IBF Featherweight Title Blockade

Discussion in 'British Boxing Forum' started by Bent-nose, Oct 13, 2020.

  1. Bent-nose

    Bent-nose Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,955
    207
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 19, 2012
    Poor diversionary tactics.

    This content is protected


    This content is protected


    This content is protected


    This content is protected


    This content is protected


    This content is protected
     
  2. Bent-nose

    Bent-nose Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,955
    207
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 19, 2012
    Why would I do that? The thread is about a fighter blocking the title. It's not about you.
     
  3. Bent-nose

    Bent-nose Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,955
    207
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 19, 2012
    Old-fashioned? Read up on Ali and Duran.
     
  4. @Maley

    @Maley Member Full Member

    497
    277
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Aug 30, 2016

    Come on why would he dodge him. Kids never beat him. 3-0 simple as that and when he fights his mandatory it will b 4-0.
     
    Realism Boxing likes this.
  5. @Maley

    @Maley Member Full Member

    497
    277
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Aug 30, 2016

    Your comment not mine. What your thoughts on convicted drug cheats in boxing.
     
  6. Bent-nose

    Bent-nose Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,955
    207
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 19, 2012
    I don't think the punishments are harsh enough. Some high-profile boxers seem to get away with it completely. I don't condone cheating Portuguese footballers either.
     
  7. Bent-nose

    Bent-nose Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,955
    207
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 19, 2012
    Most of the boxing world including Warrington's promoter thinks Galahad beat him.
    Do you think Warrington takes the fight or ducks him?
     
  8. @Maley

    @Maley Member Full Member

    497
    277
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Aug 30, 2016
    He beats him again if they fight..... if he unifies and moves up to fight to become a 2 weight world champ. he ay dodging him either
     
  9. @Maley

    @Maley Member Full Member

    497
    277
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Aug 30, 2016

    Wolves ay we. No one likes us we don't care. We r on our way back. Who u follow footy
     
  10. Bent-nose

    Bent-nose Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,955
    207
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 19, 2012
    If Warrington and his dad shared your confidence his mandatory would be out of the way already.
     
  11. @Maley

    @Maley Member Full Member

    497
    277
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Aug 30, 2016

    Lol their probably bored with beating the lad. Want to move on fight better fighter's who they haven't fought and win more world titles. They wud get more recognition beating a world champ in a unification than beating kid the known drug cheat again.
     
  12. im sparticus

    im sparticus Durable Full Member

    4,288
    2,147
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    May 16, 2010
    You had to go back over 4 years to find them lol. Case closed.
     
  13. Wizbit1013

    Wizbit1013 The Original 101.3 Full Member

    3,061
    3,707
    Sportsbook:
    807
    Mar 17, 2018
    I hope Josh does swerve him
    The last fight was a snoozefest

    And i had Warrington by 2
     
    Realism Boxing and @Maley like this.
  14. Bent-nose

    Bent-nose Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,955
    207
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 19, 2012
    Still here mate? I thought you were bored?
    Snoozefest? I hope him boxing the world no.199 followed by over a year of social media updates has woken you out of your slumber.
    IBF welterweight champion Errol Spence was in a slumber last time Warrington boxed. He was in intensive care. He's boxing Danny Garcia in a few weeks.
    And on here we get "boxing" fans hoping the inactive champion swerves his mandatory.
     
  15. Bent-nose

    Bent-nose Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,955
    207
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 19, 2012
    Indeed. You made a claim and was quickly proved wrong again.