BoxRec

With the Passing of MJ just thought i'd post this again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZvBDYS6hsY

dayum..... if British Boxing had one guy like him now, it'd be Great

Also notice the British Commentators....Miserable c**ts!

lol when he chinned the skull. what a legend.. He's one of the reasons i ever got into boxing!!

me too i reckon naz should get a call up to the hall of fame sharpish

haven't watched it but its the mccullough halloween entrance isn't it. Darkie was awful, "this is going too far, boxers don't need to see graveyards" "this is too much" "this is in poor taste". How about sitting back and enjoying the spectacle darkie

haven't watched it but its the mccullough halloween entrance isn't it. Darkie was awful, "this is going too far, boxers don't need to see graveyards" "this is too much" "this is in poor taste". How about sitting back and enjoying the spectacle darkie

Exactly....

In alot of ways Boxing has gone BACKWARDS in the last few years in terms of Presentation and putting on a SPECTACLE....

Boxing will always be a Pure Exciting Sport but throwing in a bit of Showbusiness won't harm eaither and guys like Hamed, Eubank and Roy Jones Jr Brought that.

This is Roy Jones vs Clinton woods Ring Entrance, one of my Fave Ever

Starts from 3 Mins in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDCuBw1UG_U

lirva wrote:haven't watched it but its the mccullough halloween entrance isn't it. Darkie was awful, "this is going too far, boxers don't need to see graveyards" "this is too much" "this is in poor taste". How about sitting back and enjoying the spectacle darkie

x 2

exittored wrote:

haven't watched it but its the mccullough halloween entrance isn't it. Darkie was awful, "this is going too far, boxers don't need to see graveyards" "this is too much" "this is in poor taste". How about sitting back and enjoying the spectacle darkie

Exactly....

In alot of ways Boxing has gone BACKWARDS in the last few years in terms of Presentation and putting on a SPECTACLE....

Boxing will always be a Pure Exciting Sport but throwing in a bit of Showbusiness won't harm eaither and guys like Hamed, Eubank and Roy Jones Jr Brought that.

This is Roy Jones vs Clinton woods Ring Entrance, one of my Fave Ever

Starts from 3 Mins in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDCuBw1UG_U

LOL, Larry is brilliant...

"Roy Jones seems to think stiff competition means fighting stiffs. Which brings us to Clinton Woods.. game... talented, but not at this elite level. So lets get it on, and lets get it overwith!"

GREAT!!

LOL, Larry is brilliant...

"Roy Jones seems to think stiff competition means fighting stiffs. Which brings us to Clinton Woods.. game... talented, but not at this elite level. So lets get it on, and lets get it overwith!"

GREAT!!

Yeah he is at his most condescending best there.....

I do think these Traditionalists are a bit too stuck in the mud to anything different though.

Great times, Hamed absolute legend. Get him back on our TV!

Interesting that the commentators felt a graveyard was in "bad taste", because boxing is a dangerous sport.

Is that bad taste, though?

Is it better to live in a fairytale land where we don't think boxing is dangerous?

Naseem wasn't saying he was going to kill anyone, of course, it was just a prop.

i seem to remember naz and mj getting friendly around the time of the kevin kelley fight.

jacko met naz at his gym i think.

What's Michael Jackson doing these days? He doesn't seem to be in the news much, Perhaps just enjoying a quiet retirement, like Naz!

Yeah they did meet and became friends, the Prince became was big at the time and had alot of celebrities Friends like Puff Daddy, Will Smith, Sylvester Stallone, Wesley Snipes, Robbie Williams, David Beckham and Liam and Noel Gallagher.

whicker wrote:Interesting that the commentators felt a graveyard was in "bad taste", because boxing is a dangerous sport.

Is that bad taste, though?

Is it better to live in a fairytale land where we don't think boxing is dangerous?

Naseem wasn't saying he was going to kill anyone, of course, it was just a prop.

yeah it was a load of old bullshit from Darkie to be honest. Way over the top. Although you can appreciate the sentiment.
If anything he needed a few more dancers , like RJJ in the Woods entrance on this thread. Half the Internet cafe was digging that...mind you I had to shut it down out of embarrassment when he started rappingm the fool!

hitman_hatton1 wrote:i seem to remember naz and mj getting friendly around the time of the kevin kelley fight.

jacko met naz at his gym i think.

I can see how Naz would resemble a 12yo boy being only 5'3

I'm looking forward to Amir Khan's tribute to Michael Jackson. Do people think he will be moonwalking before his legs go against Kotelnik, or will it be some other variant of a Jacko dance? Or will he just go for the standard Chicken?

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

hitman_hatton1 wrote:i seem to remember naz and mj getting friendly around the time of the kevin kelley fight.

jacko met naz at his gym i think.

I can see how Naz would resemble a 12yo boy being only 5'3

Its well known that Jackson didn't molest anyone.

lirva wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

hitman_hatton1 wrote:i seem to remember naz and mj getting friendly around the time of the kevin kelley fight.

jacko met naz at his gym i think.

I can see how Naz would resemble a 12yo boy being only 5'3

Its well known that Jackson didn't molest anyone.

I wish he'd paid me 20 million bucks for not molesting me...

Back on to boxing, the great story about the McCulloch ring entrance is that originaly the headstones were going to have the names of former Hamed victims, but it was decided that would have been in poor taste. This is where boxing meets Spinal Tap...

Loynesy wrote:
I wish he'd paid me 20 million bucks for not molesting me...

Back on to boxing, the great story about the McCulloch ring entrance is that originaly the headstones were going to have the names of former Hamed victims, but it was decided that would have been in poor taste. This is where boxing meets Spinal Tap...

In fairness if you were babysitting a child for a friend for a night and the friend came back and said he was going to press child rape charges on you if you didn't give him 5 quid, what would you do? (20 million to MJ would have been similar to 5 quid to you or me) Personally i would pay up, as once the charges are made you are guilty by association (similar with rape charges). Even if you are cleared (which MJ was the second time) it still hangs over you. Once word got out though, MJ was seen as guilty as sin. He didn't make that mistake next time and took the guy to court, where he was cleared.

lirva wrote: In fairness if you were babysitting a child for a friend for a night and the friend came back and said he was going to press child rape charges on you if you didn't give him 5 quid, what would you do? (20 million to MJ would have been similar to 5 quid to you or me) Personally i would pay up, as once the charges are made you are guilty by association (similar with rape charges). Even if you are cleared (which MJ was the second time) it still hangs over you. Once word got out though, MJ was seen as guilty as sin. He didn't make that mistake next time and took the guy to court, where he was cleared.

Thats completely inaccurate!!

The first set of allegations against Jackson were made by the family of Jordi Chandler, who threatend to sue Jackson for damages (e.g. cash) in the civil courts. The lad actually refused to initiate criminal proceedings against Jackson and provide a statement to Police. With no statement from the 'victim' there was 'no case' to be brought by the Californian Prosecutors.

In the second and more recent child molestation allegations, The alleged victim at the centre of the allegations made a complaint to Police and they investigated the offence and it was decided by the Californian Prosecutors that Jackson had a criminal case to answer.

It was in no way Jackson's decision for the matters to go to Court in any respect.

liamlion wrote:

lirva wrote: In fairness if you were babysitting a child for a friend for a night and the friend came back and said he was going to press child rape charges on you if you didn't give him 5 quid, what would you do? (20 million to MJ would have been similar to 5 quid to you or me) Personally i would pay up, as once the charges are made you are guilty by association (similar with rape charges). Even if you are cleared (which MJ was the second time) it still hangs over you. Once word got out though, MJ was seen as guilty as sin. He didn't make that mistake next time and took the guy to court, where he was cleared.

Thats completely inaccurate. The first set of allegations were made by the family of Jordi Chandler, who threatend to sue Jackson in the civil courts. The lad actually refused to initiate criminal proceedings against Jackson and so with no statement from the 'victim' there was no case be brought.

In the second incident. The lad at the centre of the allegations made a complaint to Police and they investigated the offence and it was decided by the Californian Prosecutors that Jackson had a criminal case to answer.

It was in no way Jackson's decision for the matters to go to Court in any respect.

there was no statement to be brought in the first case because the family got their money and didn't go through with the case. the lad made his allegations in the second case wanting to get money in the courts (his parents) and was found out as a liar.

lirva wrote:

liamlion wrote:

lirva wrote: In fairness if you were babysitting a child for a friend for a night and the friend came back and said he was going to press child rape charges on you if you didn't give him 5 quid, what would you do? (20 million to MJ would have been similar to 5 quid to you or me) Personally i would pay up, as once the charges are made you are guilty by association (similar with rape charges). Even if you are cleared (which MJ was the second time) it still hangs over you. Once word got out though, MJ was seen as guilty as sin. He didn't make that mistake next time and took the guy to court, where he was cleared.

Thats completely inaccurate. The first set of allegations were made by the family of Jordi Chandler, who threatend to sue Jackson in the civil courts. The lad actually refused to initiate criminal proceedings against Jackson and so with no statement from the 'victim' there was no case be brought.

In the second incident. The lad at the centre of the allegations made a complaint to Police and they investigated the offence and it was decided by the Californian Prosecutors that Jackson had a criminal case to answer.

It was in no way Jackson's decision for the matters to go to Court in any respect.

there was no statement to be brought in the first case because the family got their money and didn't go through with the case. the lad made his allegations in the second case wanting to get money in the courts (his parents) and was found out as a liar.

I dont know what you mean by... "there was no statement to be brought in the first case because the family got their money and didnt go through with the case”

What does that mean?

As I understand it, The Chandlers filed a civil law-suit against Jackson and the matter was settled out of the civil court with Jackson paying money in agreement for the Chandlers to drop the civil law-suit/allegations.

The Police asked Jordi Chandler to make a criminal statement in relation to the allegations and he refused to support a Police prosecution, presumably because he got what he wanted out of the civil law-suit (money).

As Im aware the lad in the second instance made criminal allegations, for which Jackson was brought to a Criminal Court and acquitted of a number of separate charges. To my mind, the lad has not launched civil proceedings. In any event, I seem to recall, the leading police investigator who had attempted to bring criminal proceedings against Jackson in relation to the Chandler allegations, was disgusted that Jackson could effectively pay his way out of possible criminal proceedings. The officer was on record as saying that Jackson would not be able to escape criminal proceedings so easily by paying his way out of trouble if such allegations arose again… sure enough the same police officer lead the second set of investigations concerning Jackson and this time Jackson wasn’t able to pay his way out of avoiding criminal proceedings.

And to correct you… Jackson was found not guilty of the charges, that does not equate to the fact that the lad was “found out as a liar”!

I meant that the first boy didn't make his statement because he got his parents got their money and didn't let him make the statement, which we both agree on. Jackson obviously thought that it was better to settle and get it all overwith before it blew up and became the front page of every paper in the land for weeks, and considering the money he had, 20 mil was nothing to him at the time. It was a bad decision though, but Jackson was hardly the smartest guy in the world.

The second lad was found out as a liar as his claims were found to be false in the court of law. "Not guilty". Considering the parents of the lad were allowing their child to sleep in bed with a grown man, they are not credible in my opinion. I expect both lads to come clean about everything in a few years, when the guilt gets too much.

lirva wrote: The second lad was found out as a liar as his claims were found to be false in the court of law. "Not guilty".

Your completely wrong on that one my friend.

The burden on the prosecution is to prove an offence beyond reasonable doubt and that means that the jury must be 'totally sure' that the defendant has committed the offence...

The Jury being 'Possibly sure', or 'maybe sure' simply isnt good enough to convict someone of an offence.

Im not sure what the judge's closing remarks were but i dont think there was any suggestion that the lad involved or any of the prosecution's witnesses had been lying, nor were any charges brought against such persons for perverting the course of justice (e.g. lying in court).

Being found not guilty effectively means that the Prosecution hasnt proved their case (e.g. perhaps there wasnt enough evidence or there was enough doubt raised by the Defence). It doesnt mean (per se) that the complainant was lying.

liamlion wrote:

lirva wrote: The second lad was found out as a liar as his claims were found to be false in the court of law. "Not guilty".

Your completely wrong on that one my friend.

The burden on the prosecution is to prove an offence beyond reasonable doubt and that means that the jury must be 'totally sure' that the defendant has committed the offence...

The Jury being 'Possibly sure', or 'maybe sure' simply isnt good enough to convict someone of an offence.

Im not sure what the judge's closing remarks were but i dont think there was any suggestion that the lad involved or any of the prosecution's witnesses had been lying, nor were any charges brought against such persons for perverting the course of justice (e.g. lying in court).

Being found not guilty effectively means that the Prosecution hasnt proved their case (e.g. perhaps there wasnt enough evidence or there was enough doubt raised by the Defence). It doesnt mean (per se) that the complainant is lying.

Technically that's true yes, but in a broader sense I think you would have to be mildly retarded not to deduce that he was lying. His mother was exposed in the trial as a fraud (saying she was "kidnapped" by jackson but diring the time kidnapped she got a full body wax job done in the mansion). That basically revealed her as the fraud she is imo. Obviously I cannot speak for the individual jurors but you'd have to be pretty dumb or biased to think the parents of the chap were trustworthy, which undoubtedly brings the young chaps motives into question. I have no doubt that the jury saw through his lies.

Of course, technically speaking, I am out of line with my comments here just as someone saying Holyfield was beaten by Lewis in their first fight would be, since the fight was a draw on the books. However, if we take the EMPIRICAL DATA into account (Lewis won the fight), then objectively we can say in hindsight, that it wasnt a draw (of course we are not technically right when we say that).

I am doing a similar thing when I say the young chap was found out in court.