Rossman Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 Quillin vs. Jacobs. The introductions last longer than the fight. Â http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3h24y2_boxing-fights_sport Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Egg Shen Posted December 6, 2015 Author Paid Members Share Posted December 6, 2015 well Peter Quillan didn't last long. 90 seconds is all it took, just stoppage in my eyes, if it had continued Jacob's would have knocked him dead. I hadn't even opened my haribo at the time of the stoppage. Â Jacobs to fight the winner of Lee/Saunders? sounds good to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gooner Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 Jacobs should be fighting GGG next, seeing as GGG is the guy holding the proper WBA title at that weight, not surprised they mentioned facing the winner of Lee and Saunders seeing as Showtime showing that fight in two weeks time. Jacobs done great job, I thought Quillin would win close points decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
METAL ON METAL Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Chisora has been added to Saturday's undercard. Only a week after his last fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Your Fight Site Posted December 9, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted December 9, 2015 Tyson Fury’s been stripped of the IBF title for signing a rematch with Klitschko, rather than defending it against mandatory challenger Vyacheslav Glazkov. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanz25 Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Is anyone on here actually buying the Anthony Joshua fight this weekend? Would be interested to know. Especially as I know plenty of casuals interested who won't buy purely on the fact they've just shelled out for Fury/Klitschko. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members PunkStep Posted December 9, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted December 9, 2015 Tyson Fury’s been stripped of the IBF title for signing a rematch with Klitschko, rather than defending it against mandatory challenger Vyacheslav Glazkov. This is where boxing both confuses and winds me up. Didn't Wlad have a rematch clause? Or was that only with one or more of the other titles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Fox Piss Posted December 9, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted December 9, 2015 IBF are the only ones who stick to their rules. They let you have a fight against the opposition of your choice (Fury wasn't ranked number 1 in IBF Glazkov is) but you must face the mandatory in 90 days i think. Then they let you have a voluntary again. Seems stupid in this situation but pays off in other cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossman Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 IBF are the only ones who stick to their rules. They let you have a fight against the opposition of your choice (Fury wasn't ranked number 1 in IBF Glazkov is) but you must face the mandatory in 90 days i think. Then they let you have a voluntary again.  Seems stupid in this situation but pays off in other cases.  The problem with this is that Klitschko didn't have to fight mandatory challengers for each boxing organisation. If he did, he wouldn't have had a chance for optional challengers. Taking the title off Fury, would now leave a vacant IBF title fight between no.1 ranked, Vyacheslav Glazkov & no.3 ranked, Wladimir Klitschko. No-one's ranked at no.2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Egg Shen Posted December 10, 2015 Author Paid Members Share Posted December 10, 2015 Is anyone on here actually buying the Anthony Joshua fight this weekend? Would be interested to know. Especially as I know plenty of casuals interested who won't buy purely on the fact they've just shelled out for Fury/Klitschko. Im getting it. I didn't buy Fury/Klitschko though. Â The IBF thing is silly but they are simply enforcing their own rules. Eddie Hearn talks about it on a recent IFL interview. He said Klitschko fought many mandatory challengers but the IBF were lenient with him. Tyson as a new champion doesn't get that luxury. Im not really sure how the rematch clause tied in with it all though? Guess Tyson is expected to defend against the mandatory regardless. Â It's all a bit of a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Lion_of_the_Midlands Posted December 10, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) The reason it's a mess is the contract for the Fury/Klitschko fight. Wlad doesn't expect to lose the fight so he thinks he can beat Fury, then defend the IBF title. He has a rematch clause in the contract just in case he loses. Wlad knows that Fury can't defend the belt in 90 days if he activates the rematch clause as he is not allowed to fight anyone else before the rematch. Wlad also sees that as he is ranked #3 by the IBF it will be him who gets to fight the mandatory challenger for the title. The IBF will probably let Glazkov fight for the "Interim" title while Wlad is fighting Fury then order Klitschko/Glazkov after that. It's Wlad's way of keeping himself fighting for World Titles for the new TV dealer signed before his last fight. Â I'm not paying for Joshua v White. That isn't a PPV main event. Edited December 10, 2015 by Lion_of_the_Midlands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanz25 Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Yeah I seen over on the boxrec forums the whole card if you go with the favourites in an 8-fold account with a tenner on only returns £11.something. Still think this is a poor excuse for a PPV, especially weeks after a huge world title fight.  Hope UFC 194 smashes out a ridiculous rating over here and fucks Eddie right over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members wandshogun09 Posted December 10, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted December 10, 2015 Anyone catch the Chris Eubank Jr-Spike O'Sullivan 'Gloves Are Off'? Fuck me, Spike was awkward. Woeful attempt at trash talking. Â Eubank Jr: How are you going to beat me? Spike: I'm gonna hit ya in that stupid little chin. Â What is he, 9? Â What was Eubank referring to that Spike had said on twitter that was so bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Goldberg Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Not sure concerning the twitter spat but I agree Spike seemed a little tongue tied and unsure during the face-off. Â How do people see this fight going? Â I know very little about O'Sullivan and have never watched him fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members bAzTNM#1 Posted December 11, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) I actually watched this. Apart from saying to Eubank Jr "you box like your father and he was found out", he looked like he was shitting himself. Bit embarassing really. Edited December 11, 2015 by bAzTNM#1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts