BoxRec

Just read another weekly edition from Britains "Best" Promoter

I dont recall an edition where David Haye or Ricky hatton have not been talked about in a negative way
Froch also gets it now,

Apparently its not good news for Hatton that Pacquio is willing to fight him
and David Haye was never going to fight Vitali

Maybe he should prove himself against skelton first eh

Ok fella, ill spell it out for you


allegedly is a boxing promoter right?

He uses his article to Promote his fights and fighters. His article isnt the Quran, its a medium for him to go about his busines of Promoting boxing


The fact that Warren can get away with his "article" every week proves his is indeed Britains number 1....

Number one...

promoter of Commonwealth and WBO title mismatches?

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:His article isnt the Quran

No but it's just as full of nonsense

FW is in an incredibly fortunate position to have this platform to spout his opinions unchallenged.

This is likely to be the most widely read boxing-related text of any given week. That isn't good for the sport in my view - but is undoubtedly good for FW and his promotional agenda.

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:He uses his article to Promote his fights and fighters.

No he doesn't, 90% of the time he uses it to knock everybody else

Just vote with your pound notes. No more Warren bills live for me, and no more Warren PPV's.
It is incredibly tiresome though I agree.
I just hope most of the readers (this is the one in the Sun right?) take boxings Mr Big with a pinch of salt.
I actually think most Sun readers realise 90% of the paper is horsesh&t but read it mainly to look at celeb photo's, page 3 and the sport coverage (which they also realise is massively dumbed down). Thats my hope anyway.

So are people wrong to question why a promoter should be paid for a monthly advertisement in a national newspaper(?) for him to plug his boxers and slag off rivals?

Maybe people shouldn't talk about things they can't effect? But then things would be pretty boring wouldn't they?

Of course he is number 1, most people know who allegedly is. Nobody off the street knows who the fornicate Mick Hennessey is. Does that mean he is more likely to get a column in a newspaper? Of course. Does that mean he should be paid to plug his own fighters? Of course not but then I don't give a fornicate what information Sun readers are fed. Are you once again stating the obvious and trying to plug your own supposed intellectual advantage over most "typical boxrec idiots" in a way to boost your own self importance once again?...

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:FW is in an incredibly fortunate position to have this platform to spout his opinions unchallenged.

This is likely to be the most widely read boxing-related text of any given week. That isn't good for the sport in my view - but is undoubtedly good for FW and his promotional agenda.

Thats true. That column in the Sun is probably the only boxing related article a lot of people will read. So in essence a lot of the general public's view of boxing may be through SN-tinted glasses.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:FW is in an incredibly fortunate position to have this platform to spout his opinions unchallenged.

This is likely to be the most widely read boxing-related text of any given week. That isn't good for the sport in my view - but is undoubtedly good for FW and his promotional agenda.

How is it "fortunate"?

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:FW is in an incredibly fortunate position to have this platform to spout his opinions unchallenged.

This is likely to be the most widely read boxing-related text of any given week. That isn't good for the sport in my view - but is undoubtedly good for FW and his promotional agenda.

well, if the Sun readers believe the drivel, I hope they have a wonderful time watching Skelton, Cook, and Arthur.

I'd like to see a change in tone of his articles. "Now, this week kids, we have a tremendous Commonwealth title fight. Nathan Cleverly, you may never have heard of him, but you'll hear that name plenty in the future! ...In the other corner, James Toney, a name familiar to boxing fans worldwide..."

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:FW is in an incredibly fortunate position to have this platform to spout his opinions unchallenged.

This is likely to be the most widely read boxing-related text of any given week. That isn't good for the sport in my view - but is undoubtedly good for FW and his promotional agenda.

How is it "fortunate"?

Yeah, perhaps a slight misuse of the word. Advantageous might have been better.

It's a huge win-win for him - he gets to say whatever he wants to 'promote' his organisation through knocking rivals or supporting his own fighters - and is paid to do so, I believe! Trebles all round!

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:FW is in an incredibly fortunate position to have this platform to spout his opinions unchallenged.

This is likely to be the most widely read boxing-related text of any given week. That isn't good for the sport in my view - but is undoubtedly good for FW and his promotional agenda.

How is it "fortunate"?

Yeah, perhaps a slight misuse of the word. Advantageous might have been better.

It's a huge win-win for him - he gets to say whatever he wants to 'promote' his organisation through knocking rivals or supporting his own fighters - and is paid to do so, I believe! Trebles all round!

Aren't SN sponsored by or affiliated with News of the World? I think this explains it.

I think it is ludicrous that a national newspaper gives a totally partisan platform to a promoter to badmouth his rivals and slate any fighter not associated with him.

chinny wrote:Just vote with your pound notes. No more Warren bills live for me, and no more Warren PPV's.
It is incredibly tiresome though I agree.
I just hope most of the readers (this is the one in the Sun right?) take boxings Mr Big with a pinch of salt.
I actually think most Sun readers realise 90% of the paper is horsesh&t but read it mainly to look at celeb photo's, page 3 and the sport coverage (which they also realise is massively dumbed down). Thats my hope anyway.

I think you are crediting the great british public with far more discernment that the evidence would suggest. Regular sun Readers are hardly the most thorough of critics.

I think they should put a disclaimer with each article.

"FW is a boxing promoter, etc etc, please take this with a pinch of salt".

Don't like the articles, but Frank has probably been told not to 'big-up' and 'promote' his own fighters every week otherwise people will just think that it is free advertising.

So next best is slag off the competition, intertwined with details of the next Amir Khan exhibition

Autobarn wrote:I think they should put a disclaimer with each article.

"FW is a boxing promoter, etc etc, please take this with a pinch of salt".

I think most people of sound mind and body would know full well that Fwanks column is more than a touch shall we say "one eyed"

Clearly he is the Most Successful promoter in British boxing
but being the best in my opinion would depend on the Quality of shows that are put on.

I just think he should concentrate on his own guys instead of trying to pull down our most high profile boxers like Hatton and Haye.

He would love to promote those guys now.

He should concentrate on his own stable and deliver us some decent match ups more often.

banjo wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:His article isnt the Quran

No but it's just as full of nonsense

No, the Quran isn't, maybe you are Khaosai- Galaxy

Banjo, unless you are familiar with the Koran I suggest you avoid making daft comments about it- which other may find very offensive.

There is a relvant point here. A lot of British people have a lot of negative images about members of the Islamic faith, and these images largely come from a biased and unfair media.

Its the same problem with Warrens articles- people will read it and think it is true, and form their opinions based on it.

Des1 wrote:

banjo wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:His article isnt the Quran

No but it's just as full of nonsense

No, the Quran isn't, maybe you are Khaosai- Galaxy

It wasn't Khaosai Galaxy who made that comment.

whicker wrote:Banjo, unless you are familiar with the Koran I suggest you avoid making daft comments about it- which other may find very offensive.

There is a relvant point here. A lot of British people have a lot of negative images about members of the Islamic faith, and these images largely come from a biased and unfair media.

Its the same problem with Warrens articles- people will read it and think it is true, and form their opinions based on it.

The lack of humour on this forum is extremely disturbing, maybe I should rephrase it "like all religious text it is nonsense"

Happy now

whicker wrote:

Des1 wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:His article isnt the Quran

No but it's just as full of nonsense
No, the Quran isn't, maybe you are Khaosai- Galaxy

It wasn't Khaosai Galaxy who made that comment.

Oh right, i was a bit confused there, i thought he was saying that i was the Q'uran



I am not, i am a human man

banjo wrote:

whicker wrote:Banjo, unless you are familiar with the Koran I suggest you avoid making daft comments about it- which other may find very offensive.

There is a relvant point here. A lot of British people have a lot of negative images about members of the Islamic faith, and these images largely come from a biased and unfair media.

Its the same problem with Warrens articles- people will read it and think it is true, and form their opinions based on it.

The lack of humour on this forum is extremely disturbing, maybe I should rephrase it "like all religious text it is nonsense"

Happy now

im happy, but then again ive just found £3 in an old coat i havent worn in months


happy, happy days

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:I am not, i am a human man

So the great K-G is a mere mortal after all