BoxRec

Lucas Browne has said David Haye doesn't deserve a world title shot :

"Coming off a two- to three-year lay-off and coming back fighting two bums basically, how does that get you No 1 ranked in all three belts and then a world title shot by fighting two people that aren't ranked and no one knows?

"I don't think he deserves anything, no."

"Just in regards to the UK fans, it's good that I can actually fight someone like Shannon Briggs that David Haye has avoided," said Briggs.

"I know that David Haye said that if he did fight on his undercard and win, then he would fight him. I believe he has ducked him because he's too dangerous, but here I am fighting Shannon Briggs now.

http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/12 ... title-shot

Browne's in the same boat as Haye. Neither are worthy of a title shot at the moment.

Browne, Briggs and Haye haven't done enough between them recently to merit a world title shot! It's the WBA regular so it's a very lightly regarded diluted version of a world title.

gilgamesh wrote:Browne's in the same boat as Haye. Neither are worthy of a title shot at the moment.

Browne has already had one, and won the fight too.

Stuarty30 wrote:Browne, Briggs and Haye haven't done enough between them recently to merit a world title shot! It's the WBA regular so it's a very lightly regarded diluted version of a world title.

Browne's last WAS for the title

Like a Boss wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:Browne, Briggs and Haye haven't done enough between them recently to merit a world title shot! It's the WBA regular so it's a very lightly regarded diluted version of a world title.

Browne's last WAS for the title

It doesn't mean he deserved his initial shot at the belt though.

lefty wrote:

Like a Boss wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:Browne, Briggs and Haye haven't done enough between them recently to merit a world title shot! It's the WBA regular so it's a very lightly regarded diluted version of a world title.

Browne's last WAS for the title

It doesn't mean he deserved his initial shot at the belt though.

Argument for the sake of argument doesn't interest me. Cheers.

Like a Boss wrote:

lefty wrote:

Like a Boss wrote:
Browne's last WAS for the title

It doesn't mean he deserved his initial shot at the belt though.

Argument for the sake of argument doesn't interest me. Cheers.

Then you have come to the wrong place, that's all we do here

Boxerbeetle wrote:

Like a Boss wrote:

lefty wrote: It doesn't mean he deserved his initial shot at the belt though.

Argument for the sake of argument doesn't interest me. Cheers.

Then you have come to the wrong place, that's all we do here

Well played

Is this tulip genuinely bragging about fighting 50 year old Briggs?

Like a Boss wrote:Lucas Browne has said David Haye doesn't deserve a world title shot :

"Coming off a two- to three-year lay-off and coming back fighting two bums basically, how does that get you No 1 ranked in all three belts and then a world title shot by fighting two people that aren't ranked and no one knows?

"I don't think he deserves anything, no."

"Just in regards to the UK fans, it's good that I can actually fight someone like Shannon Briggs that David Haye has avoided," said Briggs.

"I know that David Haye said that if he did fight on his undercard and win, then he would fight him. I believe he has ducked him because he's too dangerous, but here I am fighting Shannon Briggs now.

http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/12 ... title-shot

Can't argue with a word he says

TheLeprechaun wrote:Is this tulip genuinely bragging about fighting 50 year old Briggs?

You are lost in the tulips if you think Briggs is 50

Briggs is 44
Chagaev is 38
Browne is 37
Haye is 36

gilgamesh wrote:Browne's in the same boat as Haye. Neither are worthy of a title shot at the moment.

chagaev is a lot better opponent as any of the opponents Daffy has ever won against.

WBA ORDERS BRIGGS VS. BROWNE TO RESOLVE DISPUTES

http://www.ringtv.com/472072-wba-prez-o ... -disputes/?

The WBA’s curious decision to have Shannon Briggs face Lucas Browne for a vacant heavyweight title was made in part as a legal concession to pacify aggrieved parties, WBA president Gilberto Mendoza seemed to suggest to RingTV.com. “My plan was to have only one heavyweight champion,” Mendoza said, “but legal settlements (changed the) WBA plans.”

The WBA made a series of rulings on Tuesday to clarify the heavyweight division after Tyson Fury vacated his belt to deal with personal issues. One decision that seemed to stump fans was the WBA’s order for Briggs to face Browne for the WBA’s “regular” title on or before Dec. 31.

Briggs is 44 and hasn’t faced anyone of significance since he lost to Vitali Klitschko in 2010. Browne won the WBA’s “regular” title after knocking out Ruslan Chagaev in March. He was subsequently stripped of the belt after he tested positive for a banned substance. Yet both are now vying for a title. Here’s a good reason why:

Browne (23-0, 16 knockouts) claimed he was unfairly stripped because he didn’t knowingly take a banned substance and filed a lawsuit against the WBA. Briggs (60-6-1, 53 KOs) also complained after he was mistakenly dropped in the WBA rankings from No. 4 to No. 7 “without an explanation,” according to Mendoza, which is a violation of the Muhammad Ali Act, he said. The best way to resolve these issues, Mendoza seemed to suggest, was to allow Briggs and Browne a chance to oppose each other for a vacant title.

“Lucas Browne filed a lawsuit after (the) WBA decided to strip him of the title for failing an anti-doping test,” Mendoza said in an email on Wednesday in response to a question of why Briggs and Browne are contending for a title. “The case was settled based on a title opportunity for the vacant championship bout. Shannon Briggs filed a reconsideration after being dropped from #4 to #7 without an explanation in the rankings. Since it breached the Muhammad Ali Act, Brigg’s petition was granted by the WBA Rankings Committee.”

Mendoza pointed a finger at the various manager and promoters who have filed cases against the WBA as reasons the sanctioning organization must sometimes make difficult decisions that can draw criticism. “The WBA is working in good faith and hard in order to have one champion per division,” Mendoza said. “But the conflict of interest leads several managers or promoters to the justice system in order to claim remedies sometimes unfair to the sanctioning bodies. Regarding the critics, there is not much to say for the above-mentioned reasons. There was a mistake done by one of my committee (members in regards to Briggs’ ranking) which I must (take) responsibility.”

What did Browne do to deserve his shot at Chagaev?

Like a Boss wrote:Lucas Browne has said David Haye doesn't deserve a world title shot :

Roughly translated as " I am likely to get badly knocked out by David Haye, so I am glad that I don't have to fight him yet".

gilgamesh wrote:Browne's in the same boat as Haye. Neither are worthy of a title shot at the moment.

Bullshit, pudendum, Browne worked his way up and took an, albeit soft, version of the WBA title from the title holder, Haye has had a massive layoff and not yet, in reality, fought!

I used to like you but nowadays you're proving to be a total imbecile, you inbred fucken hick. Glad you never took me up with my offer for a paid working holiday to Melbourne, you're a total dick.

Like a Boss wrote:WBA ORDERS BRIGGS VS. BROWNE TO RESOLVE DISPUTES

http://www.ringtv.com/472072-wba-prez-o ... -disputes/?

The WBA’s curious decision to have Shannon Briggs face Lucas Browne for a vacant heavyweight title was made in part as a legal concession to pacify aggrieved parties, WBA president Gilberto Mendoza seemed to suggest to RingTV.com. “My plan was to have only one heavyweight champion,” Mendoza said, “but legal settlements (changed the) WBA plans.”

The WBA made a series of rulings on Tuesday to clarify the heavyweight division after Tyson Fury vacated his belt to deal with personal issues. One decision that seemed to stump fans was the WBA’s order for Briggs to face Browne for the WBA’s “regular” title on or before Dec. 31.

Briggs is 44 and hasn’t faced anyone of significance since he lost to Vitali Klitschko in 2010. Browne won the WBA’s “regular” title after knocking out Ruslan Chagaev in March. He was subsequently stripped of the belt after he tested positive for a banned substance. Yet both are now vying for a title. Here’s a good reason why:

Browne (23-0, 16 knockouts) claimed he was unfairly stripped because he didn’t knowingly take a banned substance and filed a lawsuit against the WBA. Briggs (60-6-1, 53 KOs) also complained after he was mistakenly dropped in the WBA rankings from No. 4 to No. 7 “without an explanation,” according to Mendoza, which is a violation of the Muhammad Ali Act, he said. The best way to resolve these issues, Mendoza seemed to suggest, was to allow Briggs and Browne a chance to oppose each other for a vacant title.

“Lucas Browne filed a lawsuit after (the) WBA decided to strip him of the title for failing an anti-doping test,” Mendoza said in an email on Wednesday in response to a question of why Briggs and Browne are contending for a title. “The case was settled based on a title opportunity for the vacant championship bout. Shannon Briggs filed a reconsideration after being dropped from #4 to #7 without an explanation in the rankings. Since it breached the Muhammad Ali Act, Brigg’s petition was granted by the WBA Rankings Committee.”

Mendoza pointed a finger at the various manager and promoters who have filed cases against the WBA as reasons the sanctioning organization must sometimes make difficult decisions that can draw criticism. “The WBA is working in good faith and hard in order to have one champion per division,” Mendoza said. “But the conflict of interest leads several managers or promoters to the justice system in order to claim remedies sometimes unfair to the sanctioning bodies. Regarding the critics, there is not much to say for the above-mentioned reasons. There was a mistake done by one of my committee (members in regards to Briggs’ ranking) which I must (take) responsibility.”

This is utter nonsense. I can see some kind of argument that Browne has a right to a title shot as he was treated appallingly on the drugs test issue (completely separate question as to whether he should have had a shot in the first place).

Two main flaws with this crap:

1. Mendoza says they have to do things because promoters file lawsuits. Really no? If someone files a lawsuit you either fight it, or admit you've done something wrong in the first place. It's like hers shrugging his shoulders and saying we have to do something because someone my sue them.

2. Briggs getting a title shot because he was reduced from 4 to 7 in the world rankings is beyond incompetence. They shouldn't have put him there in the first place.

We all know they want multiple champions for more fees. Nothing else.

big lennox wrote:Roughly translated as " I am likely to get badly knocked out by David Haye, so I am glad that I don't have to fight him yet".

Troll or ??

asdfjkl wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:Browne's in the same boat as Haye. Neither are worthy of a title shot at the moment.

chagaev is a lot better opponent as any of the opponents Daffy has ever won against.

You never saw Mormeck fight then?

At the time with the late O'Neil Bell he was considered the best cruiserweight on the planet.

Haye knocked him out in his backyard.

dberry wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:Browne's in the same boat as Haye. Neither are worthy of a title shot at the moment.

Bullshit, pudendum, Browne worked his way up and took an, albeit soft, version of the WBA title from the title holder, Haye has had a massive layoff and not yet, in reality, fought!

I used to like you but nowadays you're proving to be a total imbecile, you inbred fucken hick. Glad you never took me up with my offer for a paid working holiday to Melbourne, you're a total dick.

Like a Boss wrote:Lucas Browne has said David Haye doesn't deserve a world title shot :

"Coming off a two- to three-year lay-off and coming back fighting two bums basically, how does that get you No 1 ranked in all three belts and then a world title shot by fighting two people that aren't ranked and no one knows?

"I don't think he deserves anything, no."

"Just in regards to the UK fans, it's good that I can actually fight someone like Shannon Briggs that David Haye has avoided," said Briggs.

"I know that David Haye said that if he did fight on his undercard and win, then he would fight him. I believe he has ducked him because he's too dangerous, but here I am fighting Shannon Briggs now.

http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/12 ... title-shot

What has Briggs done except fight bums?

Who does deserve it??

Browne traveled and fort his way through then went off to Chechnya won by ko for the title but got stitched up, went through legal hell and managed to secure himself another shot at the WBA regular belt.. AJ sat at home and got gifted Charles Martin...

Thats life, it's just the way it is.

Dixonian wrote:

Like a Boss wrote:Lucas Browne has said David Haye doesn't deserve a world title shot :

"Coming off a two- to three-year lay-off and coming back fighting two bums basically, how does that get you No 1 ranked in all three belts and then a world title shot by fighting two people that aren't ranked and no one knows?

"I don't think he deserves anything, no."

"Just in regards to the UK fans, it's good that I can actually fight someone like Shannon Briggs that David Haye has avoided," said Briggs.

"I know that David Haye said that if he did fight on his undercard and win, then he would fight him. I believe he has ducked him because he's too dangerous, but here I am fighting Shannon Briggs now.

http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/12 ... title-shot

What has Briggs done except fight bums?

Asking everyone who's not a bum for a fight, but nobody dared. So what else can he do then round 1 KO everyone who does dare to show up?