What about those who thought Beer and Pizza was our new CB pair!?
They ARE
What about those who thought Beer and Pizza was our new CB pair!?
Wish they were...

I've tried that in there! It was amazing. That's the blue cheese one, right?You missed out on a fabulous Waldorf pizza, it was delicious![]()
I've tried that in there! It was amazing. That's the blue cheese one, right?
No relevance whatsoever to the points I made. Footballers get injured but that is not the main aim of the sport. Cricketers get injured but that is not the purpose of the sport. Hikers get injured but that is not why they do it. Alcohol can damage your health but nobody drinks with that aim. Hard drugs will damage your health which is why they are banned. The sole purpose of boxing is to hit, hurt and injure your opponent - don't say it isn't when the main original complaint was that, in the fight being complained about, the participants didn't hit each other enough or hard enough . Do it outside of the ring and you end up in court. It is a matter of personal opinion but I think that the principle of Boxing is barbaric and, like duelling, should be confined to history. I most certainly am not advocating a nanny state but standards of behaviour move on and certain things then become unacceptable - my personal opinion is that Boxing now comes in that category. Fox hunting, bear baiting, hare coursing and dog fighting had, and still have, their supporters but the majority didn't so it got banned. As for headings - off topic is there for a purpose. People shouldn't have to work out whether a thread is relevant or not from the heading of the thread.Heading the ball causes damage , I'm sure you would be happy to ban that too ?
Motorsport is also dangerous and ice skating and skiing.
So surely banned banned banned.
That glass or three of wine you enjoy 1950s is bad for you so I think you should be banned from drinking that too.
No free choice for you either the nanny state should criminalize anything they think is bad for you .
If you are not interested in boxing or this particular fight why not just let the posters that do enjoy it instead of moaning and complaining?
Must be an old git syndrome that some on here have.
They don't. When they think.People shouldn't have to work out whether a thread is relevant or not from the heading of the thread.
No relevance whatsoever to the points I made. Footballers get injured but that is not the main aim of the sport. Cricketers get injured but that is not the purpose of the sport. Hikers get injured but that is not why they do it. Alcohol can damage your health but nobody drinks with that aim. Hard drugs will damage your health which is why they are banned. The sole purpose of boxing is to hit, hurt and injure your opponent - don't say it isn't when the main original complaint was that, in the fight being complained about, the participants didn't hit each other enough or hard enough . Do it outside of the ring and you end up in court. It is a matter of personal opinion but I think that the principle of Boxing is barbaric and, like duelling, should be confined to history. I most certainly am not advocating a nanny state but standards of behaviour move on and certain things then become unacceptable - my personal opinion is that Boxing now comes in that category. Fox hunting, bear baiting, hare coursing and dog fighting had, and still have, their supporters but the majority didn't so it got banned. As for headings - off topic is there for a purpose. People shouldn't have to work out whether a thread is relevant or not from the heading of the thread.
Yes, that's the one.
Chip Inn hasn't been mentioned on here yet!Oi you frightful pair, this is a boxing thread, kindly cease and desist from ambling over to the plasterers for a pint and pizza.........mmm pizza, I do love a good meaty pizza and a good chilli sauce...
Bah!
You sound as though you know your boxing General. As FML has pointed out, Fury can be boring to watch, but as you have suggested, he is a more skilful boxer than Wilder, and .IF back to his best , he might just be able to keep out of trouble and win on points.
On Saturday Maddisson scored so I posted it on the match day thread, I was swiftly reminded that he no longer plays for Norwich so the post should go on a thread that nobody was posting on.
Just seems very petty to me .
I can't have you put it in or near the same catagory as: Fox hunting, bear baiting, hare coursing and dog fighting, these are non-consenting animals and it is always vicious and cruel. Both fighters enter the ring knowing the risk and reward they may receive.
Bah!
Precisely!On Saturday Maddisson scored so I posted it on the match day thread, I was swiftly reminded that he no longer plays for Norwich so the post should go on a thread that nobody was posting on.
Just seems very petty to me .
His personality and confidence/arrogance makes me laugh, he's a boy! He doesn't half back himself, and he backs it up with a lot of heart. I think he knows he's not as good as he says, and acts. His arrogance and big mouth has talked him into this massive fight, where he will earn big again. His self promotion is pretty impressive. From the state and controversy he came from, to 2 tiny meaningless fights, to then land this. He's done bloody well to bag that.Fury isn't the best to watch, but is skillful. And whilst I say he doesn't have knockout power, that isn't to say he wouldn't knock most of us sparko without the least trouble, its not possible to have no power when you have the best part of 20 stone and he has knocked out most of the early career bums with a 19 of his 27 wins by KO. At his best Wilder doesn't land and Fury wins. Wilder isn't half the fighter Klitchko was.
Bah!
I did not put the animal sports in the same category as boxing - I just gave them as examples of changes in public acceptability. I did mention duelling which was also between two consenting adults but was ultimately banned as being unacceptable. If ' consenting ' is the criteria then presumably a street brawl following a row in a Pub should be allowed. As you say the main aim of Rugby is not to inflict physical harm so, as such, it is entirely different to boxing but I understand that there are moves afoot to ban tackling in youth rugby which will occur if supported by public and political opinion. Surprisingly, to you, I would not support such a ban as it would lead to more injuries when they step up to adult rugby as they are not prepared for tackling. Medical studies show that a glass or two of red wine improve life expectancy and of course drinking alcohol is not guaranteed, or even likely, to lead to alcoholism. Whether you ban alcohol or gambling because it can lead to addiction is another debate over restricting the pleasures of the many to protect the few who have no will power and are prone to addiction but that is different to Boxing where you are guaranteed to be hurt or injured as soon as you step into the ring. Your comment about the points system is misleading for as I understand it you don't get any points for dancing about in the ring or missing with your punches - you only earn points for punches that land. I would also find it alarming if the only way to install discipline in Kids is to teach them how to belt each other about - there must be other ways of curing bad parenting. I have accepted all along that there are risks attached to most things including most sports but the difference to me is quite simple. Boxing is the only so-called sport where the sole aim is to hit your opponent as frequently and hard as possible with the winner being the one who has either landed the most and heaviest punches, knocked his opponent out or caused so much physical damage to the opponent that the fight has to be stopped. There is no other way of winning.I'd be interested in your thoughts on Rugby? Clearly the main aim is to score tries, but with the size of the behemouths that now play, bad injuries and concussion have become mearly an occupational hazard. Also players will deliberately try to hit hard to cause mistakes in their opponents? Too barbaric, not quite barbaric enough to ban?
To your argument, virtually every drinker is educated enough to know that long term they are most likely removing months-years even from their life expectancy and that costs money, both theirs and the NHS. Alcoholism has destroyed many a family, business and life. Just because we do not set out with that aim, does it then make it excusable? A boxer has two goals before knocking his opponents block off, money to look after him and his family (I know there are other means more palatable to all) and to get out unhurt, many fighters will be trying to mearly beat their opponent, so a physical chess game can be played out with a points decision. But none of that fully mitigates against the aims as you say, a spectacular knockout is what us baying hordes will remember. But most if not all boxers will hope that inspite of the punches they throw that their opponent will be OK. To this end many boxers finish there career with no more damage than a footballer or rugby player. So how much worse is it really? Is it a moral extension of my dads harder than your dad and this brutal but competitive instinct that in part holds back the human race? Is it a terrible example to kids? Not relative to movies or games these days. in fact it is very commonly said that the disaplin it brings to often under privaliged kids is the making of many.
I can't have you put it in or near the same catagory as: Fox hunting, bear baiting, hare coursing and dog fighting, these are non-consenting animals and it is always vicious and cruel. Both fighters enter the ring knowing the risk and reward they may receive.
Bah!
In Italy, where Pizza making is considered an art, mentioning Calzone to them is like telling a malt whisky devotee to try a blended whisky and lemonade!!But don't you dare talk about Calzone on it.