Is McGuigan a credible pundit? (did Steve Bunce burn ants as a child)

First topic message reminder :

Just read the BBC article about McGuigan's views on the return of Hatton. It seems very contradictory given his previous statements regarding the Hitman's return. Given McGuigan's links to Sky, and that he is now in Frampton's corner, do we now need to take everything he says with a pinch of salt? I think in the last few years he has made some strange predictions and other contradictory statements regarding British boxers and just wonder whether he is now a corporate man rather than a boxing fan?

I actually agree with his comments but it seems 90% of people think Hatton's return is doomed.

Most sports fans will know Canelo if you explain that he is the Mexican with ginger hair. I guarantee it

Most sports fans will know Canelo if you explain that he is the Mexican with ginger hair. I guarantee it

I doubt that. More people in the UK would know Del and Haye. In fact I doubt if one in a thousand know who Canelo is. Only a boxing fan would. My neighbour who is not a boxing fan by any means knew of the Haye/Del fight. Ask him who Canelo is he'd think its a spanish desert or something and how much it would cost (he's a tight git also).

It was more than hype if you bothered to read what Sean was saying earlier. His petty insults on Twitter when asked legitimate questions about it, I normally read the Boxing Scene updates on it, but seen what he was coming out with that day and it was ridiculous that a supposed knowledgable expert on boxing could sink so low.

Even Dan Rafael and Steve Kim have class.

seanmichaels wrote:

azania wrote:Correct sean. I wonder if Joe Public knows who Canelo is. Joe Public know Haye and Chisora for sure.

And accusing people of being stupid when you are the one who fails to grasp and understand what he said makes you what?

I'm only being impartial as I want to be a mod.

I would suggest buying a lambretta would represent your best shot Sean

rowley wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:

azania wrote:Correct sean. I wonder if Joe Public knows who Canelo is. Joe Public know Haye and Chisora for sure.

And accusing people of being stupid when you are the one who fails to grasp and understand what he said makes you what?

I'm only being impartial as I want to be a mod.

I would suggest buying a lambretta would represent your best shot Sean

Took me a while but very good. Would say it was the highlight of my day but the gaulloise and belle brasseuse I'm currently enjoying in the middle of a rolling vineyard just tops it.

I actually like McGuigan. I think its harsh to compare him with a tool and a sell out like Bunce. At least McGuigan believes his own opinion and speaks his own mind.

However I often use him as an example of why I think just because someone was a good boxer they dont neccessarily make a great coach or a tactician with the respect to being an "expert". Ive seen McGuigan come up with some highly unrealistic game plans and analysis. His breakdown of how Haye should fight Wlad I thought was awful and hadnt a hope of working unless Haye could have summoned the chin of McCall, the skills of Ali and the power of Foreman all at once for the fight. There was probably a partisan element to it, but bloody hell it would have taken a miracle to pull off.

I think a lot of fans assume that because someones an ex boxer he is a good judge,which most of the time ain't the case.

Dont find McGuigan annoying at all,McCrory on the other hand,why Sky ever picked this clown as a boxing pundit god only knows.

On the subject of Bunce likes the sound of his own voice, and comes out with garbage to get a reaction,and makes sure he's noticed,knows exactly what his doing,hence we are all talking about him on here,not as daft as people think.

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:It was more than hype if you bothered to read what Sean was saying earlier. His petty insults on Twitter when asked legitimate questions about it, I normally read the Boxing Scene updates on it, but seen what he was coming out with that day and it was ridiculous that a supposed knowledgable expert on boxing could sink so low.

Even Dan Rafael and Steve Kim have class.

I haven't read what he wrote on twitter and sorry to say I wont take the word of overly sensitive and hyper critical guys on here. From what I see of him on TV, he's a laugh and doesn't take himself too seriously (unlike many here). Plus he did a massive favour for a friend. In my books he's an ok guy.

I also like Rafael.

azania wrote: Plus he did a massive for a friend.

A massive what?

rowley wrote:

azania wrote: Plus he did a massive for a friend.

A massive what?

Editted.

It seems that you and I are destined not to agree about what makes an acceptable boxing pundit, az! However, I do applaud your consistency.

Dan Rafael is clearly the American equivalent of our Steve - loud, egotistical and, almost inevitably, wrong. They share one great redeeming factor, however. If you're unsure or undecided about a fight, fighter, historical item or anything else related to boxing, you can merely listen to the opinion of either and promptly make your mind up in favour of the exact opposite, safe in the knowledge that you are now likely to be right.

rowley wrote:

azania wrote: Plus he did a massive for a friend.

A massive what?

He ghost wrote Michael Watson's autobiography, don't you listen? Az knows Michael Watson. He may or may not have mentioned it a couple of hundred times.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

rowley wrote:

azania wrote: Plus he did a massive for a friend.

A massive what?

He ghost wrote Michael Watson's autobiography, don't you listen? Az knows Michael Watson. He may or may not have mentioned it a couple of hundred times.

That is unfair as I generally stay clear of threads involving him.

azania wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

rowley wrote:

azania wrote: Plus he did a massive for a friend.

A massive what?

He ghost wrote Michael Watson's autobiography, don't you listen? Az knows Michael Watson. He may or may not have mentioned it a couple of hundred times.

That is unfair as I generally stay clear of threads involving him.

Since when has the title of a thread stopped you talking about what you want to talk about?

Anyway it was just a gentle ribbing, princess.

captain carrantuohil wrote:It seems that you and I are destined not to agree about what makes an acceptable boxing pundit, az! However, I do applaud your consistency.

Dan Rafael is clearly the American equivalent of our Steve - loud, egotistical and, almost inevitably, wrong. They share one great redeeming factor, however. If you're unsure or undecided about a fight, fighter, historical item or anything else related to boxing, you can merely listen to the opinion of either and promptly make your mind up in favour of the exact opposite, safe in the knowledge that you are now likely to be right.

Boxing is entertainment. Buncey is funny. As for his views, like all others, I take it with a pinch of salt.

I know most people seem to like the supposed classy guys who are humble and help grannies across the road. All power to them. Some though like boxing punditry to be akin to gardners question time or the Today Programme. Good for them also.

Bert Sugar is a guy I could watch and listen to. I disagree with much of what he says and his views on historicakl fighters. But he is entertaining.. It seems that to some if they disagree with the views of someone, they MUST oppose everything else. Useful idiots indeed.

Do I agree with everything or most things Buncey says? No. Ergo I should dislike him. I dont.

Bert Sugar, may he be boozing and smoking in a congenial place these days, really knew his sport. The fact that he held opinions that deviated from the norm was part of his charm, since he clearly adored the game and most of its participants and was steeped in its history.

The same can't be said of Fat Dan and Motormouth, who are, essentially, jobbing hacks by contrast. I do agree that boxing is an entertainment; its scribes and historians are equally so. If we could liken McIlvanney or Sugar to something like "I Claudius", for example, then it would not seem a step too far to compare the ADHD duo to TOWIE or Britain's Got Talent, perhaps.

As you imply, there's room for everyone. I could just wish that the Simon Cowell end of the market wasn't dominating the boxing sector just now.

Buncey clearly adores boxing. No idea who fat dan and motormouth are supposed to be though. Sugar was jovial and always amusing to listen to. Ditto Bunce. He rubs people up the wrong way it seems. I can't think of a single boxing scribe who has that effect on me. As I say I take them all with a pinch of salt. If they don't take themselves too seriously then all the betetr. As I said, people here take themselves (and views) too seriously.

Sorry, FD=Rafael; Motormouth=SB. I get the pip from time to time because I think the sport deserves better. I don't mind people taking themselves seriously; witless hype turns me off. It's good that you take these people with a pinch of salt; unfortunately, the gullible and the uninformed think that they're oracles of the sport and boxing continues its slow spiral to irrelevance as a result. I think that we should expect more.

Bunce does actually take himself seriously though, thats part of the prolem. Its ok to act the loveable buffoon if he expect then people are not going to take everything you say seriously but Bunce acts like he is actually the authority on boxing matters. If his opinion gets challenged he can turn nasty pretty quickly and attempt to call rank on people due to the fact he is an "expert".

My own view on Bunce is he is just a sell out, he has either stumbled upon or cultivated this loud mouth controversial persona that will generate employment and has decided to milk it. I am not even convinced he means half of what he says because would struggle to believe anyone with his knowledge of the sport could be so random or downright odd in his application of that knowledge, for example I genuinely struggle to imagine he believes Glen McCrory is one of the five best cruisers ever. Fair play to him, we’ve all got to make a living but as Manos has said seems a bit odd to get wound up or snippy when people question whether you should be taken seriously

I beg to differ. But my take is simple. I like the bloke. I don't get offended by what he says regarding how he ranks ex boxers etc. As for his views when challenged, I haven't seen one as I am not on twitter.

Maybe he is playing a character. Who seriously cares to get offended by it? As I said, people take things too seriously.

Similarly BoJo whose politically views I find odious. He has said some choice things regarding race issues in the past but I put it down to foot in mouth syndrome. But as a person the guy is hilarious and I quite like him.

As for him getting snippy, perhaps he has his tongue firmly in his cheek which doesn't transcend well in writing.

I'm out of this thread (unless goaded then its WARRRRRR).

azania wrote:

Seanusarrilius wrote:

azania wrote:I'm not a twit and have never used twitter. Don't see the point of finding what Lindsey Lohan had for breakfast etc.

Really couldn't care less. He helped out Watson in a big way and for me that is all that matters. Oh and Buncey didn't publicise that he didn't take a penny for ghost writing it either.

That makes him a saint then. He helped out Watson. Nothing else matters. The Krays helped out a few kids in their day, charities and what not, they also banged a few. Guess they're ok tho, by your litmus test.

And I tweet for the forum in an effort ot get more followers. Not to find out about Lindsey Lohans breakfast.

What is it like, speaking from a place of complete ignorance? Is it as blissful as people say?

Incredible. Plain stupid comparison. I recall when I compared K2 to King. I was jumped on by the usual dead sheep on here with many saying King is a murderer. Those dead sheep are strangely silent on this comparison and they are posting on this thread.

I don't follow twitter, I don't know what he said there or says there. On TV he is very affable with an easy demeanour. Almost laddish like. He is very enthusiastic about the sport and on TV doesn't appear to take himself seriously. In fact he takes the mickey out of himself all the time.

And when he ghost wrote the book he promoted it and increased sales making more money for Watson.

If you were on Twitter you might be better informed as to what a complete arris and unpleasant person Bunce is/has become rather than preaching from your soapbox of ignorance as Sean is alluding to.

azania wrote:I have to say the double standards displayed by some is amusing.

And we're back to Az's pot...kettle...black comment of the day again.........

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

Seanusarrilius wrote:

azania wrote:I'm not a twit and have never used twitter. Don't see the point of finding what Lindsey Lohan had for breakfast etc.

Really couldn't care less. He helped out Watson in a big way and for me that is all that matters. Oh and Buncey didn't publicise that he didn't take a penny for ghost writing it either.

That makes him a saint then. He helped out Watson. Nothing else matters. The Krays helped out a few kids in their day, charities and what not, they also banged a few. Guess they're ok tho, by your litmus test.

And I tweet for the forum in an effort ot get more followers. Not to find out about Lindsey Lohans breakfast.

What is it like, speaking from a place of complete ignorance? Is it as blissful as people say?

Incredible. Plain stupid comparison. I recall when I compared K2 to King. I was jumped on by the usual dead sheep on here with many saying King is a murderer. Those dead sheep are strangely silent on this comparison and they are posting on this thread.

I don't follow twitter, I don't know what he said there or says there. On TV he is very affable with an easy demeanour. Almost laddish like. He is very enthusiastic about the sport and on TV doesn't appear to take himself seriously. In fact he takes the mickey out of himself all the time.

And when he ghost wrote the book he promoted it and increased sales making more money for Watson.

If you were on Twitter you might be better informed as to what a complete arris and unpleasant person Bunce is/has become rather than preaching from your soapbox of ignorance as Sean is alluding to.

Why on earth do you follow him then? Its like people who are "friends" of Haye on facebook who routinely post insults at him. What is the point in that?

But as I said, from what I see on TV and his actions towards Watson, he's a good guy and a funny bloke. Top man.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:I have to say the double standards displayed by some is amusing.

And we're back to Az's pot...kettle...black comment of the day again.........

Care to elaborate? Is this another attempt of yours after the comment I made about Hatton being able to choose his opponent re Witter?

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

Seanusarrilius wrote:

azania wrote:I'm not a twit and have never used twitter. Don't see the point of finding what Lindsey Lohan had for breakfast etc.

Really couldn't care less. He helped out Watson in a big way and for me that is all that matters. Oh and Buncey didn't publicise that he didn't take a penny for ghost writing it either.

That makes him a saint then. He helped out Watson. Nothing else matters. The Krays helped out a few kids in their day, charities and what not, they also banged a few. Guess they're ok tho, by your litmus test.

And I tweet for the forum in an effort ot get more followers. Not to find out about Lindsey Lohans breakfast.

What is it like, speaking from a place of complete ignorance? Is it as blissful as people say?

Incredible. Plain stupid comparison. I recall when I compared K2 to King. I was jumped on by the usual dead sheep on here with many saying King is a murderer. Those dead sheep are strangely silent on this comparison and they are posting on this thread.

I don't follow twitter, I don't know what he said there or says there. On TV he is very affable with an easy demeanour. Almost laddish like. He is very enthusiastic about the sport and on TV doesn't appear to take himself seriously. In fact he takes the mickey out of himself all the time.

And when he ghost wrote the book he promoted it and increased sales making more money for Watson.

If you were on Twitter you might be better informed as to what a complete arris and unpleasant person Bunce is/has become rather than preaching from your soapbox of ignorance as Sean is alluding to.

Why on earth do you follow him then? Its like people who are "friends" of Haye on facebook who routinely post insults at him. What is the point in that?

But as I said, from what I see on TV and his actions towards Watson, he's a good guy and a funny bloke. Top man.

I don't follow him, because he is an ignorant classless sell-out. I follow 606v2Boxing (hi seanus ) and saw his unpleasant reaction to be asked a simple, honest, straightforward, realistic, fair, reasonable, logical question - why are you promoting a fight but only 1 of the fighters? The unpromoted fighter funnily enough not being on Frank's payroll.

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:I have to say the double standards displayed by some is amusing.

And we're back to Az's pot...kettle...black comment of the day again.........

Care to elaborate? Is this another attempt of yours after the comment I made about Hatton being able to choose his opponent re Witter?

You are double standards' flagbearer on this forum!

Well done Tophat. Such inciteful knowledge. Care to stick to boxing talk now?

azania wrote:Well done Tophat. Such inciteful knowledge. Care to stick to boxing talk now?

It's as relevant to boxing as you supporting someone just because you find him funny.

May as well be talking about the Chris Moyles radio show.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:Well done Tophat. Such inciteful knowledge. Care to stick to boxing talk now?

It's as relevant to boxing as you supporting someone just because you find him funny.

May as well be talking about the Chris Moyles radio show.

Never listened to chris moyles. Seen him on tv and I find him irritating. So guess what. Whenever he's on TV I try some common sense. Watch something else.

Nah. Its not just because of that. But if that is just what you think, run with it bro.

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:Well done Tophat. Such inciteful knowledge. Care to stick to boxing talk now?

It's as relevant to boxing as you supporting someone just because you find him funny.

May as well be talking about the Chris Moyles radio show.

Never listened to chris moyles. Seen him on tv and I find him irritating. So guess what. Whenever he's on TV I try some common sense. Watch something else.

Nah. Its not just because of that. But if that is just what you think, run with it bro.

What else is it because of then? So far I've only seen you say it's because you personally find him funny and because he allows himself to be open to ridicule (which he in fact does not).

The only other factor I can see is your pet favourite of a) picking the most controversial character; and b) being deliberately contrarian.