Page 1 of 1
Eric Armit's article on BBN
Posted: 21 Nov 2007, 15:34
by Smigga
Load of rubbish, The Contender fights were in June, the show is pre recorded
Can't post on there cos' it say's I need to register.... I know lads on here moderate that site
Posted: 21 Nov 2007, 16:40
by Horse
http://www.britishboxing.net/news_2892- ... -View.html
The Contender bit:
Eric Armit wrote:I am not a fan of The Contender. It seems to be good TV and produces short, intense action, but I am not sure it is good boxing. Putting that to one side I am concerned about any instance where the safety of a boxer seems to play second fiddle to the interests of TV show.
Take the case of Wayne Johnson.
On October 23, Johnson was clobbered by heavy-hitting Jaidron Codrington and was nailed and halted in the first round of their fight. In every State in the United States that would earn him at least a 30-day suspension and that suspension would be honoured by the other members of the Association of American Commissions. However on November 6, just 14 days later, Johnson appears on TV in Boston fighting world rated Sam Soliman. How can that be? Either he was not given a suspension in California, or if he was then it was ignored by the Massachusetts Commission - or even worse, the normal safety rules do not apply to the show and, if so, then that is disgraceful.
If the fights were in June then Eric needs to do more research before slagging off commissions et al.
A non-Contender bit:
Eric Armit wrote:The “reward for losing” policy kicked in again this time for Soulemayne M'baye. His fight in Levallois-Perret on November 10 appears to have been given eliminator status by the WBC . This is the guy who in his previous fight pitifully surrendered his WBA title against Gavin Rees, who at the time of that fight was not even rated in the WBC top 40. Run that past me again Jose? To make it even worse his opponent in the eliminator for the light-welterweight title was Panamanian Ameth Diaz who was rated No 9 lightweight by the WBC . Run that past me again Jose? It was described as an eliminator but not as a final eliminator so hopefully their top two rated contenders, Tim Bradley and Jose Luis Castillo will also be included in any eliminators. Wait a minute! Didn't Castillo get battered by someone in his last fight? I give up.
No.
Posted: 21 Nov 2007, 16:53
by Smigga
Exactly.Hardly a valued opinion when he doesn't even know what he is writing
Posted: 21 Nov 2007, 16:59
by sweetscience
what a fuckin retard
i think its pretty fornicating obvious that the contender is pre recorded
i wonder if he knew they add sound effect and that the rounds were highlights
cuckoo
Posted: 21 Nov 2007, 17:03
by Razor
What a dipshit...
Posted: 22 Nov 2007, 04:39
by dondada
I must admit that although I knew they were pre-recorded, I didn't realise they were that long ago...
Eric is away but obviously I'll make him aware of this.
Posted: 22 Nov 2007, 05:53
by oliverfennell
Come on, he may have missed the mark with this individual article, but he's been around for years and years and deserves more respect than to be called a "dipshit" and a "retard". We all have bad days at the office from time to time, and he's had more days at the office than anyone else here.
Posted: 22 Nov 2007, 06:42
by TerribleTerry
oliverfennell wrote:Come on, he may have missed the mark with this individual article, but he's been around for years and years and deserves more respect than to be called a "dipshit" and a "retard". We all have bad days at the office from time to time, and he's had more days at the office than anyone else here.
It was lazy journalism from Eric, nothing more.
He should have researched the point before making those comments - if I became complacent in my job I would be pulled up for it, no matter who long I had been in the role.
Posted: 22 Nov 2007, 06:49
by oliverfennell
TerribleTerry wrote:oliverfennell wrote:Come on, he may have missed the mark with this individual article, but he's been around for years and years and deserves more respect than to be called a "dipshit" and a "retard". We all have bad days at the office from time to time, and he's had more days at the office than anyone else here.
It was lazy journalism from Eric, nothing more.
He should have researched the point before making those comments - if I became complacent in my job I would be pulled up for it, no matter who long I had been in the role.
Yes, of course. Just the language was a bit strong. If I made a mistake in my job, I would expect to be pulled up for it, but even if I had done wrong, I'd take exception to being called a "retard" for what was avery rare occurence.
Posted: 22 Nov 2007, 07:21
by DavidPayne
Don't be bringing your tropical bird collection into it Ollie. I wont have it.
Posted: 22 Nov 2007, 07:28
by oliverfennell
DavidPayne wrote:Don't be bringing your tropical bird collection into it Ollie. I wont have it.
*heads over to boxingwriter.wordpress.com with red pen in hand*
Posted: 22 Nov 2007, 08:02
by DavidPayne
just one?
Posted: 22 Nov 2007, 08:20
by oliverfennell
DavidPayne wrote:just one?
I've got a couple of refill cartridges for back-up
Posted: 22 Nov 2007, 08:25
by DavidPayne
phew
Posted: 22 Nov 2007, 09:09
by sweetscience
oliverfennell wrote:TerribleTerry wrote:oliverfennell wrote:Come on, he may have missed the mark with this individual article, but he's been around for years and years and deserves more respect than to be called a "dipshit" and a "retard". We all have bad days at the office from time to time, and he's had more days at the office than anyone else here.
It was lazy journalism from Eric, nothing more.
He should have researched the point before making those comments - if I became complacent in my job I would be pulled up for it, no matter who long I had been in the role.
Yes, of course. Just the language was a bit strong. If I made a mistake in my job, I would expect to be pulled up for it, but even if I had done wrong, I'd take exception to being called a "retard" for what was avery rare occurence.
if i make an error in my job i get called worse than a retard (not that i make errors), plus he is critising people its not like he just made a simple error in passing
Posted: 22 Nov 2007, 13:37
by dondada
By the way, the records on this site give the dates of the fights as Eric quoted them. Would be good for record keepers, etc, if the actual dates could be released.
The 'offending' passages have been removed.
Posted: 22 Nov 2007, 14:56
by Horse
Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:By the way, the records on this site give the dates of the fights as Eric quoted them. Would be good for record keepers, etc, if the actual dates could be released.
The 'offending' passages have been removed.
He removed the bit about Castillo too, cool.
Posted: 22 Nov 2007, 17:15
by steve689
I don't know much about the Contender dates but i agree with his questioning of of M'Baye. I said at the time of the M'Baye fight, why was he being given a WBC eliminator when coming off the back of a pitiful surrender of his alphabelt to Gavin Rees.
Posted: 23 Nov 2007, 05:28
by oliverfennell
steve689 wrote:I don't know much about the Contender dates but i agree with his questioning of of M'Baye. I said at the time of the M'Baye fight, why was he being given a WBC eliminator when coming off the back of a pitiful surrender of his alphabelt to Gavin Rees.
As a recent ex-champ, I've got no problem with MBaye in an eliminator (at least it means he EARNS another shot rather than getting a straight rematch), but he was given a soft touch. How does a #9 guy in a lower division get an eliminator??
Posted: 26 Nov 2007, 12:15
by boxingchat
And this is the Chairman of the Commonwealth Boxing Council and a guy who sits on the panel that vchhoses the BBBofC Awards.
Never goest o any fight and let's himself down more so with moronic
un researced BS like this. His column in BN is/was equally as poorly researched.
DOH!
Posted: 27 Nov 2007, 07:46
by dondada
boxingchat wrote:And this is the Chairman of the Commonwealth Boxing Council and a guy who sits on the panel that vchhoses the BBBofC Awards.
Never goest o any fight and let's himself down more so with moronic
un researced BS like this. His column in BN is/was equally as poorly researched.
DOH!
Although I respect your opinion on most things, this is very harsh. I'm not really sure how you would have expected him to research the dates of the fights other than records...and they have been published as the 'airing dates'. There is some clarification in the wiki sections of the older series of The Contender but it wasn't available for some of this one.
'Moronic' is inappropriate.
Posted: 27 Nov 2007, 07:52
by johnswan1
Yep, I think people are going over the top here. I'm sure he'll be unhappy about the article but no need to add insult to injury.
Posted: 27 Nov 2007, 08:30
by dondada
johnswan1 wrote:Yep, I think people are going over the top here. I'm sure he'll be unhappy about the article but no need to add insult to injury.
He was gutted and embarrassed, John. Thanks for this.