Page 1 of 1

Why did the mesquita fight fall through?

Posted: 18 May 2004, 07:45
by buzz
Not that arsed really coz the SN circus is an humiliation to boxing, but just a bit curious as to why they anounce an opponent and then an hour later anounce another? :roll:

Re: Why did the mesquita fight fall through?

Posted: 18 May 2004, 07:53
by bennie
buzz wrote:Not that arsed really coz the SN circus is an humiliation to boxing, but just a bit curious as to why they anounce an opponent and then an hour later anounce another? :roll:
Probably malicious. Frankie boy has written a letter to BN this week slagging off the websites for getting it wrong.
Looks like he decided to mess them about himself.

Posted: 18 May 2004, 07:58
by dondada
Strange if it was malicious. Haven't read the letter yet. It doesn't make the websites look bad. Only SN.

I've done a piece on it over at BBN.

Posted: 18 May 2004, 08:01
by bennie
The websites pick it up straightaway. The newspapers only pick it up when deadline looms. The opponent was announced early afternoon yesterday and changed a short while later. None of the newspapers would have been hit by the change.
Only the websites.

Posted: 18 May 2004, 08:13
by J
bennie wrote:The websites pick it up straightaway. The newspapers only pick it up when deadline looms. The opponent was announced early afternoon yesterday and changed a short while later. None of the newspapers would have been hit by the change.
Only the websites.

Good point Bennie and even then often the papers still get it wrong.
As for websites perhaps SN could explain why tickets were still up for sale for the 5th to the public or advertised as such when it was all in the papers it was to be moved to the 12th....... :o :roll:

Posted: 18 May 2004, 08:15
by dondada
The websites haven't exactly been 'hit' though. Big deal if they announce Mesquita as the next opponent. That's because they have been told so by SN.

It just makes SN look ridiculous when they announce a change of opponent hours afterwards.

BTW, BBC teletext had Mesquita as the opponent this morning. 8)

Posted: 18 May 2004, 08:18
by J
so did SN announce two oppoenents then? Thats the way it is reading?
Sorry was heads down at work yest....hectic so havent caught up.

Posted: 18 May 2004, 08:20
by bennie
Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:The websites haven't exactly been 'hit' though. Big deal if they announce Mesquita as the next opponent. That's because they have been told so by SN.

It just makes SN look ridiculous when they announce a change of opponent hours afterwards.

BTW, BBC teletext had Mesquita as the opponent this morning. 8)
Does Warren care how it makes him and his network look? This is a guy who once told everyone Azumah Nelson would be fighting Barry McGuigan in London in 1986 and that Nigel Benn would be fighting Roberto Duran in London in late '90. He likes to have his fun.

Posted: 18 May 2004, 08:27
by dr_hook
bennie wrote:
Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:The websites haven't exactly been 'hit' though. Big deal if they announce Mesquita as the next opponent. That's because they have been told so by SN.

It just makes SN look ridiculous when they announce a change of opponent hours afterwards.

BTW, BBC teletext had Mesquita as the opponent this morning. 8)
Does Warren care how it makes him and his network look? This is a guy who once told everyone Azumah Nelson would be fighting Barry McGuigan in London in 1986 and that Nigel Benn would be fighting Roberto Duran in London in late '90. He likes to have his fun.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/1807864.stm

Posted: 18 May 2004, 08:30
by bennie
Ricky Hatton has been linked to more big names than Ulrika Johnson.

Posted: 18 May 2004, 08:32
by J
quality, 7/2/02 quote Frank "Hatton V Kostya by the end of the year"
"lewis / Tyson wont happen" :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:


Lewis batters tyson last year and Hatton is fighting worse opponents than he was in 2003. :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

Posted: 18 May 2004, 08:39
by dondada
bennie wrote:quote]
Does Warren care how it makes him and his network look?
Obviously not. But he should do. You can surely only bite the hand that feeds you for so long. Even the adoring thousands in the MEN will get fed up eventually.

Then again, maybe not actually. That's the sad thing.

We forget that most people, including many who actually go to boxing shows, really don't know their stuff. If Sky says it's good, it's good. Sad. :cry:

Posted: 18 May 2004, 08:47
by bennie
Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:
bennie wrote:quote]
Does Warren care how it makes him and his network look?
Obviously not. But he should do. You can surely only bite the hand that feeds you for so long. Even the adoring thousands in the MEN will get fed up eventually.

Then again, maybe not actually. That's the sad thing.

We forget that most people, including many who actually go to boxing shows, really don't know their stuff. If Sky says it's good, it's good. Sad. :cry:
Obviously, I'm purely guessing as to the inexplicable, seemingly amateurish change of opponent, but a lot of the websites have "Hatton fighting Vilches" as a headline just above another headline that reads: "Hatton fighting Mesquita". It's quite comical.

Re: Why did the mesquita fight fall through?

Posted: 18 May 2004, 08:50
by steve richards
buzz wrote:Not that arsed really coz the SN circus is an humiliation to boxing, but just a bit curious as to why they anounce an opponent and then an hour later anounce another? :roll:
They might have had word he was credable and would put up a fight :P , and we would'nt want that, or he was a light welter and not coming up or down a division in weight :TU:

Posted: 18 May 2004, 12:06
by jamesmcdonnell
I would have thought that a large proportion of Ricky's fans are in fact Man City fans who identify with Ricky as a sort of club cheerleader, which virtually assures him a crowd every single time he fights.

There is nothing wrong with this, good for Hatton and Warren if they can use their smarts to build such a following, but I was under the impression that Hatton was going to take on 'the best in the division' and thus far, that just ain't happening. Spadafora isn't really an improvement on Tackie in my opinion.

Posted: 18 May 2004, 12:48
by buzz
Warren has never rated Hatton. Even at the start he openly admitted that he was surprised how well Ricky was doing and it seems that he still has no confidence in the lad, which really is not fair on Ricky as I'm sure he would like to prove himself.

Posted: 18 May 2004, 13:13
by adamiw
i didn't think it would be mesquita. btalk said so about 3 weeks ago. if they were fight, and it was made it would of been officially announced alot sooner.

Posted: 18 May 2004, 13:16
by adamiw
wonder if the Hatton quotes were genuine? probably not...warren just having a dig at the pinto team in the mean time.

Posted: 18 May 2004, 20:32
by Lefthookhappy19
Mesquita was probably deemed too "dangerous".

Spadafora I think is a step back from Tackie, at least Tackie could punch. Spada's been inactive and has had a lot of trouble recently thats bound to affect him. He has never really beaten anyone of any note and fights mostly at lightweight and even there he couldn't bust a grape, its been about 4 years since he stopped someone and that was on a cut. He got pretty lucky and was dropped against light punching Leonard Dorin, a pressure fighter just like Hatton only Ricky hits far harder. I mean come on, this is no risk, this is bullshit.

Shit, who even knows if Spadafora will be allowed in the country since he's on a attempted murder charge. This fight could easily fall through and I hope it does.

I mean is anyone gonna look foward to Ricky fighting Spadafora? I looked foward to Tackie but I won't for this guy. The fight is about the least risky he could have taken thats a name, the only danger is cuts and maybe being outboxed but he shouldn't be that much of a problem if truth be told. Ricky should be dropped from the rankings I think, move the fornicate over and let the real fighters get on with it. Cotto really is putting Ricky to shame with his choice of opponents.