BoxRec

Cruiserweight champion Giacobbe Fragomeni won the vacant title and according with the WBC Rules, has to make two mandatory defenses. The mandatory fight is Fragomeni vs. Krzystof Wlodarczyk. Purse bid date: December 19, 2008. An elimination fight was approved between Herbie Hide and Matt Godfrey. Purse bid date: December 19, 2008

#1 rated Carl Froch will fight #3 Jean Pascal for the vacant super middleweight title on December 6. According to the WBC Rules and Regulations, a champion who wins a vacant title is required to make two mandatory defenses. Jermain Taylor defeated Jeff Lacy and will be the first mandatory challenger. Karo Murat will fight Marcus Johnson to determine the second mandatory challenger. Purse bid date: December 19, 2008.

There are other interesting non-UK bits: http://tinyurl.com/69y29w

Hide won't take on Godfrey.

Bit gutted that Froch has to make 2 mandatory defences if he beats Pascal, as it could have an impact on my Dream bout of Froch-Calzaghe (dream being the operative word)

Old bones Ian wrote:Hide won't take on Godfrey.

Why not?

If he's still promoted by Arena Box, they'll surely want a world champ - an elim is the way to go. Godfrey is a big talent, but very lazy and poorly conditioned. Given that Godfrey lost to that plodder Kraj, Hide may not have too much to worry about.

I watched Eurosport last night and saw Fragomeni win the vacant title. He is one tough cookie. Always in the pocket fighting, bobbing and weaving and constantly rolling his top half.

I cannot believe he is 39yrs old!

Proper throw-back fighter and so untypically Italian in that he's actually got some heart. Top fighter.

yeah fragomeni gave haye a good fight.

would of won if haye had been stopped on the cut.

interesting to see if taylor fights the winner of that froch-inkin fight.

great 1st defence for froch if he can get it.

that would put his name out there big style if he can beat taylor. ;;-)

Chambers2 wrote:Bit gutted that Froch has to make 2 mandatory defences if he beats Pascal, as it could have an impact on my Dream bout of Froch-Calzaghe (dream being the operative word)

Don't worry about that Chambers - If Froch wins the title and then beats Taylor that propels him into the BIG time and he won't need a belt to get big fights.

Chambers2 wrote:Bit gutted that Froch has to make 2 mandatory defences if he beats Pascal, as it could have an impact on my Dream bout of Froch-Calzaghe (dream being the operative word)

Taylor is a big fight as he says Stu, would give him a big name in US if he beat him, though you're right, it's no JC.

Be a good fight though, I've always liked Taylor.

Word on the grape-vine is that Taylor is aiming for Bute so unfortunately if Froch beats Pascal he'll have to wait to get to Taylor but if Taylor can beat Bute then Froch-Taylor is an even bigger fight.

black panther wrote:Word on the grape-vine is that Taylor is aiming for Bute so unfortunately if Froch beats Pascal he'll have to wait to get to Taylor but if Taylor can beat Bute then Froch-Taylor is an even bigger fight.

Absolutely.

Pascal, Taylor, Bute, Pavlik, possibly Abraham...some big fights out there for Carl, no need to worry too much about Calzaghe.

Good god I actually aggree with something a sanctioning body had done this feels wrong. Froch Pascal isn't a high profile fight outside this country and Pascal's living room. To legitimise the title it has to then go to a fight between the winner and someone who has been involved in other big fights. The winner from that then has a big name and an inhansed reputation. If taylor turns it down it shows he doesn't want to fight froch for another reson.

But if Froch decides to go for the Bute fight.

Froch might end up in front of nothing.

He would have to defend against another completely unknown opponent (winner of Murat/Johnson) and then what?

How is he gonna secure a decent fight without a single top10 rated opponent on his record and even worst... not a single opponent well known by the US public?

Old bones Ian wrote:Hide won't take on Godfrey.

There's a BBC article on ol' Herbie published today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/7756627.stm

black panther wrote:Word on the grape-vine is that Taylor is aiming for Bute so unfortunately if Froch beats Pascal he'll have to wait to get to Taylor but if Taylor can beat Bute then Froch-Taylor is an even bigger fight.

Taylor did say he was gunning for Bute. Obviously the sight of Andrade all but knocking Bute out was tempting to him. Not sure Taylor's aggressive enough to press the issue, even if he could hurt Bute however.

Now Taylor is saying he's targeting Frch-Pascal winner. It does ound a bit more promising now.

Some good opponents lined up for Froch. If he can get by Pascal and Taylor - in style as well - then he'll be pretty big and can build up to a Kessler unification. Good fights out there for Froch, and I hope he can do it.

liamlion wrote:Proper throw-back fighter and so untypically Italian in that he's actually got some heart. Top fighter.

Racist.

exaggeration perhaps, but not racism, surely. he's only having a laugh.

throwing 'racism' about as an accusation dilutes it's effect

MatthewS wrote:exaggeration perhaps, but not racism, surely. he's only having a laugh.

throwing 'racism' about as an accusation dilutes it's effect

Not "throwing" the term around. It was not clear he was having a laugh. Just pointing out that its a stupid generalistion that is incorrect, and arguably racist.

fist wrote:

MatthewS wrote:exaggeration perhaps, but not racism, surely. he's only having a laugh.

throwing 'racism' about as an accusation dilutes it's effect

Not "throwing" the term around. It was not clear he was having a laugh. Just pointing out that its a stupid generalistion that is incorrect, and arguably racist.

Perhaps I dont understand the definition of racist remarks but to me its totally inappropriate to describe the comment as racist. I have no problem with your view that its a stupid generalisation, you have different opinions and thats fair enough, but how does that qualify as a racist remark? The use of this word racist is getting out of hand.

Didn't know about the rule where the winner of the vacant belt has to make two mandatories. Interesting, thanks.

WildWaylon wrote:

fist wrote:

MatthewS wrote:exaggeration perhaps, but not racism, surely. he's only having a laugh.

throwing 'racism' about as an accusation dilutes it's effect

Not "throwing" the term around. It was not clear he was having a laugh. Just pointing out that its a stupid generalistion that is incorrect, and arguably racist.

Perhaps I dont understand the definition of racist remarks but to me its totally inappropriate to describe the comment as racist. I have no problem with your view that its a stupid generalisation, you have different opinions and thats fair enough, but how does that qualify as a racist remark? The use of this word racist is getting out of hand.

How does it qualify? If it is a negative sweeping generilisation of a race, that arguably attibutes a falsehood to the race that portrays it as inferior to others in some way. To me, the comment is exactly that.

fist wrote:
How does it qualify? If it is a negative sweeping generilisation of a race, that arguably attibutes a falsehood to the race that portrays it as inferior to others in some way. To me, the comment is exactly that.

When did Italian become a Race? Latin or Mediterranean could be described as races at a stretch, but Italian is a nationality. At a push the comment could be described as Anti-Italian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Italianism but it was clearly tongue-in-cheek and not meant to offend.

earsjohn wrote:

fist wrote:
How does it qualify? If it is a negative sweeping generilisation of a race, that arguably attibutes a falsehood to the race that portrays it as inferior to others in some way. To me, the comment is exactly that.

When did Italian become a Race? Latin or Mediterranean could be described as races at a stretch, but Italian is a nationality. At a push the comment could be described as Anti-Italian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Italianism but it was clearly tongue-in-cheek and not meant to offend.

Hmm I dont think that was clear at all. The arguments defending the comment are very weak. Don't get me wrong, Im not upset over the comment - just think it was a pathetic thing to say and completely wrong. As for the question of race; in law, racial groups include those defined by nationality, as well as colour, race, ethnic and national origin.