BoxRec

More a question of law than boxing. On his website, he states that the BBC are no longer screening boxing (i didn't know this was the case, but that's besides the point).

The article on his site states:

"But in the three years the BBC have screened boxing, they have failed to land a significant world title fight involving a British fighter - and served up a diet of run-of-the-mill domestic scraps."

But that's not even true. Woods Johnson x2 means 2 genuine world title fights involving a British fighter. Actually, in 3 years, Frank himself has not put on a genuine world title fight.

Surely that just a fact, not opinion. Maybe it's the word 'significant'. He can argue WBU is more 'significant' than IBF.

It's a fine line between opinion and out-and-out bullshit here.

As you suggest, the word "significant" is key.

Whether a particular boxing match is 'significant' or not is very subjective and therefore proving it definitively in the affirmative is virtually impossible.

i.e. What is significant to you could be meaningless to me.

FlawedGenius wrote:As you suggest, the word "significant" is key.

Whether a particular boxing match is 'significant' or not is very subjective and therefore proving it definitively in the affirmative is virtually impossible.

i.e. What is significant to you could be meaningless to me.

Take your point FG but IF this is what he has said/written:

"But in the three years the BBC have screened boxing, they have failed to land a significant world title fight involving a British fighter - and served up a diet of run-of-the-mill domestic scraps."

If someone wanted to actually take him to task about it, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Any boxing expert in the world (who is not in the pay of promoters) will tell you which belts are significant and which aren't.

Wasn't Lewis vs. Rahmann on the BBC?

Fwank Wrotten has served up so much shi-t in the past......10 years !

He can not say anything about anyone.

He is pathetic, allegedly !

Usual bollocks from Sports Notwork then. And yes, the Woods and Lewis fights were for more "significant" titles than anything Mad Frank has got near.

So Nasty's recent "exclusive" - about Warren taking Joe and co over to the Beeb was a load of bull then?

MightyWarrior wrote:Usual bollocks from Sports Notwork then. And yes, the Woods and Lewis fights were for more "significant" titles than anything Mad Frank has got near.

So Nasty's recent "exclusive" - about Warren taking Joe and co over to the Beeb was a load of bull then?

SHOCK HORROR

Scott Harrison v Manuel Medina, though not for a very significant belt, was between two better fighters than Brodie and Chi I feel. However, Woods v Johnson was more significant than anything Warren promoted in recent times. In my considered opinion that is.

better than Chi you reckon? Fair enough but Im surprised and jesus we disagree for once....

I'm at the other end of the stratosphere with the Medina-Harrison better than Brodie-Chi poser. Not even that close, Chi-Brodie are better because they were in their primes, and this showed in the quality of their contests.

BBC also screened Roy Jones V Clinton Woods I seem to remember. Warren couldn't even get a sniff of Roy Jones' groin protector.

Warren makes me sick. He couldn't even put Hatton-Witter together.

Froch, Audley Harrison, Haye, Lenny Daws....thanks to Warren putting us right, I now realise I've been watching a bunch of no hopers on the BBC.

haye a no hoper

J wrote:haye a no hoper

I think (hope) he was being sarcastic.

sorry should read properly before I post apologies

I think Harrison is definetly better than Brodie, Brodie had murders with Pastor Maurin for gods sake, and has had more deckings than Alan Titchmarsh, (gardening pun) Chi it's hard to know how good he is, but Medina was a 3 time former champion, though faded.

Chi looked very good against Brodie and Morales, but quite a few fighters have looked good against both these men. Chi's greatest quality is his toughness, relentlessness and stamina, not his boxing skills.

I would love to see Harrison v Chi, it would be interesting to see how much difference Harrison's differential in strength would make. Harrison is a much bigger stronger man than Brodie, and I think that could make for a very different fight.

yeah good points but Chi is also massive at the weight, I dont agree with your synopsis Re Morales though mate, he is a top ten P4P, if you look good against him surely it is to your credit? Nit picking maybe.
Anyway back to chi / harrison I do think it would be a corker but Chi takes it for me late round stoppage, I just think he is more relentless than harrison aslo he is naturally or genetically (Duke's new fave phrase Ive noticed) of a similar ilk, I cant see harrison bullying Chi physically or vice versa certainly not to the same extent Chi bullied brodie .
But hey Ive been wrong on a daily basis for most my life haha why change the habit!!!

NickR wrote:Wasn't Lewis vs. Rahmann on the BBC?

yeah, but i dont think Lewis was seen as a BBC fighter, it's just that BBC bought the rights, i ont think they were as involved as they were with the Woods fights

I think that Harrison would hit Chi hard enough to take the wind out of his sails, and also to stop him marching forward.

When Brodie went to the body against Chi, he really had him in trouble, the problem was he wasn't physically strong enough to keep Chi away, and whenever Chi hit him back, he really hurt him. Harrison has a way better chin than Brodie.

I think it would make for a cracking fight, and I hope Frank Maloney is being realistic in making the fight, I think it would be fight of the year.

I think the point I was making is that fighters who can hang tough tend to do well against Morales because of his stand-up style, Ayala, Chavez and Chi all did well against Morales, and made the fights very competitive.

I'm not saying that Harrison is better than Morlaes, perish the thought, but I am saying that it's possible that the performance against Morales and Brodie have made Chi seem invincible, when perhaps he is nothing of the sort. I certainly think a slick mover with a punch could dissect Chi over the course of a fight.

jamesmcdonnell wrote: I certainly think a slick mover with a punch could dissect Chi over the course of a fight.

James, with all due respect, that sounds nothing like Harrison. Yes, he can bang, but I'd put Chi and Harrison in the same league for this one - not a shed load of fleet-footed trickery, but a great deal of desire and go-forward.

Chi's advantages for me are in the fact that I've never seen him really hurt, and that he always punches back hard. I've seen Harrison hurt.

That said, I'd put this 60:40 for Chi, and think it would be a corker.

I was hardly going to call Harrison a slick mover, I am just saying I guess that I think that Harrison has a far better chance than Brodie of winning.

The best chance for Harrison would be to hammer him to the body early and maintain a high workrate.

I am not even saying that Harrison would be favourite neccesarily, I just think that Harrison is better than Brodie, and Medina (in his prime certainly) was better than Chi, who is very highly rated due to his toughness.

Yep, point taken, just seemed like a slight illogicality in your argument but I guess I knew where you would be coming from and was just nit-picking.


The trouble I have with Harrison is showings like Estrada and Medina 1 when he got caught a lot. If that's the version of Harrison that shows, he's screwed. Chi, on the other hand, although I've seen him only against Morales and in the two Brodie matches, just throws leather and hard. He can hurt Harrison.

Out of interest, how good a body puncher do you think Harrison is? I've not been massively struck by this so far, but I'd be interested in what you think.

In honsesty no, however, any fighter fighting Chi would do well to contentrate their work to the body in the early rounds. Hitting him in the head just seems to make him angry.

Priff wrote:
"But in the three years the BBC have screened boxing, they have failed to land a significant world title fight involving a British fighter - and served up a diet of run-of-the-mill domestic scraps."

Replace the letters BBC with SN and the same statement apply's

People in glass house's shouldn't throw stone's.

One other point to make is that not only has FW not delivered,hes had 50 times as many slots and fighters to do it with and all it ever is is last minute replacements and promises of big fights.Me I go for CHI against Harrison but I dont seeit happening.And well see who they come up with for Hatton next.

Priff wrote:More a question of law than boxing. On his website, he states that the BBC are no longer screening boxing (i didn't know this was the case, but that's besides the point).

The article on his site states:

"But in the three years the BBC have screened boxing, they have failed to land a significant world title fight involving a British fighter - and served up a diet of run-of-the-mill domestic scraps."

But that's not even true. Woods Johnson x2 means 2 genuine world title fights involving a British fighter. Actually, in 3 years, Frank himself has not put on a genuine world title fight.

Surely that just a fact, not opinion. Maybe it's the word 'significant'. He can argue WBU is more 'significant' than IBF.

It's a fine line between opinion and out-and-out bullshit here.

Don't the BBC have an 'in-house' lawyer wanker (no offence Loynsey) to challenge SN over that statement?