# Anthony Joshua to Matchroom



## Eoghan (Jun 6, 2013)

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...Matchroom-in-4-year-deal-as-he-turns-pro.html


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

:eddie


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

:eddie


----------



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)

Doubt this is true tbh


----------



## Lilo (Jun 4, 2012)

Right move for him. Obviously Warren will have offered him more money but he will get on more shows and with Hearn not scared to send fighters to America, Joshua will get his opportunity to fight over there too.

I just hope he goes with McCracken and not Booth, I think he's better suited to be a McCracken fighter.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Oh for fuck sake, I can see the interview now, Eddie Hearn.. Anthony may be a novice but he is the Olympic champion, that's why he is on PPV, Anthony Joshua is a PPV fighter.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Bill said:


> Oh for fuck sake, I can see the interview now, Eddie Hearn.. Anthony may be a novice but he is the Olympic champion, that's why he is on PPV, Anthony Joshua is a PPV fighter.


Not until he's in meaningful fights, anyway.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Lilo said:


> Right move for him. Obviously Warren will have offered him more money but he will get on more shows and with Hearn not scared to send fighters to America, Joshua will get his opportunity to fight over there too.
> 
> I just hope he goes with McCracken and not Booth, I think he's better suited to be a McCracken fighter.


:deal

I honestly don't know what Booth can teach him, he only knows one way. Haye/Groves style. I agree that McCracken is the man for the job.


----------



## sim_reiss (Jun 6, 2012)

:eddie

Right move. Team Warren are the better matchmakers but Boxnation is an absolute black hole for crossover exposure, which is what AJ needs.


----------



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)

This isn't signed yet


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Not until he's in meaningful fights, anyway.


I'm not sure mate, I think he will be on one of the upcoming PPV's?

Personally I would have gone to Hennessy on a short term contract and got the national TV exposure, Hennessy isn't too bad at building a career either by all accounts.


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

Right move for him career wise, he definitely needs to get himself on Sky. Agree with Bill though, can't be arsed with Eddie Hearn and his "Anthony Joshua is a PPV fighter" talk.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Why would Joshua be on PPV? Nobody would buy it, so until he's in a fight which people will buy, he's not going to be on PPV. The same goes for Luke Campbell, who is a bigger star than Joshua right now. Mentioning PPV seems like a strange comment to make, given there isn't any chance it's likely to happen in the next few years, if at all.

If he's on the undercard of one, great. Who knows though.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Bill said:


> I'm not sure mate, I think he will be on one of the upcoming PPV's?
> 
> Personally I would have gone to Hennessy on a short term contract and got the national TV exposure, Hennessy isn't too bad at building a career either by all accounts.


One of the upcoming PPVs? The only one I know of is Fury Haye which will be PPV without Joshua. He won't be headlining a PPV event for a long time.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> One of the upcoming PPVs? The only one I know of is Fury Haye which will be PPV without Joshua. He won't be headlining a PPV event for a long time.


If Froch fights again this year you can bet your life it will be PPV, I can see Hearn spinning the line of putting Joshua on undercards of PPV and then say well he's been involved iin PPV's, now its time he headlined one, even if its undeserved.

Seeing as Eddie puts on so shockingly bad undercards on PPV, it won't be against anyone decent or meaningful.


----------



## Ishy (Jun 2, 2012)

Some guy: @EddieHearn alright fast car, have you signed up @anthonyfjoshua ? The sun claims you have , but with no quotes from you in the paper ?

Eddie: no mate


----------



## Eoghan (Jun 6, 2013)

Bill said:


> If Froch fights again this year you can bet your life it will be PPV, I can see Hearn spinning the line of putting Joshua on undercards of PPV and then say well he's been involved iin PPV's, now its time he headlined one, even if its undeserved.
> 
> Seeing as Eddie puts on so shockingly bad undercards on PPV, it won't be against anyone decent or meaningful.


He's only been boxing for like 4 years, he does need to be taken fairly slowly (obviously not that slowly as he is an Olympic gold medallist)


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Bill said:


> If Froch fights again this year you can bet your life it will be PPV, I can see Hearn spinning the line of putting Joshua on undercards of PPV and then say well he's been involved iin PPV's, now its time he headlined one, even if its undeserved.
> 
> Seeing as Eddie puts on so shockingly bad undercards on PPV, it won't be against anyone decent or meaningful.


Billy your talking like Eddie has put on a thousand PPVs, he has done 1 mate :lol: can't really criticise the undercard on the Froch Kessler card, Champions league final was on, nobody would have been watching and waste of money.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Ishy said:


> Some guy: @EddieHearn alright fast car, have you signed up @anthonyfjoshua ? The sun claims you have , but with no quotes from you in the paper ?
> 
> Eddie: no mate


He's obviously not going to announce it until the press conference.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Eoghan said:


> He's only been boxing for like 4 years, he does need to be taken fairly slowly (obviously not that slowly as he is an Olympic gold medallist)


Oh I agree there, I don't expect a british title shot in his first fight or anything, I personally think he should stay amateur and gain more experience at the top level there because he will learn more than beating up fat latvian's in the pro's, times on his side .


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Billy your talking like Eddie has put on a thousand PPVs, he has done 1 mate :lol: can't really criticise the undercard on the Froch Kessler card, Champions league final was on, nobody would have been watching and waste of money.


B.A I was watching the undercard and I'm the most important person, what I want matters. :lol:

I know he has only done one but now he's had a taste of the money he will want a hell of a lot more, its a slippery slope.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Bill said:


> B.A I was watching the undercard and I'm the most important person, what I want matters. :lol:
> 
> I know he has only done one but now he's had a taste of the money he will want a hell of a lot more, its a slippery slope.


:lol: :good


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

Bill said:


> If Froch fights again this year you can bet your life it will be PPV, I can see Hearn spinning the line of putting Joshua on undercards of PPV and then say well he's been involved iin PPV's, now its time he headlined one, even if its undeserved.
> 
> Seeing as Eddie puts on so shockingly bad undercards on PPV, it won't be against anyone decent or meaningful.


Nah,I think it would be a long time off before he headlines a ppv Bill.I think with ppv he will do some that you will defintly think isn`t value for money but they will do well.I think the ppvs he will put on will be seen as a success by the casuals and Sky the trouble comes if there is a weak undercard and the main event fails to live up to expectations leaving him with fans being disappointed.He`s done one undercard on ppv and sure it wasn`t good enough it`s to early to say if that will be the trend.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Ashedward said:


> Nah,I think it would be a long time off before he headlines a ppv Bill.I think with ppv he will do some that you will defintly think isn`t value for money but they will do well.I think the ppvs he will put on will be seen as a success by the casuals and Sky the trouble comes if there is a weak undercard and the main event fails to live up to expectations leaving him with fans being disappointed.He`s done one undercard on ppv and sure it wasn`t good enough it`s to early to say if that will be the trend.


No that's fair, if his future undercards are better then he won't get so much shit, lets draw a line under it and say, its a bad start.


----------



## Mandanda (Jun 2, 2012)

I think it's a good move for both the fighter and promoter. Nowt wrong with him being on a PPV undercard as long as his early fights aren't chief supports in terms of his fight being one of best fights on a poor card. TBF recently Eddie's put on some quality shows and next week i'm really looking forward to it.


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

Bill said:


> No that's fair, if his future undercards are better then he won't get so much shit, lets draw a line under it and say, its a bad start.


Fairplay:good


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Mandanda said:


> I think it's a good move for both the fighter and promoter. Nowt wrong with him being on a PPV undercard as long as his early fights aren't chief supports in terms of his fight being one of best fights on a poor card. TBF recently Eddie's put on some quality shows and next week i'm really looking forward to it.


You went to Froch/Kessler didn't you Mand? would you have been happy to fork out PPV money if you didn't go, genuine question mate?


----------



## Mandanda (Jun 2, 2012)

Bill said:


> You went to Froch/Kessler didn't you Mand? would you have been happy to fork out PPV money if you didn't go, genuine question mate?


Yep i felt the show was very good live and i'd of paid for it honestly on PPV. The main event was a fight i wanted to see for years and the Bellew-Chilemba fight although not a classic still interested me and didn't think either fight was as bad as some put across. The Groves fight didn't bother me but knew the be a KO either way.

Compared to the last 2 years of SBO PPV bills that was a step up and i don't mind a one off payment of £15 everynow and then. Especially if there's a cracking main event and it delivered.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Mandanda said:


> Yep i felt the show was very good live and i'd of paid for it honestly on PPV. The main event was a fight i wanted to see for years and the Bellew-Chilemba fight although not a classic still interested me and didn't think either fight was as bad as some put across. The Groves fight didn't bother me but knew the be a KO either way.
> 
> Compared to the last 2 years of SBO PPV bills that was a step up and i don't mind a one off payment of £15 everynow and then. Especially if there's a cracking main event and it delivered.


No fair enough, I didn't think it was all that but I am a miserable bastard and a tight arse, so?


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

The main event is the only thing that matters, really. Fans will travel around the world to see a fight well before any undercard is announced and if that main event lives up to it, there'll never be a fan who regrets paying big money. Maybe some fans would say that the Froch/Kessler card didn't have a great undercard in hindsight but none of those will regret buying it. They'll be glad they paid because the main event, the fight they paid to see, lived up to their expectations.

I think boxing fans care far more about the undercard than casual fans do. Most casual fans will sit in a bar before turning up to see a main event and they don't watch undercards on TV either. I've never been at a live show or watched a PPV/show with other people and seen most casual fans interested in the undercard, no matter how good it is. They just don't care enough.


----------



## Mandanda (Jun 2, 2012)

Bill said:


> No fair enough, I didn't think it was all that but I am a miserable bastard and a tight arse, so?


:lol::good TBH the card could of been as bad as the Valuev undercard and i still will of paid for it. Froch vs Kessler had me amped like a mofo!!


----------



## Eoghan (Jun 6, 2013)

Jack said:


> The main event is the only thing that matters, really. Fans will travel around the world to see a fight well before any undercard is announced and if that main event lives up to it, there'll never be a fan who regrets paying big money. Maybe some fans would say that the Froch/Kessler card didn't have a great undercard in hindsight but none of those will regret buying it. They'll be glad they paid because the main event, the fight they paid to see, lived up to their expectations.
> 
> I think boxing fans care far more about the undercard than casual fans do. Most casual fans will sit in a bar before turning up to see a main event and they don't watch undercards on TV either. I've never been at a live show or watched a PPV/show with other people and seen most casual fans interested in the undercard, no matter how good it is. They just don't care enough.


Exactly, especially as literally no casuals would have been watching the undercard because of the CL final. And that card was aimed as much at the casuals as real boxing fans, I bet not one casual fan will have been disappointed by that show (unless they were Danish)


----------



## Wallet (May 31, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> He's obviously not going to announce it until the press conference.


Why deny it though?

Very easy for him to just avoid the question.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Wallet said:


> Why deny it though?
> 
> Very easy for him to just avoid the question.


Maybe they're in negotiations, who knows.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Mandanda said:


> :lol::good TBH the card could of been as bad as the Valuev undercard and i still will of paid for it. Froch vs Kessler had me amped like a mofo!!


Froch/Kesler was a bloody good match up and turned out to be a good fight, although it confirmed what I sort of knew or suspected, that Kessler had seen better days but was still game, Froch as usual made it harder for himself by neglecting the jab and getting involved in a tear up, brilliant to watch but tactical madness.

I'm not really interested in a 3rd fight, I think that was Kessler's last big fight and would have regressed further, plus after seeing them square off twice its all I need to see, there are bigger and better fights out there for Froch, maybe at a different weight class though?


----------



## Mandanda (Jun 2, 2012)

Bill said:


> Froch/Kesler was a bloody good match up and turned out to be a good fight, although it confirmed what I sort of knew or suspected, that Kessler had seen better days but was still game, Froch as usual made it harder for himself by neglecting the jab and getting involved in a tear up, brilliant to watch but tactical madness.
> 
> I'm not really interested in a 3rd fight, I think that was Kessler's last big fight and would have regressed further, plus after seeing them square off twice its all I need to see, there are bigger and better fights out there for Froch, maybe at a different weight class though?


I'm the same i don't want a 3rd fight i think Froch was just about breaking Kessler's will for the first time in 24 rounds of blood and sweat someone was wilting. For me Froch should either fight Chavez Jnr, Golovkin, Ward or go to 175. Couple of big wins then end it on a high!.

Will miss him when he's gone he's been great fun in and out of the ring..


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Eoghan said:


> Exactly, especially as literally no casuals would have been watching the undercard because of the CL final. And that card was aimed as much at the casuals as real boxing fans, I bet not one casual fan will have been disappointed by that show (unless they were Danish)


See that's something I do have a problem with, if your asking me, a genuine boxing fan to pay extra I want 2 things, value for money and to know that I'm the target audience, not some casual fan that will soon fuck off and won't really bother with the sport again, I don't think that's too much to ask for in all honesty.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Mandanda said:


> I'm the same i don't want a 3rd fight i think Froch was just about breaking Kessler's will for the first time in 24 rounds of blood and sweat someone was wilting. For me Froch should either fight Chavez Jnr, Golovkin, Ward or go to 175. Couple of big wins then end it on a high!.
> 
> Will miss him when he's gone he's been great fun in and out of the ring..


Yeah totally agree, them 3 fights are my choices, I think he loses to Golovkin and Ward though, they all make for good fights even Ward for a tactical and technical aspect.

If Kovalev smashes Cleverly which I think he will do, then you could throw his name into the mix.


----------



## adamcanavan (Jun 5, 2012)

@Bill do you really dislike Hearn that much to the point that you hate him for hypothetical situations that you have made up?


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

adamcanavan said:


> @Bill do you really dislike Hearn that much to the point that you hate him for hypothetical situations that you have made up?


In a word,,,, Yes.

No seriously I don't hate Hearn I just don't trust him or his intentions.


----------



## Scorpio78 (Jun 10, 2012)

the sun have jumped the gun

but eddie has been hinting at this for the past few weeks


----------



## Lilo (Jun 4, 2012)

Bill said:


> If Froch fights again this year you can bet your life it will be PPV, I can see Hearn spinning the line of putting Joshua on undercards of PPV and then say well he's been involved iin PPV's, now its time he headlined one, even if its undeserved.
> 
> Seeing as Eddie puts on so shockingly bad undercards on PPV, it won't be against anyone decent or meaningful.


I think he's hinted at Froch vs Groves? with Burns on the undercard or even Burns-Crawford in America later on.

On a side note good to hear Carl Froch get a mention on the tennis!


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Lilo said:


> I think he's hinted at Froch vs Groves? with Burns on the undercard or even Burns-Crawford in America later on.
> 
> On a side note good to hear Carl Froch get a mention on the tennis!


Yeah I heard it too, after all Carl is a PPV star


----------



## Lilo (Jun 4, 2012)

Was a shit metaphor though - he was only sweating, certainly didn't look like he sparred a world champion!


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

Joshua will be on ppv in his first fight.

Eddie always gets a pass for stuff like this.

I'm sick of it.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Lilo said:


> I think he's hinted at Froch vs Groves? with Burns on the undercard or even Burns-Crawford in America later on.
> 
> On a side note good to hear Carl Froch get a mention on the tennis!


Yeah I'm not over keen on the fight Lilo, that isn't PPV imo, Groves is yet to prove his metal at world level, him being British isn't a good enough reason to put it PPV, he needs to do something of note first before its even viable to charge extra money.


----------



## Hooch (Jun 18, 2013)

Bill said:


> Yeah I'm not over keen on the fight Lilo, that isn't PPV imo, Groves is yet to prove his metal at world level, him being British isn't a good enough reason to put it PPV, he needs to do something of note first before its even viable to charge extra money.


Its a betwenee one isnt it, no way is it ppv but stick it on normal sky and we will all be a little surprised. Intrigued to see how eddie plays it.

I can see it being on ppv with a strong under card to justify it. Burns aswell as Brook maybe.

Personally rather normal sky with a rees v Mitchell type main support - keep it real Edward.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Hooch said:


> Its a betwenee one isnt it, no way is it ppv but stick it on normal sky and we will all be a little surprised. Intrigued to see how eddie plays it.
> 
> I can see it being on ppv with a strong under card to justify it. Burns aswell as Brook maybe.
> 
> Personally rather normal sky with a rees v Mitchell type main support - keep it real Edward.


What I would like to see is a double main event with Haye/Fury being the other, I know I'm pissing in the wind because it will never happen but that should be PPV standard and the way forward.

If Froch/Groves is made PPV and not with a cracking undercard then I would dare any fucker, to defend Hearn or say he isn't trying to take the piss, Rob might try and Jack certainly will but it's to be expected.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2013)

@Bill

You need to get a life mate.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> @Bill
> 
> You need to get a life mate.


I'm pretty sure @- DC - has posted somewhere if you'd like to reply asking him if he's Craney91.

Something something stones and glass houses something.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> @Bill
> 
> You need to get a life mate.


Really? I got one and I'm content enough, we all can't be living the same Vegas lifestyle as you Rob, I don't want much in life, I go to work, earn my bread, get a leg over and go to sleep, the only thing's I really care about other than that is ganja, beer, football and of course Boxing, I enjoy coming on here talking about the sport, why the fuck not? It's better than sitting watching eastenders or fucking Corrie.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill said:


> Really? I got one and I'm content enough, we all can't be living the same Vegas lifestyle as you Rob, I don't want much in life, I go to work, earn my bread, get a leg over and go to sleep, the only thing's I really care about other than that is ganja, beer, football and of course Boxing, I enjoy coming on here talking about the sport, why the fuck not? It's better than sitting watching eastenders or fucking Corrie.


You need to get a life, Bill.

Also: hi, @Teeto @Pabby! :hi:


----------



## Scorpio78 (Jun 10, 2012)

bill is too anti hearn
where as 
rob and jack are way too pro hearn


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Batkilt said:


> You need to get a life, Bill.
> 
> Also: hi, @Teeto @Pabby! :hi:


Define a good life, its what you are happy with, in a years time things might change, you don't know what's round the corner but at this present time I'm confortable.

(Being a miserable cunt)


----------



## Lilo (Jun 4, 2012)

Yeah Bill get a life.


----------



## Indigo Pab (May 31, 2012)

Batkilt said:


> You need to get a life, Bill.
> 
> Also: hi, @Teeto @Pabby! :hi:


Unsure(and wary) of context, but hello bruh.:hi: Always a pleasure.

Also I noticed some Eastenders dissing in here and that's all well and good as long as it doesn't extend to the wonderful and ideal wife of mine, Lauren Branning. Otherwise shout out everyone. Life!


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill said:


> Define a good life, its what you are happy with, in a years time things might change, you don't know what's round the corner but at this present time I'm confortable.
> 
> (Being a miserable cunt)


Whatever you're doing clearly isn't enough to qualify as a life. I'm pretty sure if Rob doesn't think you have one then he won't think I have one either. Perhaps we can learn together how to live? PM me if you're interested.

No ****.



Pabby said:


> Unsure(and wary) of context, but hello bruh.:hi: Always a pleasure.
> 
> Also I noticed some Eastenders dissing in here and that's all well and good as long as it doesn't extend to the wonderful and ideal wife of mine, Lauren Branning. Otherwise shout out everyone. Life!


Lauren would get it. So would Lucy Beale. The lassie that plays Whitney looks well dirty too. Never want to hear her out of character as it'll ruin the illusion.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Pabby said:


> Unsure(and wary) of context, but hello bruh.:hi: Always a pleasure.
> 
> Also I noticed some Eastenders dissing in here and that's all well and good as long as it doesn't extend to the wonderful and ideal wife of mine, Lauren Branning. Otherwise shout out everyone. Life!


Lauren would get it in the arse, you might have to get her drunk first but that shouldn't be too much of a problem.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Bill said:


> If Froch/Groves is made PPV and not with a cracking undercard then I would dare any fucker, to defend Hearn or say he isn't trying to take the piss, Rob might try and Jack certainly will but it's to be expected.


The thing is, you've already decided you're against the fight being PPV and you're against people who support it. That such a strange stance when the fight won't happen next, it's likely Groves will win a world title fight before it happens and we have no idea about the undercard. If it's shit, I won't buy it, and if it's good, I will. It's as simple as that for me. I won't defend a card if I'm not going to buy it myself.

That said, my opinion on PPV will always remain the same. If fans want it, they'll buy it and if they don't, they won't. If enough people don't want to see a PPV card, it'll flop and Sky will insist on making them better in the future or stopping them. It's as simple as that. Nobody gets charged for PPV and therefore the argument that it's a rip off is bullshit. If I owned a shop and I was selling a can of Coke for £15, it'd be a rip off and nobody would buy it but would I be doing anything wrong? Of course not. It's up to me to sell a product for whatever price I want to. Sky could never run another PPV again or every single show in the future could be PPV. I couldn't care less. I'll buy any card which I think is worth it and that's it. If Sky run enough shows which don't make profit, that'll change their attitude towards the format.

It really isn't that big a deal. In so many threads, you whine and complain about PPV and yet I see no justification behind it. It's just mindless ranting, just because you personally don't want to pay for a card. If you don't, that's fine, that's your choice, and because it's a choice that Sky give you, you therefore have no reason to be so vitriolic against the decision to put certain cards on PPV. If Sky took £15 out of your account for fights you didn't want to see, I'd understand your anger but they don't, so I'm not sure why you're so against it.

You've already decided that Hearn is going to make Joshua a PPV fighter, which he isn't, and yet you still hate against him for that decision which you've made up in your head :lol: You mention you like "ganja" and I think you've had a bit too much of it. It's turned you massively paranoid and delusional.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Batkilt said:


> Whatever you're doing clearly isn't enough to qualify as a life. I'm pretty sure if Rob doesn't think you have one then he won't think I have one either. Perhaps we can learn together how to live? PM me if you're interested.
> 
> No ****.
> 
> Lauren would get it. So would Lucy Beale. The lassie that plays Whitney looks well dirty too. Never want to hear her out of character as it'll ruin the illusion.


:lol: Maybe we should employ Rob as a lifestyle Guru seeing as his life is so perfect. :yep


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

Love how I'm being mentioned in a thread I aint even posted in. :lol: I "could care less" (as you American's put it) about Joshua joining Matchroom.

Also, also, also yeh, big stiff idiot yet, also everyone telling Bill to get a life? 

Don't get a life Bill, it costs to bloody much!

...and to all those saying it, have a word! Your posting on the same bloody forum he is! :verysad


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill said:


> :lol: Maybe we should employ Rob as a lifestyle Guru seeing as his life is so perfect. :yep


You couldn't get away with those cardigans in the west of Scotland without being stabbed, and after going 25 years without that happening I don't want to start now. I'm not sure his advice would be best for me. It'd be like Price asking Lewis for advice.

Except I'm not a Scouser and Rob isn't a black Canadian.



- DC - said:


> Love how I'm being mentioned in a thread I aint even posted in. :lol: I "could care less" (as you American's put it) about Joshua joining Matchroom.
> 
> Also, also, also yeh, big stiff idiot yet, also everyone telling Bill to get a life?
> 
> ...


Sorry mate, but Rob telling someone to get a life while bringing up "are you Craney?!" on a daily basis and asking mods to deal with you is a bit much.


----------



## Indigo Pab (May 31, 2012)

:lol: I seem to play a major role in de-railing threads far, far too often, but nevertheless I concur with both of you dudes. Lauren is top 5.

For what it's worth in terms of "life" I employ the attitude of success is happiness, or just generally what you make it yourself. As far as Bill is concerned he's at the very least content and therefore doesn't need to seek a "life". That is my input on this topic that is none of my business and unrelated to the thread at hand. God speed, brothers and sisters.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2013)

Not sure if Matchroom & Hearn is the right place for Joshua. In terms of keeping his profile up and building on it in the UK there No.1 without any doubt. But I am not sure if there matchmaking style is right for a Heavyweight like Joshua.

I worry that they will fasttrack Joshua to title level and he wont pick up the expirience he needs, not only in the ring but inside the gym.

I would have Joshua in 8 6x3s rounders in his first year as a pro, and 6 8x3s in the seconed year as a pro. That will get him to 14-0 and them he will be ready to push on. Theres no reason for his opposition to be poor just because he is fighting in 6/8 rounders. He would have enough already to beat anyone outside the top 25 in the world over 6 rounds right now. We already know he has bashed up Fury and Chisora in sparring and there top 15. 

2013
Sep v Paul Butlin 6x3
Oct v Tomas Mazek 6x3
Dec v Michael Sprott 6x3

2014
Jan v Zack Page 6x3
Mar v Matt Skelton 6x3
May v Taras Bidenko 6x3
Jun v Audley Harrison 6x3
Jul v Pablo Vidoz 6x3
Sep v Martin Rogan 8x3
Nov v Derreck Rossy 8x3

2015
Jan v John McDermott 8x3
Mar v Dominic Guinn 8x3
May v Sam Sexton 8x3
Jul v Albert Sosniwski 8x3

Then if theres any meaningful fights at domestic level go for the British, if not just bypass and go for the European and push on from there.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> You couldn't get away with those cardigans in the west of Scotland without being stabbed, and after going 25 years without that happening I don't want to start now. I'm not sure his advice would be best for me. It'd be like Price asking Lewis for advice.
> 
> Except I'm not a Scouser and Rob isn't a black Canadian.
> 
> Sorry mate, but Rob telling someone to get a life while bringing up "are you Craney?!" on a daily basis and asking mods to deal with you is a bit much.


Rob also said he put me on his ignore list and a few others in the gang were sucking one anothers clitoris about it. "- DC - is now on your ignore list"

Rob is still talking to me as ever though. :lol:


----------



## DrMo (Jun 6, 2012)

:lol: at Rob's masterplan, no way he fights Sprott in his 2nd fight you lunatic


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2013)

I think @Batklit you seem like a happy guy. Thats the whole point of life just do whatever makes you happy. If thats living the Vegas lifestyle (I dont live in Vegas anymore) then great, if thats smoking weed and beet like @Bill then great, but he doesn't seem like a happy chap. He needs to get over his Hearn/PPV obsession hes gonna end up having a heart attack.

If £15 theee times a year is really that big a deal.......you have shit life!


----------



## sim_reiss (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Not sure if Matchroom & Hearn is the right place for Joshua. In terms of keeping his profile up and building on it in the UK there No.1 without any doubt. But I am not sure if there matchmaking style is right for a Heavyweight like Joshua.
> 
> I worry that they will fasttrack Joshua to title level and he wont pick up the expirience he needs, not only in the ring but inside the gym.
> 
> ...


Got a few issues with that itinery/schedule/plan

1. Joshua should start on four rounders. He's not a vastly experienced amateur and at the higher weights its probably even more important to build from a lower base.

2. I think your schedule is a bit too top-heavy on experienced gatekeepers. You also have to expose him to younger opponents - even if they aren't prospects they pose different questions.

3. Sprott by December is far too soon. Fighting Audley would be a PR disaster.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> I think @Batklit you seem like a happy guy. Thats the whole point of life just do whatever makes you happy. If thats living the Vegas lifestyle (I dont live in Vegas anymore) then great, if thats smoking weed and beet like @Bill then great, but he doesn't seem like a happy chap. He needs to get over his Hearn/PPV obsession hes gonna end up having a heart attack.


If anyones obsessed with Eddie Hearn and PPV.

Its you Roberto.:lol:

Talking about obsession look at that post a few up, what are you mystic meg?


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2013)

3rd. Over 6 rounds why not? Pulev bear Skelton in his 3rd fight!


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

I think everyone in boxing should just step down from their positions and just let Rob control everything.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> I think @Batklit you seem like a happy guy. Thats the whole point of life just do whatever makes you happy. If thats living the Vegas lifestyle (I dont live in Vegas anymore) then great, if thats smoking weed and beet like @Bill then great, but he doesn't seem like a happy chap. He needs to get over his Hearn/PPV obsession hes gonna end up having a heart attack.


Rob in all seriousness mate, I've come a long way since my teenage years and youth, I was banged up at 19, did every drug going and was a waster that would have ended up dead or in and out of prison for the rest of my life, I'm 28 now, have a small business and has turned it around to an extent, I feel comfortable now for a reason and its 
because I know it could be a hell of a lot worse.

As for seeming unhappy? that tends to happen when your feeling ripped off.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2013)

Instead if being a troll bitch, why don't you offer an alternative to my opinion. Thats what forums are about.

People saying im obbsessed with Eddie Hearn....yet I don't think Joshua should sign with him!


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2013)

Bill said:


> Rob in all seriousness mate, I've come a long way since my teenage years and youth, I was banged up at 19, did every drug going and was a waster that would have ended up dead or in and out of prison for the rest of my life, I'm 28 now, have a small business and has turned it around to an extent, I feel comfortable now for a reason and its
> because I know it could be a hell of a lot worse.
> 
> As for seeming unhappy? that tends to happen when your feeling ripped off.


Respect to you mate. But if you gonna complain that much about Hearn and PPV don't be suprised of people give you a little bit of banter (My comment was obviously just banter!)


----------



## Wallet (May 31, 2012)

I'd have Sosnowski a lot earlier than that. He's shite.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Instead if being a troll bitch, why don't you offer an alternative to my opinion. Thats what forums are about.
> 
> People saying im obbsessed with Eddie Hearn....yet I don't think Joshua should sign with him!


:fight


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Not sure if Matchroom & Hearn is the right place for Joshua. In terms of keeping his profile up and building on it in the UK there No.1 without any doubt. But I am not sure if there matchmaking style is right for a Heavyweight like Joshua.
> 
> I worry that they will fasttrack Joshua to title level and he wont pick up the expirience he needs, not only in the ring but inside the gym.
> 
> I would have Joshua in 8 6x3s rounders in his first year as a pro, and 6 8x3s in the seconed year as a pro. That will get him to 14-0 and them he will be ready to push on. Theres no reason for his opposition to be poor just because he is fighting in 6/8 rounders. He would have enough already to beat anyone outside the top 25 in the world over 6 rounds right now. We already know he has bashed up Fury and Chisora in sparring and there top 15.


I think you're right to suggest that there's no reason for Joshua to start at a low level. I don't understand why fighters go from fighting the absolute best amateurs in the world to then turning pro and fighting no-hopers, like Tom Stalker did. Sure, there are differences between the pro and amateur styles but it's not _that_ big. It's still boxing, albeit with subtle differences. The punch placement, movement, defence etc., is all the same, just with minor changes.

Having said that, I think Hearn listens to the managers and trainers a lot. If they think Joshua is ready, I don't think Hearn will hold him back. He seems to take on board a lot of other opinions when making fights, so if Joshua, his manager and his trainer all think he should go at a certain pace, I think Hearn will go along with that, whether it's a quick progression or a slow one.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> I think @Batklit you seem like a happy guy. Thats the whole point of life just do whatever makes you happy. If thats living the Vegas lifestyle (I dont live in Vegas anymore) then great, if thats smoking weed and beet like @Bill then great, but he doesn't seem like a happy chap. He needs to get over his Hearn/PPV obsession hes gonna end up having a heart attack.
> 
> If £15 theee times a year is really that big a deal.......you have shit life!


I'm especially happy today. Murray just made history - first Scottish Wimbledon champion ever. (First Scots born Wimbledon champion since 1896.)


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Respect to you mate. But if you gonna complain that much about Hearn and PPV don't be suprised of people give you a little bit of banter (My comment was obviously just banter!)


Rob I know mate, it's all banter, what I come out with is banter 99% of the time, I just thought I'd give you a little insight without it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> I'm especially happy today. Murray just made history - first Scottish Wimbledon champion ever. (First Scots born Wimbledon champion since 1896.)


I won $1600 on Thompson stopping Price between rounds 4-6.


----------



## Indigo Pab (May 31, 2012)

I had a sex-a-thon with a lady who's like an 8.5/10 and still haven't slept yet.

This game >>>>>>


----------



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)

Joshua will take a long slow build up and he certainly shouldn't be fast tracked to a title shot anytime soon, he is very raw and needs to learn his trade inside and outside of the ring.


----------



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> I won $1600 on Thompson stopping Price between rounds 4-6.


How much did you put on that?


----------



## Scorpio78 (Jun 10, 2012)

I think it's a big mistake linking up with booth


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2013)

CamR21 said:


> How much did you put on that?


Well I had 3 bets. Thompson stoppage, Under 9 rounds and Thompson 4-6. They all came in I had $100 accross the 3.

It will pay for. My misses wedding shoes and the $750 she racked up on the credit card last week buying summer dresses......starting to feel like @Bill!


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Jack said:


> The thing is, you've already decided you're against the fight being PPV and you're against people who support it. That such a strange stance when the fight won't happen next, it's likely Groves will win a world title fight before it happens and we have no idea about the undercard. If it's shit, I won't buy it, and if it's good, I will. It's as simple as that for me. I won't defend a card if I'm not going to buy it myself.
> 
> That said, my opinion on PPV will always remain the same. If fans want it, they'll buy it and if they don't, they won't. If enough people don't want to see a PPV card, it'll flop and Sky will insist on making them better in the future or stopping them. It's as simple as that. Nobody gets charged for PPV and therefore the argument that it's a rip off is bullshit. If I owned a shop and I was selling a can of Coke for £15, it'd be a rip off and nobody would buy it but would I be doing anything wrong? Of course not. It's up to me to sell a product for whatever price I want to. Sky could never run another PPV again or every single show in the future could be PPV. I couldn't care less. I'll buy any card which I think is worth it and that's it. If Sky run enough shows which don't make profit, that'll change their attitude towards the format.
> 
> ...


Again Jack with all due respect, can you please take Hearns cock out of your mouth before speaking and show reason why you have so little doubt in our Sir Eddie, you are beyond help mate, you are the one that shows no reasoning or logic, whatever good point you may make is clouded by bias and unquestionable love for the great man,

One thing I'm not is biased, can you really say the same for yourself?


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2013)

Bill said:


> One thing I'm not is biased, can you really say the same for yourself?


You are pretty biased IMO mate. Not to the same degree as Jack, but your very much anti Hearn. Slagging him off for things he hasnt even done yet!


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

You may have a point, it may seem that way but it's what I think is a realistic view, history tell's you Rob that no promoter is to be trusted or acts for the fans instead of himself, It don't work that way, what I have seen from Hearn in the last few month,suggest he will be no different than all of those before him, I find it hard to believe that people still take his word as gospel?


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

Wheres my cut Rob?

We were bang on weren't we? :lol:

We DO know shit about boxing. :cheers


----------



## Wallet (May 31, 2012)

Pabby said:


> I had a sex-a-thon with a lady who's like an 8.5/10 and still haven't slept yet.
> 
> This game >>>>>>


And yet I can't see any pics.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Bill said:


> One thing I'm not is biased, can you really say the same for yourself?


Don't be ridiculous. Your first post in this thread was claiming Hearn will announce Joshua as a PPV fighter. The equivalent level of bias from me, would be claiming that Hearn is putting on Mayweather vs. Pacquiao, Haye vs. Vitali and Golovkin vs. Martinez on, with all the proceeds going to a childrens cancer charity.

It's just bollocks.

Like I've always said, I dislike a lot of the things certain promoters do and I will criticise them for it. I think the other two big promoters in the country, Warren and Hennessy, regularly put on abysmal shows, and their average show is far worse than Hearn's. I'll criticise them for that but if you're impartial, where are your criticisms about Hennessy shows? You moan about Hearn putting on one PPV, yet you don't seem to have an issue with the McDonnell fight being on PPV? You talk about how shit the Froch/Kessler undercard was, yet have no comments about how thin the McDonnell/Ceja card was. You'll happily criticise Hearn for putting on an uneven fight and yet when other promoters do it, you say nothing.

The word "bias" being used towards me is wrong because it indicates an inherent like or dislike for something, which isn't true. I remember vehemently backing Warren and arguing how he was good for the sport, when he actually was. I've defended his PPVs for the same reason I've defended Hearn putting on one. I criticised Hatton for putting on terrible shows but when he had his own fight and put on a cracking undercard, I gave him praise for that. When Hennessy lost his TV deal, I said how he should have done more and when he got the current deal with Channel 5, I praised him for it. I have no issue praising any promoter for what they do, just like I won't hesitate to criticise Hearn is he does things I disagree with. As it happens, I usually like Prizefighter and I think there's a place for the format as it attracts casual fans, and I'm not entirely against PPV. If it's easier for you to cry "bias", that's fine, but I have solid reasons why I think that way and I'm happy to defend it rather than resorting to childish insults.

I specifically mentioned why you're undoubtedly biased. If you can point out any contradictions I've made, go for it but I don't think you'll have many.

Honestly, I couldn't give a shit about promoters. I think Hearn seems like a nice enough guy and I like Dave Coldwell. I hope Ricky Hatton does well in his promotional career and whilst I dislike Maloney and Warren for some of their actions, I support them because I support British boxing and the better shows they put on, the better it is for the sport. The same goes for Hennessy. I hope all these promoters do well and if they do, I'll praise them for it. I don't care enough about their personalities to be "biased". I support the sport and anyone who does good things for the sport, I praise, and anyone who treats the fans and fighters like shit, I criticise. It's as simple as that for me. You won't find me making up stories to praise or criticise a promoter. That's just childish bullshit that I'm not interested in doing.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Jack said:


> Don't be ridiculous. Your first post in this thread was claiming Hearn will announce Joshua as a PPV fighter. The equivalent level of bias from me, would be claiming that Hearn is putting on Mayweather vs. Pacquiao, Haye vs. Vitali and Golovkin vs. Martinez on, with all the proceeds going to a childrens cancer charity.
> 
> It's just bollocks.
> 
> ...


You don't need to make a long winded biased post for me to tell you to fuck off, a sentence will do. how about you grow a pair of balls, and think for yourself? It's a radical concept but try to stick with it fanboy, give it a try, just try it.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

If you're not capable of debating, which you aren't, you'd look less idiotic if you just ignored the issue entirely. It's a better alternative than resorting to calling people gay all the time, or some other childish shit you do, because you can't back up your claims.

I don't dislike you and if I did, I'd be a lot harsher with my posts towards you, but seriously, you're almost on the level of -DC- or whatever he's called. At least with him, he's blatantly trolling and being a knob but I think you're serious with a lot of the nonsense you come out with, which is quite worrying.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Jack said:


> If you're not capable of debating, which you aren't, you'd look less idiotic if you just ignored the issue entirely. It's a better alternative than resorting to calling people gay all the time, or some other childish shit you do, because you can't back up your claims.
> 
> I don't dislike you and if I did, I'd be a lot harsher with my posts towards you, but seriously, you're almost on the level of -DC- or whatever he's called. At least with him, he's blatantly trolling and being a knob but I think you're serious with a lot of the nonsense you come out with, which is quite worrying.


I didn't call you gay mush, although come to think of it You do have a whiff of Graham Norton about you, you have homosexual tendencies towards Eddie Hearn, don't even try to deny it, there is no reasoning with you, Eddie's your sexual god and nothing will change that, let me ask you? does he know you stalk him?,


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Do you even know what you have and haven't said? It's embarrassing to even read how childish some of your comments are, but yeah, you've repeatedly called me gay, like you did on the last fucking page. Christ. It's embarrassing for me to even go over this shite.

I think you're probably a decent lad and I don't think you mean any harm, but you're genuinely a moron.

I'll leave it at that now, anyway. You called me biased, I refuted that and explain why, so you called me gay. Brilliant.


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Batkilt said:


> You need to get a life, Bill.
> 
> Also: hi, @Teeto @Pabby! :hi:


hi comrade


----------



## Lilo (Jun 4, 2012)

So who is gay and who needs to get a life?


----------



## JFT96 (Jun 13, 2012)

Lilo said:


> So who is gay and who needs to get a life?


It's you on both counts I think mate.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Teeto said:


> hi comrade


How's things comrade? This threat has went a bit shit really.


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Batkilt said:


> How's things comrade? This threat has went a bit shit really.


I'm alright, got a shiner and a fucked up tooth, drunken madness at the weekend. You?


----------



## Lilo (Jun 4, 2012)

JFT96 said:


> It's you on both counts I think mate.


:alan


----------



## JFT96 (Jun 13, 2012)

Lilo said:


> :alan


AHA!


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Teeto said:


> I'm alright, got a shiner and a fucked up tooth, drunken madness at the weekend. You?


Had a quiet one. A mate was back up visiting from down South, so a few of us just spent Saturday together catching up. Watched the boxing on TiVo yesterday then Wimbledon.

Being off the booze is proper boring.


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Batkilt said:


> Had a quiet one. A mate was back up visiting from down South, so a few of us just spent Saturday together catching up. Watched the boxing on TiVo yesterday then Wimbledon.
> 
> Being off the booze is proper boring.


ah, it has its pros and cons I reckon, I'm defo off the ale for a bit now anyways! Andy Murray a G


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

Bill said:


> Oh for fuck sake, I can see the interview now, Eddie Hearn.. Anthony may be a novice but he is the Olympic champion, that's why he is on PPV, Anthony Joshua is a PPV fighter.


Who has Hearn done that with?


----------



## Wallet (May 31, 2012)

Batkilt said:


> Had a quiet one. A mate was back up visiting from down South, so a few of us just spent Saturday together catching up. Watched the boxing on TiVo yesterday then Wimbledon.
> 
> Being off the booze is proper boring.


Why are you off the booze?


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Lunny said:


> Who has Hearn done that with?


No one so far, although he did say the only reason Froch/Kessler can be made was if it was PPV, now he says Froch is a PPV fighter and wants to make KesslerIII or Groves, both are not PPV worthy.


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

Bill said:


> No one so far, although he did say the only reason Froch/Kessler can be made was if it was PPV, now he says Froch is a PPV fighter and wants to make KesslerIII or Groves, both are not PPV worthy.


I wouldn't begrudge him putting Froch on PPV. Ludicrous to suggest he'd do it with Joshua.


----------



## Gary Barlow (Jun 6, 2012)

Joshua is even worse than Price, another hype job i often wonder if i just have special powers that lets me see the future better than others or everyone else is just clueless.Can't wait to cash in on AJ getting KTFO like Price. Fury also going same way, these people can not take a dig, how can people not see this.


----------



## Wallet (May 31, 2012)

Gary Barlow said:


> i often wonder if i just have special powers that lets me see the future better than others or everyone else is just clueless.


:lol:


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Lunny said:


> I wouldn't begrudge him putting Froch on PPV. Ludicrous to suggest he'd do it with Joshua.


No what I mean is he will start putting him on the undercards building him into as he would call a ''PPV'' fighter and then will have him headline one when undeserved, Hearn is a boxing promoter, none of them can be trusted.

Also I don't think any single fighter is PPV worthy, it all depends on the quality of the fights and cards, imo.


----------



## Gary Barlow (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill said:


> No what I mean is he will start putting him on the undercards building him into as he would call a ''PPV'' fighter and then will have him headline one when undeserved, Hearn is a boxing promoter, none of them can be trusted.
> 
> Also I don't think any single fighter is PPV worthy, it all depends on the quality of the fights and cards, imo.


Prizefighter T-Shirts they gave out was shite aswell, all lettering came off after one wash, and it read RIZEFIGHT.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Teeto said:


> ah, it has its pros and cons I reckon, I'm defo off the ale for a bit now anyways! Andy Murray a G


7th July will soon be a national holiday in Scotland.



Wallet said:


> Why are you off the booze?


Doctors changed my spondylitis medications, and recommend staying off the booze for a bit as my stomach is going to be dodgy for a while as it is.

Was damn gutted I didn't have any booze to celebrate yesterday.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Gary Barlow said:


> Prizefighter T-Shirts they gave out was shite aswell, all lettering came off after one wash, and it read RIZEFIGHT.


:lol: I'll add that to my list of reason's why I think he's a wanker, cheers Barlow.


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

Gary Barlow said:


> Prizefighter T-Shirts they gave out was shite aswell, all lettering came off after one wash, and it read RIZEFIGHT.


:rofl


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Gary Barlow said:


> Prizefighter T-Shirts they gave out was shite aswell, all lettering came off after one wash, and it read RIZEFIGHT.


:lol: Fast Car Eddie in Primark t-shirt shocker.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Gary Barlow said:


> Prizefighter T-Shirts they gave out was shite aswell, all lettering came off after one wash, and it read RIZEFIGHT.


:rofl


----------



## JamieC (Jun 2, 2012)

Gary Barlow said:


> Joshua is even worse than Price, another hype job i often wonder if i just have special powers that lets me see the future better than others or everyone else is just clueless.Can't wait to cash in on AJ getting KTFO like Price. Fury also going same way, these people can not take a dig, how can people not see this.


Does Ricky Burns cloud the readings?


----------



## SouthpawSlayer (Jun 13, 2012)

another stiff plank to add to that long list of stiff English heavyweights


----------



## Hooch (Jun 18, 2013)

SouthpawSlayer said:


> another stiff plank to add to that long list of stiff English heavyweights


Thats stiff BRITISH heavyweights you cheeky ignorant twat.


----------



## Scorpio78 (Jun 10, 2012)

Independent are reporting that he has gone with Hearn as well ,
Why are Eddie and Joshua denying it , everyone knows he signed up a few weeks back ? I wonder of its something legal ?


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Scorpio78 said:


> Independent are reporting that he has gone with Hearn as well ,
> Why are Eddie and Joshua denying it , everyone knows he signed up a few weeks back ? I wonder of its something legal ?


Maybe the deal is not quite done yet, also they will want to announce it themselves even though everybody will already know.


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

Nothing signed as of yet. But it's close. Hearing booth is likely trainer and manager


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Vano-irons said:


> Nothing signed as of yet. But it's close. Hearing booth is likely trainer and manager


Fffffs I don't see what Booth can offer him other then sparring with Haye, was hoping McCracken.


----------



## SouthpawSlayer (Jun 13, 2012)

Joshua is gonna get sparked in the pro's no dodgy decisions will make him get up off the canvas, slightly off topic but did anyone else think him and lennox were stoned that day they appeared on ringside last week


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Fffffs I don't see what Booth can offer him other then sparring with Haye, was hoping McCracken.


I think it's a really poor move too. Hoping the las I was chatting to was mis-informed. But I heard he was signing with Hearn about a month ago


----------



## Scorpio78 (Jun 10, 2012)

Booth as a manger is shrewd but will over jack shit as coach
Maybe this is why groves is mando for froch now


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

Bill said:


> No one so far, although he did say the only reason Froch/Kessler can be made was if it was PPV, now he says Froch is a PPV fighter and wants to make KesslerIII or Groves, both are not PPV worthy.


yes they are.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

Scorpio78 said:


> Independent are reporting that he has gone with Hearn as well ,
> Why are Eddie and Joshua denying it , everyone knows he signed up a few weeks back ? I wonder of its something legal ?


just because the independent are reporting it doesn't mean its done. Both Hearn and Joshua have said its not done.


----------



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> yes they are.


Froch vs Groves isn't PPV


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

CamR21 said:


> Froch vs Groves isn't PPV


Of course it is. Theres not a single promoter in history that would not put this fight on Sky Box Office given the opportunity.


----------



## Eoghan (Jun 6, 2013)

CamR21 said:


> Froch vs Groves isn't PPV


Add Haye-Fury as a co-main and Joshua's pro début, plus others and it definitely is PPV worthy


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> yes they are.


I disagree Rob, why should Groves/Froch deserve to be PPV, what has Groves done to deserve it, him being British isn't a good enough reason.


----------



## Wallet (May 31, 2012)

Bill said:


> why should Groves/Froch deserve to be PPV


Because people will pay for it, and that's all that counts at the end of the day.


----------



## Scorpio78 (Jun 10, 2012)

Come to think of it , with booths involvement they will push for ppv at the earliest opportunity with joshua


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

Bill said:


> I disagree Rob, why should Groves/Froch deserve to be PPV, what has Groves done to deserve it, him being British isn't a good enough reason.


Both our big enough names to make the PPV a financial success. Simple.


----------



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Of course it is. Theres not a single promoter in history that would not put this fight on Sky Box Office given the opportunity.


No it isn't Groves isn't anywhere near enough of a name or a threat to warrant being PPV


----------



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)

Eoghan said:


> Add Haye-Fury as a co-main and Joshua's pro début, plus others and it definitely is PPV worthy


Well yes but that isn't going to happen is it


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Wallet said:


> Because people will pay for it, and that's all that counts at the end of the day.





robpalmer135 said:


> Both our big enough names to make the PPV a financial success. Simple.


True but its still shit and not worthy of PPV status, it's another case of Eddie milking the casual's and shitting on the hardcore fans, it's not right.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Who even knows if Hearn will put Froch/Groves on PPV?


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

Groves is big enough for a PPV? atsch

When he fought DeGale it was one of the most ludicrous events Sky ever put on SBO, even Eddie himself said so.

He doesn't the fanbase or interest from casuals. Simple.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

CamR21 said:


> No it isn't Groves isn't anywhere near enough of a name or a threat to warrant being PPV


People said that about Froch and I would disagree again. Remember Groves has headlined a PPV before.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

Bill said:


> True but its still shit and not worthy of PPV status, it's another case of Eddie milking the casual's and shitting on the hardcore fans, it's not right.


What is worthy of PPV status in your eyes?


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Who even knows if Hearn will put Froch/Groves on PPV?


I think he mentioned in a interview somewhere that he wanted to keep Froch in England on box office and against Kessler or Groves?


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> What is worthy of PPV status in your eyes?


Super fights or a brilliant card, if Eddie stacks the undercard then it softens the blow a bit but going by his last one, that's not going to happen.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

Bill said:


> Super fights or a brilliant card, if Eddie stacks the undercard then it softens the blow a bit but going by his last one, that's not going to happen.


Froch v Groves is a super fight imo.


----------



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> People said that about Froch and I would disagree again. Remember Groves has headlined a PPV before.


Froch is a long reigning world champion though, Groves hasn't even ever fought at world level. Yes and that PPV wasn't a success in all honesty and should never ever have been PPV


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

The delusion on here is paramount. Froch and Groves is a cracking fight but give me one good reason why it's PPV? Groves is not known by the general public so he won't pull in casuals, he's never boxed a world class fighter and has never won a belt of significance except the British a few years ago so he can't demand a big purse.

If it goes on SBO (which it surely will) then there's no dressing it up as anything apart from Matchroom ripping off the gullible.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Froch v Groves is a super fight imo.


Really? Groves has yet to prove himself at the highest level, how can a fight in which you already know the outcome be PPV? Froch is a level above Groves, Groves has potential but that's it.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Bill said:


> I think he mentioned in a interview somewhere that he wanted to keep Froch in England on box office and against Kessler or Groves?


Last Ifilm interview Kugan asked him about PPV and Eddie said hell only do PPVs if he has to, I.E to generate enough money to pay the boxers purses.

Well we will see if he keeps his word.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

I don't think it's a bad fight, but Groves needs more schooling and he's unproven at the top level. Say he were to beat Abraham or Steiglitz then fair enough.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Last Ifilm interview Kugan asked him about PPV and Eddie said hell only do PPVs if he has to, I.E to generate enough money to pay the boxers purses.
> 
> Well we will see if he keeps his word.


Time will tell mate.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

Bill said:


> Really? Groves has yet to prove himself at the highest level, how can a fight in which you already know the outcome be PPV? Froch is a level above Groves, Groves has potential but that's it.


I thinks its a far more competitive fight than you think. Also I think there both big names. Do I really need to see Groves beat Brian Magee to know that he is ready for a world title shot. Hes WBC No.1, WBA No.2, IBF No.1 and WBO No.1. He is ready.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> I thinks its a far more competitive fight than you think. Also I think there both big names. Do I really need to see Groves beat Brian Magee to know that he is ready for a world title shot. *Hes WBC No.1, WBA No.2, IBF No.1 and WBO No.1.* He is ready.


All that means is he's in line for a mandatory. In the grand scheme of things that means about as much as your rankings in terms of whether someone is a competitive match up for one of the best at the weight.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> All that means is he's in line for a mandatory. In the grand scheme of things that means about as much as your rankings in terms of whether someone is a competitive match up for one of the best at the weight.


If your ranked by one governing body I would agree, but when your mandatory for pretty much every belt I think that means something. Kessler & Groves are the best 2 contenders at 168lbs.

Who would you have Groves fight to prove he is ready for Froch?


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

If Hearn can't put on 3/4 solid undercard fights then it isn't really good enough.

Mitchell
Quigg
Selby
Rose

These 4 should be in meaningful fights on the card for me.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

Marlow said:


> If Hearn can't put on 3/4 solid undercard fights then it isn't really good enough.
> 
> Mitchell
> Quigg
> ...


Lets see what gets put together for Haye v Fury.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> If your ranked by one governing body I would agree, but when your mandatory for pretty much every belt I think that means something. Kessler & Groves are the best 2 contenders at 168lbs.
> 
> Who would you have Groves fight to prove he is ready for Froch?


It means literally nothing to me. It's as meaningful to me as the CHB rankings.

And I'd be having Groves take on meaningful fights that will actually test him; I'd have him fighting opponents that would prepare him for Froch. Groves' last three opponents were all pants, but he fought them to boost his standings with governing bodies. And I'm then expected to be excited about him fighting Froch on PPV based on those standings? Naw, mate; I wisnae born yesterday.

It'll be PPV if Matchroom reckon it'll make them money, regardless of whether or not it actually has to be. I don't believe for a second that it would have to be on PPV based on purse demands though. And no, I won't be paying for it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> It means literally nothing to me. It's as meaningful to me as the CHB rankings.
> 
> And I'd be having Groves take on meaningful fights that will actually test him; I'd have him fighting opponents that would prepare him for Froch. Groves' last three opponents were all pants, but he fought them to boost his standings with governing bodies. And I'm then expected to be excited about him fighting Froch on PPV based on those standings? Naw, mate; I wisnae born yesterday.
> 
> It'll be PPV if Matchroom reckon it'll make them money, regardless of whether or not it actually has to be. I don't believe for a second that it would have to be on PPV based on purse demands though. And no, I won't be paying for it.


Those meaningless rankings that you always talk about and always comment on?

Who are the opponents you would like Groves to face?


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Lets see what gets put together for Haye v Fury.


Yeah that's a point.

Burns is scheduled for 7th sept
Brook/Ochieng are out 21st sept

Are there enough fighters to do two ppvs?


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Those meaningless rankings that you always talk about and always comment on?
> 
> Who are the opponents you would like Groves to face?


"Always comment on"? I laugh at you when you bring them up any time someone says there aren't any decent rankings. And I'll keep doing so.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

Marlow said:


> Yeah that's a point.
> 
> Burns is scheduled for 7th sept
> Brook/Ochieng are out 21st sept
> ...


Haye v Fury Sep 28th
Froch v Groves Nov 23rd

Yeh I think theres enough fighters for them to do it but I question whether there is the budget to entice good opponents over for undercards.

By the way I am in no way disputing that the Froch v Kessler bill was not PPV worthy. But personally I think Froch v Groves is a PPV worthy main event for a number of reasons. But PPV always needs a good undercard no matter what the main event is.


----------



## Scorpio78 (Jun 10, 2012)

Groves is one or two fights away from froch, Eddie should not have wasted his last 2 fights against bums


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> "Always comment on"? I laugh at you when you bring them up any time someone says there aren't any decent rankings. And I'll keep doing so.


You comment on them allot!

And why would I not advertise them?


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

Scorpio78 said:


> Groves is one or two fights away from froch, Eddie should not have wasted his last 2 fights against bums


If they were bums what does that make you?


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

Are people seriously thinking Fury vs Haye is PPV?
Basically two contenders fighting each other is PPV worthy?


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

LuckyLuke said:


> Are people seriously thinking Fury vs Haye is PPV?
> Basically two contenders fighting each other is PPV worthy?


Almost guaranteed I would think.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> You comment on them allot!
> 
> And why would I not advertise them?


No, I don't. My last comment was asking why, if the rankings can be revised, the "can't be a champion in more than one division" rule can't be, as several folk expressed that "stripping" Mayweather of CHB's recognition as "world champion" was daft. I clicked on your link on Saturday and thought the Gaby/Shumenov/Murat confusion was funny.

Advertise them all you want. IDGAF - I just think it's funny that any time someone says all rankings are shit you post "ahem" or "is this a joke" followed by a link.


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

Marlow said:


> Almost guaranteed I would think.


I really dont think it will be PPV. Even by Hearn standards its not PPV worthy.

Maybe if they put a great undercard together. Bus as far as I know many Matchroom fighters are allready scheduled.


----------



## Wallet (May 31, 2012)

LuckyLuke said:


> I really dont think it will be PPV. Even by Hearn standards its not PPV worthy.
> 
> Maybe if they put a great undercard together. Bus as far as I know many Matchroom fighters are allready scheduled.


It certainly will be. Hearn has already said this.

You clearly don't realise how big a name Haye is over here.


----------



## The Chemist (Jun 14, 2013)

Haye v Fury ppv will get near a million buyers!


----------



## Ishy (Jun 2, 2012)

LuckyLuke said:


> Are people seriously thinking Fury vs Haye is PPV?
> Basically two contenders fighting each other is PPV worthy?


It's not about the level both fighters are at, it's how well it'd sell and how popular the participants are. Bit simplistic to say "two contenders fighting each other".


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Wallet said:


> It certainly will be. Hearn has already said this.
> 
> You clearly don't realise how big a name Haye is over here.


Haye is a well known sporting personality, and casual sports fans know who Fury is; both are charismatic and know how to sell a fight. And both are heavyweights.

It was always going to be PPV.


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

Wallet said:


> It certainly will be. *Hearn has already said this. *
> 
> You clearly don't realise how big a name Haye is over here.


Really?
And I know Haye is a big name. Still does not justify PPV. There is a case that both fighters are not even top 4 in their division right now if you rank Wladimir,Vitali,Povetkin and Pulev higher.

Well I dont have to buy it anyway...:lol:


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Haye v Fury Sep 28th
> Froch v Groves Nov 23rd
> 
> Yeh I think theres enough fighters for them to do it but I question whether there is the budget to entice good opponents over for undercards.
> ...


Hennesy fighters like Galahad and Degale could help the Fury-Haye ppv and take the strain from Hearns fighters


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> No, I don't. My last comment was asking why, if the rankings can be revised, the "can't be a champion in more than one division" rule can't be, as several folk expressed that "stripping" Mayweather of CHB's recognition as "world champion" was daft. I clicked on your link on Saturday and thought the Gaby/Shumenov/Murat confusion was funny.
> 
> Advertise them all you want. IDGAF - I just think it's funny that any time someone says all rankings are shit you post "ahem" or "is this a joke" followed by a link.


if you don't care about rankings why would you care about the rules?


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

Ashedward said:


> Hennesy fighters like Galahad and Degale could help the Fury-Haye ppv and take the strain from Hearns fighters


Yeh DeGale v Magee & Galahad v Dickens would be good but then what does Channel 5 do for 6 months?


----------



## Scorpio78 (Jun 10, 2012)

It's a mismatch just like froch groves . To tub it in they will both be ppv. This was always gonna happen when haymaker hooked up with Eddie


----------



## Eoghan (Jun 6, 2013)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> I don't think it's a bad fight, but Groves needs more schooling and he's unproven at the top level. Say he were to beat Abraham or Steiglitz then fair enough.


I am tempted to say he should fight Kessler, although a) he may be finished, and b) I don't think Mikkel would be up for it


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

Ishy said:


> It's not about the level both fighters are at, it's how well it'd sell and how popular the participants are. Bit simplistic to say "two contenders fighting each other".


Well people said that Froch vs Kessler was not PPV worthy. But this was a unification fight and Froch could avenge a loss.

While Haye vs Fury is not a world title fight. Fury is certainly not a top 4 fighter in his division and Haye barely makes the top 3.


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

Eoghan said:


> I am tempted to say he should fight Kessler, although a) he may be finished, and b) I don't think Mikkel would be up for it


There are not many fights for Groves. Hearn doesnt want the Stieglitz fight and Sauerland wont let Abraham anywhere near Groves or another good contender.


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Yeh DeGale v Magee & Galahad v Dickens would be good but then what does Channel 5 do for 6 months?


True,I just don`t think c5 are that bothered with the sport unfortunately.If they are,then Hennessey needs to keep them on side so that would mean no Galahad or Degale for the Fury undercard


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

LuckyLuke said:


> There are not many fights for Groves. Hearn doesnt want the Stieglitz fight and Sauerland wont let Abraham anywhere near Groves or another good contender.


What makes you think Hearn doesn't want the Steiglitz fight?


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> What makes you think Hearn doesn't want the Steiglitz fight?


When Hearn got asked by Kugan about that fight he said it was very unlikely (in that interview were people could ask questions via twitter). And Groves was still mandatory for Stieglitz. They dont want it anymore. Booth probably decided he Stieglitz is too dangerous. Hearn could easily have made that fight. And btw: Do you hear anything about negotiations ect?

If you look at interviews before the AA vs Stieglitz rematch Groves,Hearn and co talked all day long that they want to face the winner of that fight. Groves even fought on the undercard.
And now? Nothing.

Its pretty obvious that Hearn/Groves/Booth dont want that fight.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

LuckyLuke said:


> When Hearn got asked by Kugan about that fight he said it was very unlikely (in that interview were people could ask questions via twitter). And Groves was still mandatory for Stieglitz. They dont want it anymore. Booth probably decided he Stieglitz is too dangerous. Hearn could easily have made that fight. And btw: Do you hear anything about negotiations ect?
> 
> If you look at interviews before the AA vs Stieglitz rematch Groves,Hearn and co talked all day long that they want to face the winner of that fight. Groves even fought on the undercard.
> And now? Nothing.
> ...


I think your putting 2+2 together and getting 16.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> if you don't care about rankings why would you care about the rules?


Because your mum.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> Because your mum.


Your Mum is so old she owed Jesus £5.

In all seriousness now lets go back to my post near the beginning before that cheap cunt @Bill train wrecked the thread.

Why wouldn't you put Joshua in a 6 rounder v Michael Sprott in his 4/5th fight?


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> I think your putting 2+2 together and getting 16.


Groves is now IBF mandatory not WBO mandatory anymore.
Hearn said the Stieglitz fight is unlikely when he got asked about it. And Groves was still mandatory there.
Hearn,Groves and co dont mention Stieglitz name again. They talked all day long about the AA vs Stieglitz fight and that they want to face the winner. Now they dont mention his name again. 
There arent even negotiations or ANY talks about that fight.

Its pretty obvious. They dont want the fight.

And even if Hearn wants that fight (wich he doesnt), its not going to happen. You have to understand that Groves is not WBO mandatory anymore. And Stieglitz got a new TV-Deal. He wont come over to england and fight Groves. Fight is not going to happen.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Your Mum is so old she owed Jesus £5.
> 
> In all seriousness now lets go back to my post near the beginning before that cheap cunt @Bill train wrecked the thread.


 @Bill wrecked your mum.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

LuckyLuke said:


> Groves is now IBF mandatory not WBO mandatory anymore.
> Hearn said the Stieglitz fight is unlikely when he got asked about it. And Groves was still mandatory there.
> Hearn,Groves and co dont mention Stieglitz name again. They talked all day long about the AA vs Stieglitz fight and that they want to face the winner. Now they dont mention his name again.
> There arent even negotiations or ANY talks about that fight.
> ...


Groves is still WBO mandatory. You don't know that there not in talks. They just havent enforced a mandatory on Steiglitz yet so they no its a tough fight to make. Doesn't mean they don't want the fight, they just know theres other options.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> @Bill wrecked your mum.


 @Bill is gay isn't he?


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> @Bill is gay isn't he?


What's that got to do with your mum?


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> What's that got to do with your mum?


He wouldn't get a stiffy.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> He wouldn't get a stiffy.


Your mum _so would_ get a stiffy over @Bill.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> Your mum _so would_ get a stiffy over @Bill.


Your banter is shit.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Your banter is shit.


That's not what your mum told me last night.


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Groves is still WBO mandatory. You don't know that there not in talks. They just havent enforced a mandatory on Steiglitz yet so they no its a tough fight to make. Doesn't mean they don't want the fight, they just know theres other options.


How long was the AA vs Stiegitz fight ago? I'm pretty sure its more then 90 days.
And still there is NO word about that fight. And why do you keep ignoring the things Hearn said. Hearn said that fight is unlikely. Why? It should be an easy fight to make with Groves being mandatory. The only reason I can imagine why this fight is unlikely is because they dont want it.

Anyway: How is it possible that Groves is IBF and WBO mandatory?


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

LuckyLuke said:


> How long was the AA vs Stiegitz fight ago? I'm pretty sure its more then 90 days.
> And still there is NO word about that fight. And why do you keep ignoring the things Hearn said. Hearn said that fight is unlikely. Why? It should be an easy fight to make with Groves being mandatory. The only reason I can imagine why this fight is unlikely is because they dont want it.
> 
> Anyway: How is it possible that Groves is IBF and WBO mandatory?


He can be the #1 ranked contender for both, but once he accepts the offer of being named mandatory challenger from one then he won't have that same status with the other. The only real exemption would be if the IBF champion also held the WBO title, but even then only one sanctioning body would name him mandatory. Why would a sanctioning body give up fees?


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Your Mum is so old she owed Jesus £5.
> 
> In all seriousness now lets go back to my post near the beginning before that cheap cunt @Bill train wrecked the thread.
> 
> Why wouldn't you put Joshua in a 6 rounder v Michael Sprott in his 4/5th fight?


:lol:


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> He can be the #1 ranked contender for both, but once he accepts the offer of being named mandatory challenger from one then he won't have that same status with the other. The only real exemption would be if the IBF champion also held the WBO title, but even then only one sanctioning body would name him mandatory. Why would a sanctioning body give up fees?


So I was right?
Groves is not WBO mandatory anymore because he is IBF mandatory?
Because robpalmer said he is still WBO mandatory.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

LuckyLuke said:


> So I was right?
> Groves is not WBO mandatory anymore because he is IBF mandatory?
> Because robpalmer said he is still WBO mandatory.


No. He is still mandatory for both.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

LuckyLuke said:


> So I was right?
> Groves is not WBO mandatory anymore because he is IBF mandatory?
> Because robpalmer said he is still WBO mandatory.


He's not been named mandatory challenger, so aye, you're right. He's the WBO #1 ranked contender, but they don't _have_ to put him forward for a mandatory challenge. And once he accepts the chance to fight for the IBF title then they won't.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> @Bill is gay isn't he?


Cheap? Probably. Cunt? Definitely. Second coming of Barrymore? Impossibility.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> He's not been named mandatory challenger, so aye, you're right. He's the WBO #1 ranked contender, but they don't _have_ to put him forward for a mandatory challenge. And once he accepts the chance to fight for the IBF title then they won't.


He is the mandatory challenger for the WBO & WBC & IBF. But the IBF are the only ones that have called for a mandatory.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

Bill said:


> Cheap? Probably. Cunt? Definitely. Second coming of Barrymore? Impossibility.


But when you went Prison you did suck that guy off....so technically your a ************!


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> He is the mandatory challenger for the WBO & WBC & IBF. But the IBF are the only ones that have called for a mandatory.


No, he's the *#1 ranked challenger* - he's not the mandatory challenger until the sanctioning body says so and calls for purse bids, like the IBF have.


robpalmer135 said:


> But when you went Prison you did suck that guy off....so technically your a ************!


Don't talk about your mother like that.

Have a word with the lad, eh @Bill?


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> He's not been named mandatory challenger, so aye, you're right. He's the WBO #1 ranked contender, but they don't _have_ to put him forward for a mandatory challenge. And once he accepts the chance to fight for the IBF title then they won't.


Well he was WBO mandatory as far as I know....
And now Hearn said Groves is IBF mandatory...

So either robpalmer doesnt have a clue or Groves is mandatory for both belts...wich would be very strange.

Man this is so confusing!


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

The last person who called Bill gay was Craney I believe. And look how that turned out.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

LuckyLuke said:


> Well he was WBO mandatory as far as I know....
> And now Hearn said Groves is IBF mandatory...
> 
> So either robpalmer doesnt have a clue or Groves is mandatory for both belts...wich would be very strange.
> ...


He was named mandatory by the WBO last year before he pulled out of the fight with an injury, and he remains their number 1 ranked challenger.

http://www.wboboxing.com/rankings

That's all. He's not the mandatory challenger as they haven't named one.



PaulieMc said:


> The last person who called Bill gay was Craney I believe. And look how that turned out.


It all makes sense now. Rob IS Craney.


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> He is the mandatory challenger for the WBO & WBC & IBF. But the IBF are the only ones that have called for a mandatory.


Ah no.
Only because you are ranked number one it doesnt mean you are the mandatory challenger. Now I know what your point was. Yes Groves is still ranked number one with the WBO but that doesnt mean he is a mandatory challenger.

All we know is that Groves is now IBF mandatory. Wich means he is not WBO mandatory anymore. Wich means Hearn dindt want to go the WBO route. Wich means he/they dindt want the Stieglitz fight.

Victory for me.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> But when you went Prison you did suck that guy off....so technically your a ************!


:lol: People have the wrong idea about jail, none of that sort of stuff went on or I certainly aware of it, if id did, you might get stabbed to death or have boiling hot water mixed with sugar and salt thrown in your face but being sucked off to death? it is a big no no.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

Bill said:


> :lol: People have the wrong idea about jail, none of that sort of stuff went on or I certainly aware of it, if id did, you might get stabbed to death or have boiling hot water mixed with sugar and salt thrown in your face but being sucked off to death is a big no no.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


>





robpalmer135 said:


> Your banter is shit.


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

Bill and Rob. Just get it over with boys. :hey


----------



## Scorpio78 (Jun 10, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> If they were bums what does that make you?


fuck you

you started off ok on this site but now you back to your esb best


----------



## Duffy (Jun 13, 2013)

Haye beats this guy.


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2013)

Scorpio78 said:


> fuck you
> 
> you started off ok on this site but now you back to your esb best


so its ok to call fighters bums?


----------



## Duffy (Jun 13, 2013)

You morons need to stop going on about the Savon fight. That fight was no robbery. A robbery is when you clearly win every round only then to "get robbed". This didn't happen between Savon and Big Josh. Possibly a case could be made for Josh losing by one or two rounds, but so what? Joshua may have won a hometown decision but that most certainly is not a robbery. hometown decisions are part of the game, part of the sport, always have been and always will be. Get behind big Josh, he's worth it, one of our own and he's good!


----------



## Bryn (Jun 2, 2012)

@Jay


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2013)

@Jay this guy is also D-C aka Craney!


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> @Jay this guy is also D-C aka Craney!


:-( Lame


----------



## Duffy (Jun 13, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> @Jay this guy is also D-C aka Craney!


How many have you claimed to be Craney so far, 50, 60?


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> @Jay this guy is also D-C aka Craney!


Give it a rest already. You're like that kid in class that makes sure the teacher knows that somebody misbehaved.


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> Give it a rest already. You're like that kid in class that makes sure the teacher knows that somebody misbehaved.


Stick to photo bucket!


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2013)

Duffy said:


> How many have you claimed to be Craney so far, 50, 60?


Just the people that are Craney. So Duffy & D-C.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Stick to photo bucket!


Stick to devising awful ranking systems for everything from fighters' chins to forum banter and leave the moderating of the forum to the admins and mods, you lunatic.


----------



## Duffy (Jun 13, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Just the people that are Craney. So Duffy & D-C.


You wont be getting a job offer from Scotland yard anytime soon Mr. Robert.


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> Stick to devising awful ranking systems for everything from fighters' chins to forum banter and leave the moderating of the forum to the admins and mods, you lunatic.


No photo bucket for that sentance?

Ok. Never made a list for fighters banter but ok then.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> No photo bucket for that sentance?
> 
> Ok. Never made a list for fighters banter but ok then.


"Sentence". And the post you quoted doesn't mention "fighters banter".


----------



## faz (Jan 25, 2013)

Duffy said:


> You morons need to stop going on about the Savon fight. That fight was no robbery. A robbery is when you clearly win every round only then to "get robbed". This didn't happen between Savon and Big Josh. Possibly a case could be made for Josh losing by one or two rounds, but so what? Joshua may have won a hometown decision but that most certainly is not a robbery. hometown decisions are part of the game, part of the sport, always have been and always will be. Get behind big Josh, he's worth it, one of our own and he's good!


Are you being serious? Do you know how the scoring worked in the 2012 Olympics? He lost the fight if the judges had scored competently, and it wasn't even that close.


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

Duffy said:


> Joshua may have won a hometown decision but that most certainly is not a robbery


:lol:


----------



## Scorpio78 (Jun 10, 2012)

savon counter punched Joshua silly
but big josh redeemed himself but beating that big china man and then, at the time , hyped dycko.
but I felt the Italian beat his ass in the final too . never seen it on tv as was there , crowd defo affected the scoring in the last round


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

Is Joshua injured then, or just taking time out?

He aint fought for about a year now has he?


----------



## Earl-Hickey (Jul 26, 2012)

Anthony Joshua

First of all, yes he should have lost the fight to the Cuban

Erislandy Savon, quite possibly the best amateur superheavyweight in the world, crafty, tricky and comes from a line of amateur superstars. It was a tough draw for AJ, and he was VERY lucky to get through it

Outside of that, he impressed me how he went forward, could have dwelled on that performance but didnt, and beat some very good fighters on the way to the final

Now the final was close, but I thought he shaded it, it wasn't as good as when he whooped Cammarale's ass in the worlds but he got it done imo.

There's time for him to develop, but he has the raw talent imo to go pretty far. He's got a lot of the attributes you can't teach like heart, confidence and toughness, things that David Price never had. He has pretty good natural attributes too, the rest of it can be learned.

To be able to beat Cammarale TWICE, (even if one was very close) is some fucking going for a novice, I kid you not, Cammarale beat the living shit out of Price when Price was a seasoned amateur


----------



## cheekyvid (Jun 9, 2012)

remember he whooped fury in sparring, tyson admitted that much, he seemed proud of it almst


----------

