BoxRec

Posted: **15 Jun 2010, 03:05**

Thanks very much

Posted: **15 Jun 2010, 03:52**

This is a bit uncomfortable, predicting an outcome when one of the lads trainers is on here, and the other fighter is too. I think Smith deserves loads of credit for taking the fight- he's looked very good thus far in his career, and by the sounds of it he and his camp have taken the challenge presented by Simpson very seriously.

Having being by the corner for Simpsons fight with Truscott and carried his belt to the ring- and also watched him catch up with as classy a boxer as you could wish to see domestically in Steven Bell, I have to admit i'm leaning towards a Simpson victory.

Simpson is incredibly under-rated. He has world class potential- i'm sure of it. I'm not saying that Stephen doesn't- he looks to have it all, but Simpson will be only the third fighter in two years that he's faced with a winning record. Compare that to the likes of Stevie Bell, Truscott, Barnett, Derry, Morris, Foster jnr and Dazzo Williams.

I like Smiths style, he mixes his punches well to head and body and can certainly put them over at the level he's being mixing at, but this is such a steep jump up in class.

I think it will be a classic fight, one of - if not the best we see in a British Ring this year and I think that Simpsons seemingly ignored boxing skills will lead to victory rather then 'standing toe-to-toe'. Could be very, very close but unless Simpson has prepared like he did for the Appleby fight (which I'm certain he hasn't)- I'd go for John to start slowly and take over from around the fourth onwards to nick a close one.

Should Stephen win this, I think he wuld get huge credit universally from all domestic boxing fans. Best of luck to both camps- have a safe one.

Posted: **15 Jun 2010, 04:45**

The best 'trade' fight of the year to date takes place next month in Glasgow when local man John Simpson defends his Commonwealth featherweight title against Liverpool's Stephen Smith.
Simpson is still only 26 but has been round the block more times than a milk float. A cuts win over the previously unbeaten Andy Morris brought him the British featherweight title in London in 2006, and deservedly so after he was robbed in a first crack against Dazzo Williams in Hereford two year earlier, and he proved himself the rightful champion with a painful seven-round stoppage of Morris in a rematch. It was a stunning display of venom from a man generally regarded as a stylist, and Simpson shed his old boxing skin completely in a bloody, thrilling 12-rounder with an unbeaten Derry Matthews in Liverpool in 2007, trading punch for punch 'live' on ITV before Matthews, a huge featherweight, took a surprisingly wide decision.
Simpson dropped his British title to fellow Scot Paul Appleby on another contentious decision in 2008 but bounced back to lift the Commonwealth belt in January last year with a cuts win over the previously unbeaten Paul Truscott, a title he has retained twice, including, true to form, a stoppage of Truscott. Oh yes, today's Simpson is sharp, clever, brave and aggressive in the classic Scottish mould, a man to be avoided. He has yet to fight at all this year.
Enter Smith, a former amateur star who demanded this crack after just 10 fights as a pro (all wins) and has a belief backed by all those who know and train with him in the boxing hotbed that is Liverpool today. Matthews, for example, has sparred Smith and picks him to topple the Scot, which is pretty much straight from the horse's mouth. Tony Bellew also plumps for the challenger and made winning the Commonwealth title look easy with a similar number of fights. Smith, a bright 24-year-old who works in accountancy, is banking on speed and skill to offset the gritty aggression of the champion. "Speed kills and skills pay the bills," he says. He romped to a Commonwealth Games gold in 2006 in Malaysia and has no qualms about challenging Simpson in his own Glasgow. "I'm expecting the toughest, fittest, strongest John Simpson - and cant wait."
If he wins he and his super-middleweight brother Paul will be the first boxing brothers to hold British titles simultaneously since the smooth Booth brothers in 2000, the fabulous Feeneys in the 1980s and the fabulous Finnegans before them

Posted: **15 Jun 2010, 06:43**

Smigga wrote:
HomeOfBritishBoxing wrote:
ofcourse IF a fighter is good enough to not get involved they can outbox him without going toe to toe, how am i wrong???? i didn't say EVERY boxer has to go toe to toe at some point did i? i just said that i think simpson will cut the ring off well and force swifty to fight!!! it's called an opinion bro. read the post again..did i say your not entitled to your opinion? your making things up..simpson tko 11..hope im wrong
I know you're wrong.

And you didn't say I was not entitled to an opinion, no - but that doesn't mean you liked mine.

Now you've backtracked 180 degrees!

HomeOfBritishBoxing wrote: hence why i say IF he wants to box and move stephen will have to stand toe to toe with simpson at times!! jeeeez

HomeOfBritishBoxing wrote: ofcourse IF a fighter is good enough to not get involved they can outbox him without going toe to toe
Your words, not mine.

that doesn't make me wrong

i dont think smith is good enough to not be pressured into fighting,thats is what i was saying, your talking rubbish.

Posted: **15 Jun 2010, 07:12**

HomeOfBritishBoxing wrote:
Smigga wrote:
HomeOfBritishBoxing wrote:
ofcourse IF a fighter is good enough to not get involved they can outbox him without going toe to toe, how am i wrong???? i didn't say EVERY boxer has to go toe to toe at some point did i? i just said that i think simpson will cut the ring off well and force swifty to fight!!! it's called an opinion bro. read the post again..did i say your not entitled to your opinion? your making things up..simpson tko 11..hope im wrong
I know you're wrong.

And you didn't say I was not entitled to an opinion, no - but that doesn't mean you liked mine.

Now you've backtracked 180 degrees!

HomeOfBritishBoxing wrote: hence why i say IF he wants to box and move stephen will have to stand toe to toe with simpson at times!! jeeeez

HomeOfBritishBoxing wrote: ofcourse IF a fighter is good enough to not get involved they can outbox him without going toe to toe
Your words, not mine.
that doesn't make me wrong i dont think smith is good enough to not be pressured into fighting,thats is what i was saying, your talking rubbish.

Oh I get you! You typed one thing but actually meant another. I wondered why you weren't making sense now! My fault, sorry

There's only one of us talking rubbish 'bro'

Posted: **15 Jun 2010, 07:14**

bennie wrote:The best 'trade' fight of the year to date takes place next month in Glasgow when local man John Simpson defends his Commonwealth featherweight title against Liverpool's Stephen Smith.
Simpson is still only 26 but has been round the block more times than a milk float. A cuts win over the previously unbeaten Andy Morris brought him the British featherweight title in London in 2006, and deservedly so after he was robbed in a first crack against Dazzo Williams in Hereford two year earlier, and he proved himself the rightful champion with a painful seven-round stoppage of Morris in a rematch. It was a stunning display of venom from a man generally regarded as a stylist, and Simpson shed his old boxing skin completely in a bloody, thrilling 12-rounder with an unbeaten Derry Matthews in Liverpool in 2007, trading punch for punch 'live' on ITV before Matthews, a huge featherweight, took a surprisingly wide decision.
Simpson dropped his British title to fellow Scot Paul Appleby on another contentious decision in 2008 but bounced back to lift the Commonwealth belt in January last year with a cuts win over the previously unbeaten Paul Truscott, a title he has retained twice, including, true to form, a stoppage of Truscott. Oh yes, today's Simpson is sharp, clever, brave and aggressive in the classic Scottish mould, a man to be avoided. He has yet to fight at all this year.
Enter Smith, a former amateur star who demanded this crack after just 10 fights as a pro (all wins) and has a belief backed by all those who know and train with him in the boxing hotbed that is Liverpool today. Matthews, for example, has sparred Smith and picks him to topple the Scot, which is pretty much straight from the horse's mouth. Tony Bellew also plumps for the challenger and made winning the Commonwealth title look easy with a similar number of fights. Smith, a bright 24-year-old who works in accountancy, is banking on speed and skill to offset the gritty aggression of the champion. "Speed kills and skills pay the bills," he says. He romped to a Commonwealth Games gold in 2006 in Malaysia and has no qualms about challenging Simpson in his own Glasgow. "I'm expecting the toughest, fittest, strongest John Simpson - and cant wait."
If he wins he and his super-middleweight brother Paul will be the first boxing brothers to hold British titles simultaneously since the smooth Booth brothers in 2000, the fabulous Feeneys in the 1980s and the fabulous Finnegans before
them

Nice mate

Posted: **15 Jun 2010, 09:28**

This is a great fight. I think Smith can do it.

Posted: **15 Jun 2010, 10:13**

Smigga wrote:
HomeOfBritishBoxing wrote:
Smigga wrote: I know you're wrong.

And you didn't say I was not entitled to an opinion, no - but that doesn't mean you liked mine.

Now you've backtracked 180 degrees!
Your words, not mine.
that doesn't make me wrong i dont think smith is good enough to not be pressured into fighting,thats is what i was saying, your talking rubbish.

Oh I get you! You typed one thing but actually meant another. I wondered why you weren't making sense now! My fault, sorry

There's only one of us talking rubbish 'bro'

no wonder everybody thinks ur an arrogant twat in the boxing world. your talking out your arse

Posted: **15 Jun 2010, 11:37**

makes two of you.

Posted: **15 Jun 2010, 13:51**

hurlock wrote:makes two of you.

says the 1 who is always up smigga's arse..just because he posts on this forum

or is it a liverpool thing

Posted: **15 Jun 2010, 14:03**

or maybe because hes a good fighter, whos oppion most people agree with

Posted: **15 Jun 2010, 14:25**

HomeOfBritishBoxing wrote:
hurlock wrote:makes two of you.
says the 1 who is always up smigga's arse..just because he posts on this forum or is it a liverpool thing

Or maybe hurlock is from London, and I think he's a bit of a tit just as much as he thinks I'm one?

If you don't like being told you're wrong then maybe a boxing forum where fighters read isn't the best place for you to voice your boxing knowhow?!

Don't try and talk boxing tactics when you ARE wrong!

I corrected you and for that you think I am an arrogant prick. That's fine by me you don't know me or haven't met me.
You were talking a fight up giving me your facts on how fighters fight! I gave you my opinion which was correct and you spat your dummy out.

And you're wrong again by the way

Not EVERYONE thinks I'm arrogant at all. A miserable twat maybe, but certainly not arrogant

Posted: **15 Jun 2010, 14:45**

Smigga wrote:
HomeOfBritishBoxing wrote:
hurlock wrote:makes two of you.
says the 1 who is always up smigga's arse..just because he posts on this forum or is it a liverpool thing
Or maybe hurlock is from London, and I think he's a bit of a tit just as much as he thinks I'm one?

If you don't like being told you're wrong then maybe a boxing forum where fighters read isn't the best place for you to voice your boxing knowhow?! Don't try and talk boxing tactics when you ARE wrong!

I corrected you and for that you think I am an arrogant prick. That's fine by me you don't know me or haven't met me.
You were talking a fight up giving me your facts on how fighters fight! I gave you my opinion which was correct and you spat your dummy out.

And you're wrong again by the way
Not EVERYONE thinks I'm arrogant at all. A miserable twat maybe, but certainly not arrogant

I was not wrong you donut!!!! don't try and talk boxing tactics? i didn't say how every boxer fights, i stated only about the 2 guys this thread is about!! im the one that's right here, hence why i said swifty will have to go into the trenches i feel because john simpson is a good pressure fighter and throws alot of punches! then you come out with all this shit about boxing is hit and don't get hit...like i dont knw that

and you sound like a broken record player that keeps saying your wrong, well we'll have to agree to disagree...grovesy will put you in your place soon enough

D

Posted: **15 Jun 2010, 15:22**

HomeOfBritishBoxing wrote:you sound like a broken record player that keeps saying your wrong, well we'll have to agree to disagree...grovesy will put you in your place soon enough D

Was you one of them kids at school always running to get your Dad or older brothers to fight your battles?

You got put in your place for talking out of your arse and couldn't handle it then get personal.

I'm taking my ball now and never posting on Boxrec again!!!!!!!

Posted: **15 Jun 2010, 15:25**

Is this fight on tv?

Posted: **15 Jun 2010, 15:32**

Smigga wrote:
HomeOfBritishBoxing wrote:you sound like a broken record player that keeps saying your wrong, well we'll have to agree to disagree...grovesy will put you in your place soon enough D
Was you one of them kids at school always running to get your Dad or older brothers to fight your battles?
You got put in your place for talking out of your arse and couldn't handle it then get personal.

I'm taking my ball now and never posting on Boxrec again!!!!!!!

weak attempt..iv lookd afta myself from day.didn't hear you deny that groves will put a beating on ya..remember hit and hold hit and hold

Posted: **15 Jun 2010, 15:35**

HomeOfBritishBoxing wrote:
Smigga wrote:
HomeOfBritishBoxing wrote:you sound like a broken record player that keeps saying your wrong, well we'll have to agree to disagree...grovesy will put you in your place soon enough D
Was you one of them kids at school always running to get your Dad or older brothers to fight your battles?
You got put in your place for talking out of your arse and couldn't handle it then get personal.

I'm taking my ball now and never posting on Boxrec again!!!!!!!
weak attempt..iv lookd afta myself from day.didn't hear you deny that groves will put a beating on ya..remember hit and hold hit and hold

Sorry mate, don't want no trouble

internet warriors

Posted: **15 Jun 2010, 15:43**

Smigga wrote:
HomeOfBritishBoxing wrote:
Smigga wrote: Was you one of them kids at school always running to get your Dad or older brothers to fight your battles?
You got put in your place for talking out of your arse and couldn't handle it then get personal.

I'm taking my ball now and never posting on Boxrec again!!!!!!!
weak attempt..iv lookd afta myself from day.didn't hear you deny that groves will put a beating on ya..remember hit and hold hit and hold

Sorry mate, don't want no trouble
internet warriors

internet warrior? dat makes you 1 then

you keep going back and forth

Posted: **15 Jun 2010, 15:46**

dat be dat, den

Posted: **15 Jun 2010, 16:28**

HomeOfBritishBoxing wrote:
hurlock wrote:makes two of you.
says the 1 who is always up smigga's arse..just because he posts on this forum or is it a liverpool thing

You really are thick.

Not only do you not understand what your writing....which can be tricky, but you dont even understand what your reading

A bloody statement aswell you clungemonkey :!: :!:

I dont like how smith comes across.I would have no pleasure in ever meeting the man down to it. ive never met anyone ive posted with, so i dont know how personalities come across online..... apart from your nan

Posted: **15 Jun 2010, 18:01**

hurlock wrote:
HomeOfBritishBoxing wrote:
hurlock wrote:makes two of you.
says the 1 who is always up smigga's arse..just because he posts on this forum or is it a liverpool thing
You really are thick.

Not only do you not understand what your writing....which can be tricky, but you dont even understand what your reading
A bloody statement aswell you clungemonkey :!: :!:

I dont like how smith comes across.I would have no pleasure in ever meeting the man down to it. ive never met anyone ive posted with, so i dont know how personalities come across online..... apart from your nan

WOW fukin ell braveheart.. i wud absolutely luv you to say that to my face, suk ur mum u faggit

Posted: **15 Jun 2010, 18:06**

Bit more respect for the champion of Great Britain wouldn't go amiss HBB. I don't think there was a great deal wrong with what you posted intially but this is the guys brother so surely you can understand that he might be offended by you picking someone to stop his bro? What you've wrote since is really disrespectful and makes you sound like a bit of a twat. Read your posts before, there all good and your above that- surely?

And by the way, Smith beats Groves all day. He'll be the first opponent Groves has faced who will punch him back.

Posted: **15 Jun 2010, 18:14**

No is this on sky tv or another channel is not advertised anywhere?

Posted: **15 Jun 2010, 18:17**

It'll be on Sky. Shocked if it isn't.

Posted: **15 Jun 2010, 18:19**

Jeff Thomas wrote:Bit more respect for the champion of Great Britain wouldn't go amiss HBB. I don't think there was a great deal wrong with what you posted intially but this is the guys brother so surely you can understand that he might be offended by you picking someone to stop his bro? What you've wrote since is really disrespectful and makes you sound like a bit of a twat. Read your posts before, there all good and your above that- surely?

And by the way, Smith beats Groves all day. He'll be the first opponent Groves has faced who will punch him back.

and smigga doesn't sound like a twat becus he is british champion? he shouldnt be offended by me pickin against his bro! this is a forum here everybody has opinions. i couldn't care less if he's british champion, fair play for achieving it tho. if somebody doesnt respect me i aint gun sho him respect

groves is better then dodson and quigley i feel and they both gave smith a tough time.

BoxRec

smith v simpson

Re: smith v simpson

Re: smith v simpson

Re: smith v simpson

Re: smith v simpson

Re: smith v simpson

Re: smith v simpson

Re: smith v simpson

Re: smith v simpson

Re: smith v simpson

Re: smith v simpson

Re: smith v simpson

Re: smith v simpson

Re: smith v simpson

Re: smith v simpson

Re: smith v simpson

Re: smith v simpson

Re: smith v simpson

Re: smith v simpson

Re: smith v simpson

Re: smith v simpson

Re: smith v simpson

Re: smith v simpson

Re: smith v simpson

Re: smith v simpson

Re: smith v simpson