY and SKY cancelled boxing...allegedly!

Fwank is consistent, but not in a good way!

Remine me , who took their stable away from ITV for the bigger ££s at SKY?

Clue..It wasn't me!

ITV didn't have the money to renew the contract, and if you get your facts in line it was Setanta that FW went to before Sky.

How can you blame the lack of boxing on FW when so many other promoters serve up shit sandwiches week after week. I mean, Prizefighter is hardly anything to write home about, Maloneys shows truly awful to a point where I can't bear to watch them and no one else comes up with much thats worth the subscription.

When FW gets the dates, the shows are usually of a good standard. Granted, the show at Wembley suffered a hell of a lot of changed to the original card, but despite all that, the TV audience was still an impressive 308,000. Tell me another promoter who gets those figures.......on Sky.

Another good bill next week in Liverpool, and we now have the Mitchell show to look forward to as well. I fear you are fighting a loosing battle here DG.

Samuel Brooks do you work for Warren?

leforge wrote:Samuel Brooks do you work for Warren?

Nope. You?

Samuel Brooks wrote:When FW gets the dates, the shows are usually of a good standard. Granted, the show at Wembley suffered a hell of a lot of changed to the original card, but despite all that, the TV audience was still an impressive 308,000. Tell me another promoter who gets those figures.......on Sky.

How do you know the TV audience was 308,000?

Prizefighter the heavyweight got larger figures than the last Warren night!

Samuel Brooks,

The time I refer to is the ORIGINAL venture of Fwank to SKY.

Apparently he was paid a lot of money by SKY to move the big names of British Boxing to SKY..away from ITV.

AWAY FROM ITV!

So maybe the next time he moans about the lack of terrestrial interest in Boxing he should have a look at himself. All allegedly.

Big reason why the night of the "champions" got a big viewing figures was because it was on a Saturday night on prime time.

Not complaining, lets hope Sky see this and show more Saturday night boxing.

Samuel Brooks is Mr W arren himself....Or his boyfriend, maybe.

Was hoping this be at O2 as I not been ever. But thats unlikely as it is booked.

Des1 wrote:Samuel Brooks is Mr W arren himself....Or his boyfriend, maybe.

I think it is F Wank.

A boozer fit for allegedly!




DD

http://www.theo2.co.uk/inside/book-now. ... _Year=2010 Wont be the 8th at O2 Julie Andrews is on lol

crusader wrote:

bennie wrote:he dazzled the monstrous Prescott over 12 rounds just three months ago in Newcastle, with Khan lurking in the venue, since when he has upended Colombia’s usually durable Ignacio Mendoza in just two rounds at Wembley. H

Prescott is not monstrous and Mendoza is not durable.

Against Kevin Mitchell their not

Coffee Aroma wrote:

crusader wrote:

bennie wrote:he dazzled the monstrous Prescott over 12 rounds just three months ago in Newcastle, with Khan lurking in the venue, since when he has upended Colombia’s usually durable Ignacio Mendoza in just two rounds at Wembley. H

Prescott is not monstrous and Mendoza is not durable.

Against Kevin Mitchell their not

Neither are they against Miquel Vasquez, Petr Petrov, Pedru Verdu, Ivan Fiorellta, Alberto Lopez, or European level fighters like Kirakosyan.

How a boxer who had been stopped early on multiple occasions prior to fighting Mitchell is considered durable is beyond me and Prescott has not to this date beaten anybody worth mentioning outside Khan.

The calls of early or routine KO wins for Mitchell are ridiculous against his first genuine world class opponent.

crusader wrote:Neither are they against Miquel Vasquez, Petr Petrov, Pedru Verdu, Ivan Fiorellta, Alberto Lopez, or European level fighters like Kirakosyan.

How a boxer who had been stopped early on multiple occasions prior to fighting Mitchell is considered durable is beyond me and Prescott has not to this date beaten anybody worth mentioning outside Khan.

The calls of early or routine KO wins for Mitchell are ridiculous against his first genuine world class opponent.

Saying Prescott is monstrous is no reflection of his fighting ability. It's size only. And he is monstrous for a lightweight.

Mitchell said on the radio that Warren would have the venue sorted when he got back from Tenerife on Friday (just gone). Has it been announced yet?

Asterix wrote:

crusader wrote:Neither are they against Miquel Vasquez, Petr Petrov, Pedru Verdu, Ivan Fiorellta, Alberto Lopez, or European level fighters like Kirakosyan.

How a boxer who had been stopped early on multiple occasions prior to fighting Mitchell is considered durable is beyond me and Prescott has not to this date beaten anybody worth mentioning outside Khan.

The calls of early or routine KO wins for Mitchell are ridiculous against his first genuine world class opponent.

Saying Prescott is monstrous is no reflection of his fighting ability. It's size only. And he is monstrous for a lightweight.

Ok, but then the fact that he is large should not be used to emphasize the impressiveness of Mitchell's victory. Prescott, size and all, has shown he is not a world class fighter, but a one hit wonder.

crusader wrote:

Coffee Aroma wrote:

crusader wrote:
Prescott is not monstrous and Mendoza is not durable.

Against Kevin Mitchell their not

Neither are they against Miquel Vasquez, Petr Petrov, Pedru Verdu, Ivan Fiorellta, Alberto Lopez, or European level fighters like Kirakosyan.

How a boxer who had been stopped early on multiple occasions prior to fighting Mitchell is considered durable is beyond me and Prescott has not to this date beaten anybody worth mentioning outside Khan.

The calls of early or routine KO wins for Mitchell are ridiculous against his first genuine world class opponent.

Mendoza had not been stopped on multiple occasions prior to fighting Mitchell.

But Khan is a 'World Champion' after all isn't he? Prescott didn't only KO Khan, he completely outclassed him in that very short time.

Des1 wrote:

crusader wrote:

Coffee Aroma wrote:

Against Kevin Mitchell their not

Neither are they against Miquel Vasquez, Petr Petrov, Pedru Verdu, Ivan Fiorellta, Alberto Lopez, or European level fighters like Kirakosyan.

How a boxer who had been stopped early on multiple occasions prior to fighting Mitchell is considered durable is beyond me and Prescott has not to this date beaten anybody worth mentioning outside Khan.

The calls of early or routine KO wins for Mitchell are ridiculous against his first genuine world class opponent.

Mendoza had not been stopped on multiple occasions prior to fighting Mitchell.

But Khan is a 'World Champion' after all isn't he? Prescott didn't only KO Khan, he completely outclassed him in that very short time.

Actually Mendoza was stopped twice prior to fighting Mitchell, both times in the third round.

Prescott caught Khan cold, and Khan was finished when the first hard left hook landed. It was a case of a fighter getting caught with a shot before he could get going. Look at Prescott's other results. A clear loss to Miguel Vasquez, a highly controversial and unimpressive decision over Richard Abril. Prescott also could not take out Humberto Toldeo, a fighter who had been stopped in 4 of his five previous losses, including a first round KO a year prior against light hitter Lamont Peterson. In fact Prescott was taking alot of punishment in the final round of that fight.

Mitchell has got talent, but the opponents he have beaten have not been world class like Katsidis, and he will have the toughest fight of his career May 8.

crusader wrote:

Asterix wrote:

crusader wrote:Neither are they against Miquel Vasquez, Petr Petrov, Pedru Verdu, Ivan Fiorellta, Alberto Lopez, or European level fighters like Kirakosyan.

How a boxer who had been stopped early on multiple occasions prior to fighting Mitchell is considered durable is beyond me and Prescott has not to this date beaten anybody worth mentioning outside Khan.

The calls of early or routine KO wins for Mitchell are ridiculous against his first genuine world class opponent.

Saying Prescott is monstrous is no reflection of his fighting ability. It's size only. And he is monstrous for a lightweight.

Ok, but then the fact that he is large should not be used to emphasize the impressiveness of Mitchell's victory. Prescott, size and all, has shown he is not a world class fighter, but a one hit wonder.

How can you suggest that Prescott is just a one hit wonder? He is more than that.

How you can deny that Mitchell's victory wasn't impressive?....Againts a decent fighter up in weight, who dismantled a current 'World Champion' at that weight?

crusader wrote:

Des1 wrote:

crusader wrote: Neither are they against Miquel Vasquez, Petr Petrov, Pedru Verdu, Ivan Fiorellta, Alberto Lopez, or European level fighters like Kirakosyan.

How a boxer who had been stopped early on multiple occasions prior to fighting Mitchell is considered durable is beyond me and Prescott has not to this date beaten anybody worth mentioning outside Khan.

The calls of early or routine KO wins for Mitchell are ridiculous against his first genuine world class opponent.

Mendoza had not been stopped on multiple occasions prior to fighting Mitchell.

But Khan is a 'World Champion' after all isn't he? Prescott didn't only KO Khan, he completely outclassed him in that very short time.

Actually Mendoza was stopped twice prior to fighting Mitchell, both times in the third round.

Prescott caught Khan cold, and Khan was finished when the first hard left hook landed. It was a case of a fighter getting caught with a shot before he could get going. Look at Prescott's other results. A clear loss to Miguel Vasquez, a highly controversial and unimpressive decision over Richard Abril. Prescott also could not take out Humberto Toldeo, a fighter who had been stopped in 4 of his five previous losses, including a first round KO a year prior against light hitter Lamont Peterson. In fact Prescott was taking alot of punishment in the final round of that fight.

Mitchell has got talent, but the opponents he have beaten have not been world class like Katsidis, and he will have the toughest fight of his career May 8.

Twice is not multiple.

Vasquez is a good fighter

Multiple is more than one.

Vasquez is a decent fighter but nothing special. He clearly beat Prescott and showed that Prescott is not a world class fighter as did Toledo and Abril.

crusader wrote:

Asterix wrote:

crusader wrote:Neither are they against Miquel Vasquez, Petr Petrov, Pedru Verdu, Ivan Fiorellta, Alberto Lopez, or European level fighters like Kirakosyan.

How a boxer who had been stopped early on multiple occasions prior to fighting Mitchell is considered durable is beyond me and Prescott has not to this date beaten anybody worth mentioning outside Khan.

The calls of early or routine KO wins for Mitchell are ridiculous against his first genuine world class opponent.

Saying Prescott is monstrous is no reflection of his fighting ability. It's size only. And he is monstrous for a lightweight.

Ok, but then the fact that he is large should not be used to emphasize the impressiveness of Mitchell's victory. Prescott, size and all, has shown he is not a world class fighter, but a one hit wonder.

Bennie was/is a journalist.

Asterix wrote:

crusader wrote:

Asterix wrote: Saying Prescott is monstrous is no reflection of his fighting ability. It's size only. And he is monstrous for a lightweight.

Ok, but then the fact that he is large should not be used to emphasize the impressiveness of Mitchell's victory. Prescott, size and all, has shown he is not a world class fighter, but a one hit wonder.

Bennie was/is a journalist.

? I don't get the point.

crusader wrote:

Asterix wrote:

crusader wrote:Ok, but then the fact that he is large should not be used to emphasize the impressiveness of Mitchell's victory. Prescott, size and all, has shown he is not a world class fighter, but a one hit wonder.

Bennie was/is a journalist.

? I don't get the point.

Journalists often use something not quite related to the point as emphasis. There's nothing wrong with it and to dispute it is pedantic, imo.