BoxRec

Was it supposed to be the purse bids today?

matchroom and goldenboy have agreed a 48 hour extension because theyve nearly agreed terms for Brook Porter early august in New York double header card with presumably Thurman vs TBA

-according to fast cars latest interview, official announcement later in the week

I want Brook vs Dan Ion to be signed now!

Stop wasting everyone's time with this Porter nonsense and sign the contract.

Horse wrote:I want Brook vs Dan Ion to be signed now!

Stop wasting everyone's time with this Porter nonsense and sign the contract.

you're having a laugh.

domjon wrote:matchroom and goldenboy have agreed a 48 hour extension because theyve nearly agreed terms for Brook Porter early august in New York double header card with presumably Thurman vs TBA

-according to fast cars latest interview, official announcement later in the week

Thanks mate.

columbo wrote:you're having a laugh.

Am I?

Horse wrote:

columbo wrote:you're having a laugh.

Am I?

Who the hell wants to see that shit?

columbo wrote:Who the hell wants to see that poo?

It's all Brookypoo is worth.

I really want that fight signed.

Brook is great for comedy value.

You rascal

He's good for one thing is the king of rankings. When spread he makes my roses grow.

Parson Cross wrote:He's good for one thing is the king of rankings. When spread he makes my roses grow.

The roses of absurdity.

Paul Butler turned pro 9 months after Kell won his first eliminator and 3 months after he became mandatory for the WBO title, Brook has boxed another 10 times since Paul turned pro. This Saturday Butler fights for a world title, Brook is still yet to get a date and venue confirmed for his shot.

domjon wrote:matchroom and goldenboy have agreed a 48 hour extension because theyve nearly agreed terms for Brook Porter early august in New York double header card with presumably Thurman vs TBA

-according to fast cars latest interview, official announcement later in the week

OK. I like that. Porter v Brook & Thurman v Bloke with the winners facing off - assuming nothing controversial happens.

Who will be up for Thurman? I reckon the Dan comment might actually be accurate although for Thurman not Brook

Taansend wrote: OK. I like that. Porter v Brook & Thurman v Bloke with the winners facing off - assuming nothing controversial happens.

Who will be up for Thurman? I reckon the Dan comment might actually be accurate although for Thurman not Brook

I'd love to see Maidana in with Thurman, providing the Mayweather rematch doesn't come off

Equally, Khan vs Thurman would fit nicely into your scenario of the winners (and respective losers) facing off afterwards

Am I being too optimistic hoping for 4 out of the top 10 in the world all happening on a double bill?

perhaps should have made celar that it was only my educated guess that it would be Thurman on the card. :surprised:

For those who haven't seen the video Hearn just said Brook-Porter definitely wasn't a single main event and that there were other great fights on the card that he wasn't at liberty to reveal. Was just my assumption that it would be Thurman.

Hope this Shaeffer/Goldenboy thing doesn't kybosh the whole thing.

domjon wrote:Hope this Shaeffer/Goldenboy thing doesn't kybosh the whole thing.

Knowing Kell's luck it probably will.

[quote="domjon"]perhaps should have made celar that it was only my educated guess that it would be Thurman on the card. :surprised:

For those who haven't seen the video Hearn just said Brook-Porter definitely wasn't a single main event and that there were other great fights on the card that he wasn't at liberty to reveal. Was just my assumption that it would be Thurman.

Hope this Shaeffer/Goldenboy thing doesn't kybosh the whole thing.[/quote]

This is my fear now its official Richard has left.

So the Porter fight will be in August? I thought it had to be sooner?

The IBF will agree an extension as long as there is an agreement in principal - you know, like Froch v Groves 2 !

Parson Cross wrote:The IBF will agree an extension as long as there is an agreement in principal - you know, like Froch v Groves 2 !

What about if Floyd wanted to fight Porter though?

columbo wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:The IBF will agree an extension as long as there is an agreement in principal - you know, like Froch v Groves 2 !

What about if Floyd wanted to fight Porter though?[/quote
I think you probably know how that might pan out don't you sir?

Straw poll: is it just me that still always sees 'Kelly Brook' on the first take and sighs with disappointment on the second - even though we're on a boxing forum?

TJ77 wrote:

columbo wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:The IBF will agree an extension as long as there is an agreement in principal - you know, like Froch v Groves 2 !

What about if Floyd wanted to fight Porter though?[/quote
I think you probably know how that might pan out don't you sir?

My point is a unification supersedes a mandatory doesnt it?

Horse wrote:

columbo wrote:Who the hell wants to see that poo?

It's all Brookypoo is worth.

I really want that fight signed.

Brook is great for comedy value.

It is a shame your not great for comedy value.
Its a crying shame you weren't minced and formed into Tesco value burgers last year.

TJ77 wrote:

Horse wrote:

columbo wrote:Who the hell wants to see that poo?

It's all Brookypoo is worth.

I really want that fight signed.

Brook is great for comedy value.

It is a shame your not great for comedy value.
Its a crying shame you weren't minced and formed into Tesco value burgers last year.