Frank Warren - crimes against boxing?

90% of Calzaghe's opponents!atsch

 

Alex Arthur vs Stephen Foster.

all the guys Kevin Mitchell has fought so far.

to be fair he is putting some good opponents infront of Khan. not many would face Earl or Limmond after 14 fights.

He did get Hatton and Calzaghie the right fights at the right time!!!

 

All Hatton's "title" fights pre Tszyu

 

90% is ridiculous - 80-85% maximum.

 

Does it really matter?

Would you rather he he gave all his fighters tough fights, let them fail, then discarded them? Frank Warren developes his fighters well. He is the one who got Calzaghe and Hatton to their level of a good, steady learning curve.

If it wasn't for Frank Warren many fighters whom the fans love watching would be failures and the fans missing out completely.

 

Surely not even the most devout of Enzo fans are going to enjoy him bum-bashing again, are they?

 

It would be one thing if Warren developed his fighters and, once they attained a certain level of skill, had them consistently fight guys who are on par, or at least legitimate contenders. The problem is that he doesn't. Macca established that he can go at it with a top 20 CW when he convincingly beat Braithewaite, so why not have him go with at least another top 20 type fighter? Calzaghe established that he could beat good fighters in the 90's, so why has Warren been pitting him against mostly chumps since 2001? I could see the argument if these guys were still learning, but they're not. Let them go against fighters that are at least a threat to win, that way the fighter proves something when they win. Besides, if a fighter wins competitive wars, they're more likely to be popular and become better box office draws than if they always fight cupcakes who they defeat by blowout. I'd venture to say that would continue to hold true even if the fighter loses once or twice in those battles.

 

Warren has a formula for his top fighters and normally it works well.

What happens when you get brave and throw prospects into fights too soon? Well you end up nearly in tears slumped next to the canvas, wishing Terry Marsh had been more accurate :yep (allegedly) as your two main money makers both lose on the same bill against underrated opposition. Like Terry Lawless did one May evening in 1984.

 

Yeah sure, try him at Nuremberg.

Crimes against boxing. Give me a break atsch

The fighters are just as responsible for who they fight. It's not only Warren you know.

 

Bruno and Kaylor, by any chance :think

 

Yep:!:

 

aah. Mark Kaylor vs Errol Christie & Pat Cowdell vs Azumah nelson are my two earliest boxing memories.

As a 12 year old laddie, that must have been the time I started tking an interest in boxing. However, my memories of both fights are very sketchy indeed.

All I can remember is I didnt like Kaylor, & was rooting for Christie & was sad when he lost. As for the Cowdell fight, all I remember was THAT knockout, its funny how brutal KO's never leave your mind.

I know it isnt much to do with the converation, just thought I would add my tuppenceworth.

 

aye nelson's knockout of cowdell was devastating.pity about that,because cowdell had put up an heroic challenge against salvador sanchez in the states only losing by a split decision.

 

Well if were watching the Cowdell/Nelson fight in Glasgow, it is probably a first memory, because maybe Pat's face landed in your garden, Nelson hit him so hard?

Kaylor/Chrisite had that edge because of the brawl, but I too had a soft spot for Errol and got to see him (lose) to Michael Watson (on the undercard of Benn/EubankI).