Re: Mason v Fielden : Sun Oct 31, 2010 12:33 pm  

not so keen on meeting up with peacock again though??

Re: Mason v Fielden : Sun Oct 31, 2010 12:50 pm  

hull fc_white wrote:

not so keen on meeting up with peacock again though??

Why has he said that?

Re: Mason v Fielden : Sun Oct 31, 2010 12:54 pm  

no,i just did....and it was a question if you note the "question marks" at the end......

Re: Mason v Fielden : Sun Oct 31, 2010 2:02 pm  

Was it two questions?

Re: Mason v Fielden : Sun Oct 31, 2010 5:01 pm  

if its for charity then do it, otherwise i couldnt give a toss about this.

Re: Mason v Fielden : Sun Oct 31, 2010 5:21 pm  

I think i once read that Mason was an boxer in his youth so would have a slight advantage

Re: Mason v Fielden : Sun Oct 31, 2010 5:31 pm  

and Fielden didnt cover himself in any glory in the rumble in the Humber either

Re: Mason v Fielden : Sun Oct 31, 2010 8:03 pm  

tonylRobin wrote:

and Fielden didnt cover himself in any glory in the rumble in the Humber either

And if the winner got the chance of a bout with Radford, I could see it ending in a draw

Re: Mason v Fielden : Sun Oct 31, 2010 8:06 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

And if the winner got the chance of a bout with Radford, I could see it ending in a draw

Ryan Bailey would steam into the ring with a steel chair and lay them both out if that was the case

Re: Mason v Fielden : Sun Oct 31, 2010 9:12 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

And if the winner got the chance of a bout with Radford, I could see it ending in a draw

I doubt Mason would be to worried about facing Radford in the ring, not saying he is better at boxing, just that he wouldn't be losing sleep over it. Radford beat Fielden because he was a better boxer.