Rios/Bradley set to go ahead

[Fenster]

The piece was slightly incomplete. The problem wasn't that they wanted a rematch clause. It was that they wanted a rematch also in the UK for basically the same split. The first 2 could have been sorted out. I hate Rios and I agree with him that the 3rd detail is offensive.

Rubbish. How could you possibly know what the split was let alone the details of the negotiations?

Feel free to provide some evidence.

[Lineal]

Bradley has been in some exciting fights but I don't think he'll get sucked into a brawl with Rios. After the scare against Vargas; Bradley will remain focused and will stick to the game plan.

[Ron Swanson]

The piece was slightly incomplete. The problem wasn't that they wanted a rematch clause. It was that they wanted a rematch also in the UK for basically the same split. The first 2 could have been sorted out. I hate Rios and I agree with him that the 3rd detail is offensive.

Rubbish. How could you possibly know what the split was let alone the details of the negotiations?

Feel free to provide some evidence.

You said rubbish, prove me wrong. Prove it is rubbish. You not being privy to the facts doesn't make it untrue. You supply any evidence it is rubbish and I will supply piece after piece stating they wanted basically the same split in a rematch. Back up your talk and I'll gladly back up mine. I'll give you 12 hours, mine will only take minutes

[Fenster]

The piece was slightly incomplete. The problem wasn't that they wanted a rematch clause. It was that they wanted a rematch also in the UK for basically the same split. The first 2 could have been sorted out. I hate Rios and I agree with him that the 3rd detail is offensive.

Rubbish. How could you possibly know what the split was let alone the details of the negotiations?

Feel free to provide some evidence.

You said rubbish, prove me wrong. Prove it is rubbish. You not being privy to the facts doesn't make it untrue. You supply any evidence it is rubbish and I will supply piece after piece stating they wanted basically the same split in a rematch. Back up your talk and I'll gladly back up mine. I'll give you 12 hours, mine will only take minutes

You want me to produce evidence that you're talking rubbish? The onus is on you to back up what you have claimed. I have not claimed to know anything. I will apologise if you provide evidence of the money/split and the intricacies of the contract that fell apart.

Once again - please feel free to provide evidence (especially as it will only take minutes).

[TitoFan]

What I'd like:

Bradley by highlight reel, devastating, embarrassing KTFO.

What'll happen:

Bradley by wide UD, having boxed Brandon's ears off.

[Master]

What I'd like:

Bradley by highlight reel, devastating, embarrassing KTFO.

What'll happen:

Bradley by wide UD, having boxed Brandon's ears off.

Bradley does not have the power to knockout anyone.

[TitoFan]

What I'd like:

Bradley by highlight reel, devastating, embarrassing KTFO.

What'll happen:

Bradley by wide UD, having boxed Brandon's ears off.

Bradley does not have the power to knockout anyone.

(sigh)

Unfortunately, you're quite right. Much less that 6-inch thick skull of Rios.

[Spicoli]

Based on styles and wondering if Bradley's chin has began to crack, I think this is a pick em honestly. Don't get me wrong Rios is one slugfest away from needing to use flash cards for conversations but he'll come very physical and sloppy dangerous on a guy he'll surely outweigh and refuses to listen to people smarter than he. I've never bought in that Bradley was some full on boxer simply choosing to brawl. Some of those choices were made for him and over the last few fights he's been leaving himself in bad exposed lurches. Tough gritty fight for both I think

[Ron Swanson]

The piece was slightly incomplete. The problem wasn't that they wanted a rematch clause. It was that they wanted a rematch also in the UK for basically the same split. The first 2 could have been sorted out. I hate Rios and I agree with him that the 3rd detail is offensive.

Rubbish. How could you possibly know what the split was let alone the details of the negotiations?

Feel free to provide some evidence.

You said rubbish, prove me wrong. Prove it is rubbish. You not being privy to the facts doesn't make it untrue. You supply any evidence it is rubbish and I will supply piece after piece stating they wanted basically the same split in a rematch. Back up your talk and I'll gladly back up mine. I'll give you 12 hours, mine will only take minutes

You want me to produce evidence that you're talking rubbish? The onus is on you to back up what you have claimed. I have not claimed to know anything. I will apologise if you provide evidence of the money/split and the intricacies of the contract that fell apart.

Once again - please feel free to provide evidence (especially as it will only take minutes).

I just gave you another link with quotes on the other thread. I'm supposed to do that here too even though you provide nothing on either. Just like the last thread I say just admit you don't know it is "rubbish". If you can provide anything, anything at all I told you I would provide multiple pieces backing up what I said. I gave you 12 hours and your time is nearly up. Bring one thing. Just one. Like I told you, I will bring many if you bring just one. Tick tock

[Fenster]

The piece was slightly incomplete. The problem wasn't that they wanted a rematch clause. It was that they wanted a rematch also in the UK for basically the same split. The first 2 could have been sorted out. I hate Rios and I agree with him that the 3rd detail is offensive.

Rubbish. How could you possibly know what the split was let alone the details of the negotiations?

Feel free to provide some evidence.

You said rubbish, prove me wrong. Prove it is rubbish. You not being privy to the facts doesn't make it untrue. You supply any evidence it is rubbish and I will supply piece after piece stating they wanted basically the same split in a rematch. Back up your talk and I'll gladly back up mine. I'll give you 12 hours, mine will only take minutes

You want me to produce evidence that you're talking rubbish? The onus is on you to back up what you have claimed. I have not claimed to know anything. I will apologise if you provide evidence of the money/split and the intricacies of the contract that fell apart.

Once again - please feel free to provide evidence (especially as it will only take minutes).

I just gave you another link with quotes on the other thread. I'm supposed to do that here too even though you provide nothing on either. Just like the last thread I say just admit you don't know it is "rubbish". If you can provide anything, anything at all I told you I would provide multiple pieces backing up what I said. I gave you 12 hours and your time is nearly up. Bring one thing. Just one. Like I told you, I will bring many if you bring just one. Tick tock

It is rubbish because you can't back it up with any evidence. If you could you simply would which would prove me wrong. And I'd say - "Ron Swanson, you most definitely was not talking rubbish, please accept my apology." You can't though. So instead you resort to an idiotic, nonsense challenge that is "prove my rubbish claims are not rubbish claims."

I do not claim to know what the deal was between Top Rank and Matchroom.

Tick tock -- your time frame is until the entire human race has gone extinct.