BoxRec

I caught the end of The Big Fight review on ITV4 this afternoon and Jim Rosenthal said after the August break, they will return in early September at the Ally Pally.
Does this mean the Barker v Macklin clash is still going ahead? The show must have been recorded this week and it doesn't look like they think it's not going to happen. Sorry if this has already covered, but does anyone have any news?

i think the show will go ahead whether macklin's there or not, they'll just bring a replacement in for him, so I don't think that's any indication macklin-barker is still on.

Sh1t like this really dents my enthusiasm for the game and increases my dislike for Fwank Warren.

Far too often Warren's fighters skip the domestic scene for a route towards some bogus world title against unknown eastern europeans or washed up yanks. Ultimately this robs us, Joe Public, of a cracking domestic tear up.

Fwank Warren actually does more harm for british boxing than good.

liamlion wrote:Sh1t like this really dents my enthusiasm for the game and increases my dislike for Fwank Warren.

Far too often Warren's fighters skip the domestic scene for a route towards some bogus world title against unknown eastern europeans or washed up yanks. Ultimately this robs us, Joe Public, of a cracking domestic tear up.

Fwank Warren actually does more harm for british boxing than good.

warren is neither of there promoters...Hatton is Macklins

sweetscience wrote:

liamlion wrote:Sh1t like this really dents my enthusiasm for the game and increases my dislike for Fwank Warren.

Far too often Warren's fighters skip the domestic scene for a route towards some bogus world title against unknown eastern europeans or washed up yanks. Ultimately this robs us, Joe Public, of a cracking domestic tear up.

Fwank Warren actually does more harm for british boxing than good.

warren is neither of there promoters...Hatton is Macklins

Really? Well that'll teach me! Since when has Hatton signed Macklin, i take it it was very recent?

quite recently yes

It's likely that Barker will fight for the vacant title, but against who? McEwan, Quigg, Smith, Eastman.

Not much choice.

even if Macklin was with Warren, you have to blame HIM to a large degree.

Look at Khan, he's with Warren but won his title at 22 and even offered witter a fight. It comes down to the fighter too. Do you think Warren could have kept Khan fighting bums and brought him to 40-0. No chance.

I don't like the signs so far, but I'm still thinking it's a little too soon so start slamming Macklin until we know for sure that he won't be boxing Barker, but if he doesn't even fulfill a mandatory defence, I think that will be very poor form.

THEBUTCH wrote:I don't like the signs so far, but I'm still thinking it's a little too soon so start slamming Macklin until we know for sure that he won't be boxing Barker, but if he doesn't even fulfill a mandatory defence, I think that will be very poor form.

Macklin will be fighting Asikainen for the European title, in either Sept or October which should if all routes are followed leave the British vacant and Barker will contest it against TBA

liamlion wrote:Sh1t like this really dents my enthusiasm for the game and increases my dislike for Fwank Warren.

Far too often Warren's fighters skip the domestic scene for a route towards some bogus world title against unknown eastern europeans or washed up yanks. Ultimately this robs us, Joe Public, of a cracking domestic tear up.

Fwank Warren actually does more harm for british boxing than good.

Err. When you have wiped the egg of your face you better retract!

Ricky (I only want to fight the best) Hatton is responsible for this one, not allegedly. Warren is putting on Sexton V Rogan and Brook V Jennings. Has done a deal with Barry Hearn to let Simpson fight Truscott. Last season we saw, amongst others, Cook/Arthur, Brook/Lomax, Rogan/Sexton, Cleverly/Oakey, Rogan/Harrison, Rogan/Skelton, Khan/Gomez, Burns/Gomez, Mitchell/Johannsen etc etc.

In comparsion? Yeah I agree, Warren is bad for the domestic scene.

boxingchat wrote:

liamlion wrote:Sh1t like this really dents my enthusiasm for the game and increases my dislike for Fwank Warren.

Far too often Warren's fighters skip the domestic scene for a route towards some bogus world title against unknown eastern europeans or washed up yanks. Ultimately this robs us, Joe Public, of a cracking domestic tear up.

Fwank Warren actually does more harm for british boxing than good.

Err. When you have wiped the egg of your face you better retract!

.

boxingchat's version of a 'cease and desist' notice

Well if people engaged their brains first!

keep the mismatches coming, BC

then start "spilling the beans" when said fighter leaves the artist formerly known as "sports network."

boxingchat wrote:

Well if people engaged their brains first!

i am laughing at you, not with you.

My mate seems to think that Thirlwell will fight for the title with Barker. But be warned, this is the guy who told me Barker/Jantuah was happening. And apparentely, that fight was close to happening. Jantuah wanted too much money.

Dioufy wrote:My mate seems to think that Thirlwell will fight for the title with Barker.

wouldn't surprise me. there was talk of Thirlwall for Macklin's first defence, back when Khan - Kotelnik was in London and macklin was still with warren.

Another easy win for Barker I suppose, plus another belt. But he just can't get the big names, domestically or internationally..

lirva wrote:even if Macklin was with Warren, you have to blame HIM to a large degree.

Look at Khan, he's with Warren but won his title at 22 and even offered witter a fight. It comes down to the fighter too. Do you think Warren could have kept Khan fighting bums and brought him to 40-0. No chance.

Has Khan fought John Murray or even shown any interest in the fight?

Has Khan proved himself the best lightweight or light-welterweight in Britain?

Witter may have been offered the Khan fight, but how much notice was he given?

boxingchat wrote:

liamlion wrote:Sh1t like this really dents my enthusiasm for the game and increases my dislike for Fwank Warren.

Far too often Warren's fighters skip the domestic scene for a route towards some bogus world title against unknown eastern europeans or washed up yanks. Ultimately this robs us, Joe Public, of a cracking domestic tear up.

Fwank Warren actually does more harm for british boxing than good.

Err. When you have wiped the egg of your face you better retract!

Ricky (I only want to fight the best) Hatton is responsible for this one, not allegedly. Warren is putting on Sexton V Rogan and Brook V Jennings. Has done a deal with Barry Hearn to let Simpson fight Truscott. Last season we saw, amongst others, Cook/Arthur, Brook/Lomax, Rogan/Sexton, Cleverly/Oakey, Rogan/Harrison, Rogan/Skelton, Khan/Gomez, Burns/Gomez, Mitchell/Johannsen etc etc.

In comparsion? Yeah I agree, Warren is bad for the domestic scene.

Erm, I think Warren blatantly has to take a large amount of responsibility for not putting on Hatton-Witter over the course of a number of years - he was very intent on protecting Hatton until he landed him a genuine world-title shot. I think Hatton has shown who is largely responsible for his padded resume, for since he has left Warren he hasnt been afraid to go after his rival world champions.

Just out of interest, what was Fwank's excuse for Mitchell avoiding Burns or Khan avoiding Murray?

For the record Michael Gomez fighting Amir Khan was an absolute joke - it was a shot super-featheweight against a huge lightweight. And what did Gomez bring to the fight with Burns, except the name?? Lets have the reigning commonwealth champions fighting against the reigning British champions from the same weight divisions...

Brook v Lomax?? do yourself a favour... hardly Barker v Macklin!

Cook v Arthur and Rogan v Sexton were good solid match-making. But lets not pretend here, Warren has evidently been far too keen to let his star fighters (e.g. Hatton, Khan and Kevin Mitchell to a lesser extent) bypass genuine domestic rivals in order to build-up undefeated records against blown up fighters from the weight divisions below... You only have to look at how many television networks Warren has fallen out with in order to understand exactly the level and quality of product he delivers.

lirva wrote:even if Macklin was with Warren, you have to blame HIM to a large degree.

Look at Khan, he's with Warren but won his title at 22 and even offered witter a fight. It comes down to the fighter too. Do you think Warren could have kept Khan fighting bums and brought him to 40-0. No chance.

Exactly..Remeber FW let Maklin fight Elcock and that was a 50/50 fight on paper!!

Macklin vs Asikainen for the European title is still a good fight, so it is not as if he is doing a Ryan Rhodes.