BoxRec

Any chance of an upset. Read that o'bars has had a great training camp. Sykes is a 4/1 favorite.

sykes should win comfortably think the burns perfomance flatterd o'hara

tough fight but i reckon Sykes will prevail

OMG , here goes slapbangwhallop

falkor wrote:tough fight but i reckon Sykes will prevail

OMG , here goes slapbangwhallop

slapbang, in his preview of the fight, thinks O'Hara is good value for a points win at 4/1.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

falkor wrote:tough fight but i reckon Sykes will prevail

OMG , here goes slapbangwhallop

slapbang, in his preview of the fight, thinks O'Hara is good value for a points win at 4/1.

i aint a betting man being a penniless student but cheers

falkor wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

falkor wrote:tough fight but i reckon Sykes will prevail

OMG , here goes slapbangwhallop

slapbang, in his preview of the fight, thinks O'Hara is good value for a points win at 4/1.

i aint a betting man being a penniless student but cheers

Christ, don't bet on that. I was merely pointing out that slapbangwhallop picked O'Hara to beat the Englishman.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

falkor wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote: slapbang, in his preview of the fight, thinks O'Hara is good value for a points win at 4/1.

i aint a betting man being a penniless student but cheers

Christ, don't bet on that. I was merely pointing out that slapbangwhallop picked O'Hara to beat the Englishman.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

falkor wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote: slapbang, in his preview of the fight, thinks O'Hara is good value for a points win at 4/1.

i aint a betting man being a penniless student but cheers

Christ, don't bet on that. I was merely pointing out that slapbangwhallop picked O'Hara to beat the Englishman.

OK mouth, are you saying that O'Hara is poor value at 4/1 to gain a points victory? If yes, what odds would O'Hara have to be for a points victory before you considers it good value.

Sykes UD

4/1's not bad value.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:4/1's not bad value.

so whats your point then if you agree with what I wrote?

slapbangwhallop wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:4/1's not bad value.

so whats your point then if you agree with what I wrote?

I just thought it was funny that even though the Ulsterman in the fight is a reasonably big underdog, he's still your choice. And yesterday you advised me that I should get some objectivity. That's all. You really don't need to justify your picks - you go for it.

'Value' is an interesting concept in gambling.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

slapbangwhallop wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:4/1's not bad value.

so whats your point then if you agree with what I wrote?

I just thought it was funny that even though the Ulsterman in the fight is a reasonably big underdog, he's still your choice. And yesterday you advised me that I should get some objectivity. That's all. You really don't need to justify your picks - you go for it.

'Value' is an interesting concept in gambling.

you obviously didnt read the article properly if you can come out that. Did I pick O'Hara to win? Or is this just another example of your talking out of your arsé?

slapbangwhallop wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

slapbangwhallop wrote: so whats your point then if you agree with what I wrote?

I just thought it was funny that even though the Ulsterman in the fight is a reasonably big underdog, he's still your choice. And yesterday you advised me that I should get some objectivity. That's all. You really don't need to justify your picks - you go for it.

'Value' is an interesting concept in gambling.

you obviously didnt read the article properly if you can come out that. Did I pick O'Hara to win? Or is this just another example of your talking out of your arsé?

See, I try and be nice and polite and you're all aggressive. You wrote this:

"However, at odds of 4/1 for O’Hara to win on points the value money with be on the Belfast battler to spring an upset."

I assumed you were tipping O'Hara to win.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

slapbangwhallop wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote: I just thought it was funny that even though the Ulsterman in the fight is a reasonably big underdog, he's still your choice. And yesterday you advised me that I should get some objectivity. That's all. You really don't need to justify your picks - you go for it.

'Value' is an interesting concept in gambling.

you obviously didnt read the article properly if you can come out that. Did I pick O'Hara to win? Or is this just another example of your talking out of your arsé?

See, I try and be nice and polite and you're all aggressive. You wrote this:

"However, at odds of 4/1 for O’Hara to win on points the value money with be on the Belfast battler to spring an upset."

I assumed you were tipping O'Hara to win.

Nice and polite? You've been acting like a childish disrespectful ignorant wánker for the past couple of days and you know it.

You assumed - well you know what primary school teachers say about assumptions dont you! What I am saying is that at odds like 4/1 I would be happier putting my nugget on O'Hara than Sykes because it provides better value as I think the it is a much more even fight than that.

slapbangwhallop wrote: Nice and polite? You've been acting like a childish disrespectful ignorant wánker for the past couple of days and you know it.

Enlighten me. Go and find some of my posts that justify the above abuse.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

slapbangwhallop wrote: Nice and polite? You've been acting like a childish disrespectful ignorant wánker for the past couple of days and you know it.

Enlighten me. Go and find some of my posts that justify the above abuse.

Just ignore the Duddy/Lee/Macklin/O'Hara and any other fighter nuthugger

falkor wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

slapbangwhallop wrote: Nice and polite? You've been acting like a childish disrespectful ignorant wánker for the past couple of days and you know it.

Enlighten me. Go and find some of my posts that justify the above abuse.

Just ignore the Duddy/Lee/Macklin/O'Hara and any other fighter nuthugger

Lirva, please enlighten me on these Lee, Duddy, Macklin or O'Hara "nuthugging". Is it nut hugging to consider that those three middleweight could beat Barker and that O'Hara has a decent chance against Sykes?

As for ignoring me both you an Ian came on this thread mentioning my name - I am not some attention seeking 12 year old girl.

King Geedorah wrote:

slapbangwhallop wrote:

falkor wrote: Just ignore the Duddy/Lee/Macklin/O'Hara and any other fighter nuthugger

Lirva, please enlighten me on these Lee, Duddy, Macklin or O'Hara "nuthugging". Is it nut hugging to consider that those three middleweight could beat Barker and that O'Hara has a decent chance against Sykes?

As for ignoring me both you an Ian came on this thread mentioning my name - I am not some attention seeking 12 year old girl.

I can attest to this, she turned 14 on Tuesday.

and you still tried it on you scamp! ;)

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

slapbangwhallop wrote: Nice and polite? You've been acting like a childish disrespectful ignorant wánker for the past couple of days and you know it.

Enlighten me. Go and find some of my posts that justify the above abuse.

PM sent with a list of the unprovoked remarks to which I am referring to - stop trying to pretend you are the Archangel Gabriel - you started this m'laddo!

slapbangwhallop wrote:

falkor wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote: Enlighten me. Go and find some of my posts that justify the above abuse.

Just ignore the Duddy/Lee/Macklin/O'Hara and any other fighter nuthugger

Lirva, please enlighten me on these Lee, Duddy, Macklin or O'Hara "nuthugging". Is it nut hugging to consider that those three middleweight could beat Barker and that O'Hara has a decent chance against Sykes?

As for ignoring me both you an Ian came on this thread mentioning my name - I am not some attention seeking 12 year old girl.

Yes