Jake Paul storms out of Piers Morgan interview
Jake Paul, the YouTuber-turned-professional boxer, appeared on Piers Morgan Uncensored ahead of his fight against Julio César Chávez Jr.
During the interview, Morgan questioned Paul's boxing abilities, suggesting Tommy Fury was his only'proper boxer' opponent and that Mike Tyson would have easily beaten him in his prime.
Paul responded aggressively, fat-shaming Morgan and insulting boxer Canelo Álvarez.
Paul responded by insulting Morgan and promoting his upcoming pay-per-view fight, stating it was a 'business enterprise.'
A victory against Chávez Jr. could potentially earn Paul a ranking, according to Mauricio Sulaiman, chairman of the World Boxing Council
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
UFC 317 weigh-in concern for Charles Oliveira after Alexander Volkanovski detail
Alexander Volkanovski has expressed concern for Charles Oliveira as the Brazilian cuts weight for UFC 317, noting a detail that might worry fans. On Saturday (28 June), Oliveira will face Ilia Topuria for the vacant lightweight title, headlining at the T-Mobile Arena in Las Vegas. The bout marks an opportunity for Oliveira to regain the belt he held from 2021 until 2022, while Topuria aims to become a two-weight champion, having recently given up the featherweight strap to eye 155lb gold. Topuria understands the difficulty of cutting weight, with it being a key reason for his move up from 145lb, but Oliveira has struggled with that element of fighting like few other combatants. The 35-year-old, a former 145lber, has missed weight six times in the UFC, with his 2022 miss costing him the lightweight title, one day before a planned defence against Justin Gaethje. And Volkanovski, who won the vacant featherweight belt in April to become a two-time champion, is worried that Oliveira is not approaching his latest weight-cut properly. After seeing a photograph or footage of Oliveira lying down, wrapped in a towel, surrounded by his team offering support – seemingly on Thursday – Volkanovski asked journalist Ariel Helwani: 'Is that an old video, is that an old photo? You shouldn't be doing that yet. 'Fair enough, a lot of people like to sweat, they'll go and get a sweat out. Then, after a workout, after a good sweat, they'll go and keep sweating. Even though you're gonna hydrate back up, everyone likes to get a good sweat. 'And it still does help, you still start depleting a bit of that water each time you do it, but you're gonna hydrate back up anyway. So, if he's doing that now – cutting weight – and then he has to do a press conference tonight, and then cut the rest... 'That's a long time to be sort of dehydrated. You should be rehydrating. Maybe it's an old one, and they're just getting ready for the weight-cut, and that's why they posted it. Do you reckon? I don't know.' Volkanovski was a long-reigning featherweight champion until he was knocked out by Topuria in February 2024. Topuria then retained the 145lb title with a KO of Max Holloway in October, before giving up the gold this year. Volkanovski then outpointed Diego Lopes to claim the vacant strap. Predicting Saturday's main event, Volkanovski said: 'I've got Ilia. I think just stylistically and what we've seen... Charles is very aggressive, very exciting fighter, that's why we all love to watch him. But if he comes aggressive like that, there's gonna be opportunities for Ilia. Ilia can bang. 'If you're gonna come forward like that, yeah, you might land yourself – that's always gonna be something as well, Charles could definitely catch him. But you can be hitable if you come aggressively like that, especially with someone like Ilia, who's gonna back himself and try and put one on you as you're coming in like that – especially if you're that little bit out of position. 'I wouldn't say [Oliveira's] chin is up, he sort of has a guard, but the way he comes forward in a straight line... Ilia can really sit on some shots if that's the case. I know there's gonna be knees coming up [from Oliveira], will he be worried about that? Will he wanna be defensive first, Ilia, because he knows how aggressive Charles is gonna come forward? 'It's an interesting one, because we don't know how Ilia is on the back foot. But will Charles be like, 'I'm gonna tell him I'm gonna come forward aggressive [in the striking], but I'm actually gonna shoot [takedowns] on him'? 'But if he comes aggressive and does what he always does, I think yeah, Ilia [wins]. I think it's a knockout.' Topuria, 28, is unbeaten as a professional. The Spanish-Georgian was hoping to challenge Islam Makhachev for the lightweight belt this year, but Makhachev vacated the 155lb title last month to pursue the welterweight strap. Makhachev, who holds the record for the most consecutive, successful lightweight title defences (4), is expected to challenge 170lb champion Jack Della Maddalena later this year. Two of Makhachev's lightweight title defences came against Volkanovski, whose first reign as featherweight champion was ongoing at the time. Makhachev outpointed the Australian in early 2023 and knocked him out later that year, when Volkanovski stepped in for an injured Oliveira on short notice.
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Did The Simpsons really just kill off a major character?
The Simpsons is getting experimental in its old age. With 36 seasons complete and a renewal through a 40th secured, the show has entered territory previously occupied mostly by non-prime-time stalwarts like Saturday Night Live and Meet the Press – television institutions that run for much longer than the typical sitcom or drama. Perhaps conscious that the animated comedy has now lasted five to 10 times longer than a normal sitcom, the 36th season has repeatedly toyed with the idea of what a series finale might look like, even though no such thing is anywhere in sight. For the season's premiere back in the fall, it created a fake series finale, hosted by Conan O'Brien, that featured forever-10-year-old Bart turning 11 and reacting badly to a number of finale-style abrupt changes to the status quo. And in the last episode of season 36, Estranger Things, the show flashed forward to a future where family matriarch Marge has passed away and a gradual estrangement has developed between now-adult Bart and Lisa. (Homer remains alive, with the show repeatedly underlining how unlikely it seems that he would outlive his patient, cautious and seemingly healthy spouse.) As fans caught up with the season on streaming, the finale has created a mild headline-generating controversy over whether Marge is 'really' dead, most likely among less consistent viewers who might dip back in occasionally (or get their news about the show from the internet, rather than watching it). Of course, she's not; Estranger Things is one of many flash-forward episodes the show has done over the years, generally understood to be alternate versions of the future, not pieces of a vast and interconnected timeline. The show's flashbacks are similarly intentionally contradictory; early on, Marge and Homer were young parents in the 1980s; as the show got older and they stayed the same age, subsequent flashbacks were brought further and further into the timeline. None of this makes headline news, even on a slow entertainment day. But one reason 'Marge is dead' has seemingly caught fire as an internet curiosity may have to do with the unexpectedly mortality creeping in around the edge of the show. Anyone who has watched The Simpsons in recent years, especially if they've seen a new episode juxtaposed with an older one, would have to take note of how different the characters sound. Animation may be able to preserve a character's basic look and inure them from ageing (apart from the shifts in animation technique that present subtle changes in design or movement). Animation still can't defeat, however, what the show once called the ravages of time. The Simpsons has employed a core of voice actors for nearly four decades, and who among us sound precisely the same as we did 40 years ago, if we're so lucky to have that comparison point? Marge is the character where this is most noticeable – more so than characters whose voices have been replaced by new actors for reasons of racial sensitivity. (This just means that Black actors now play Black characters, and so on.) Those newer performers bring their own style to the character, however subtle the change. But Julie Kavner, the distinctive actor who has given one of the great long-term voiceover performances of TV history, turns 75 this year, while Marge is forever on the cusp of 40. Certain line readings will sound very close to the 'original' Marge voice. More often, though, we're getting a raspier, scratchier version that sounds more like Marge's occasionally seen mother (also voiced by Kavner in a more whispery register). Harry Shearer, who voices more than a dozen major supporting characters including Mr Burns, Principal Skinner and Ned Flanders, also sounds deeper and older in recent years. That's all on top of the show's creative changes – some of which have been quite good. Under showrunner Matt Selman, the show has upped its game in recent years, actively pursuing more ambitious, format-challenging and emotionally resonant stories. Not all of them are golden-years-level funny. (Few episodes of anything are.) But the creators feel engaged with their institution, and sometimes they've even taken advantage of the modified vocals; in one recent holiday episode, Ned Flanders sounded genuinely grief-stricken in part due to Shearer's inability to hit the higher range of his usual tone. Even when the actors' changes do sound jarring, obviously it's not anyone's fault. People age – and IP, at least lately, seems to insist on defying that process, creating a difficult-to-resolve conflict. The show obviously isn't ever going to permanently kill off any of the family members, but at some point, they may be in the position of hiring someone new to voice Marge, or augmenting the performance with AI. The finale already introduced a new voice for Bart's best friend Milhouse, following the retirement of longtime voice artist Pamela Hayden. She reasonably concluded that continuing to play a 10-year-old boy well into her 70s wouldn't make much sense. Maybe that's why the most poignant element of Estranger Things isn't the death of Marge, which is handled lightly, avoiding the immediate devastation of grief with just a brief cursory shot of her funeral, and ending the episode with a short scene of her happily looking down upon her family from heaven, where she clinches with longtime crush Ringo Starr. Rather, the emotional core of the episode is the sequence in which Bart and Lisa abruptly grow out of their beloved Itchy and Scratchy cartoons after realizing the show is now also marketed toward babies, with cutesy versions of the characters adorning little sister Maggie's pyjamas. In true Simpsons fashion, this is also the funniest passage of the episode, with spot-on observations about marketing, kids' shifting tastes in popular culture and defensiveness about liking stuff that's for 'babies', complete with a spoof of a memorably emotional scene from Toy Story 2. Despite the show's jokes, the idea of the Bart/Lisa bond breaking over Itchy and Scratchy, and Marge's distress over it, is a potent one, maybe because it's precisely the kind of uncharacteristic change alluded to in the season premiere. The Simpsons has been lampshading its ability to reset its characters for decades at this point; that's the connective tissue between its heritage as a sitcom from another age, and as a cartoon across the ages. In Estranger Things, it's depicting a natural process less seismic but no less constant than death: letting go of once-beloved media and the real-world habits that accompany it. Plenty of fans will have the opportunity to let go of The Simpsons, whether by chance or by choice. The show itself, good as it sometimes is, can only play at that farewell process, experimenting with what-ifs typically subsumed into the status quo. I'm not personally eager for the show to end; my daughter still eagerly watches it, and that brought me back into the newer episodes. But there does seem to be a denial of impermanence, maybe even some frustration with that, under the show's surface. The real question isn't whether Marge Simpson will live on, but how long the show will keep contemplating endings it can't have.
Telegraph
30 minutes ago
- Telegraph
There will never be another Anna Wintour at Vogue. She's made sure of it
Anna Wintour's departure from American Vogue, the citadel she turned into a nation state, complete with its own Manolo wearing Praetorian Guard and increasingly partisan politics, has been predicted ever since I've been writing about fashion. More than 30 years. The difference is that had she swept off a decade or so ago – to become US ambassador to the UK under President Obama, as she was reported to have very much wanted – her reign at Vogue would have been viewed as an incontrovertible success. Like her or loathe her, worship her every move or find many of her choices and causes questionable, US Vogue under her watch, was for many years, both financially and creatively, a masterwork. She has been a brilliant Vogue editor. The stampede to replace her would have made the rush for the BA lounge in T5 look passive. In the end however, the news comes as a slightly damp squib and, true to current Condé Nast form, a fudge. Yes, the 75-year-old is stepping down from her role as editor-in-chief, but she remains chief content office for Condé Nast and global editorial director for Vogue. Her successor at the magazine will, like all the other Condé Nast 'editorial content directors' report into her. The rumoured $2 million a year salary (plus unlimited expenses, accounts at The Ritz in Paris, the town cars purring outside the Condé Nast office at all hours, first class flights, clothing allowance, favourable mortgages etc) that came with her job, will be as distant a memory as Marie Antoinette's infamous diamond necklace. There are no more editor-in-chiefs at Condé Nast. The fun, the glory, the glamour and the heady creative independence of those jobs has gone, along with the characters who once inhabited them – the nonchalantly stylish Carine Roitfeld and then Emmanuelle Alt, who successively edited French Vogue; the ultra elegant and wily Franca Sozzani who ran Italian Vogue for three decades, the shrewd, intelligent Alexandra Shulman who edited British Vogue for 25 years – Wintour saw them all off, as well as Edward Enniful, who at one time it was supposed, would ultimately succeed her. They've been replaced by far less expensive Wintour acolytes, plucked from the world of influencers or lower down the masthead. Nothing wrong with that in theory – at least it reflects the economic realities of Condé Nast, which despite the many 'innovative' announcements of its chief executive officer Roger Lynch, continues to lose money. In practice, the results are frequently lacklustre. The people who always made Vogue count – not the readers silly, but the players in the fashion, film, theatre and other industries who would have killed to be in its pages, can now go directly to their followers on social media. Vogue's most active presence is on Instagram, where its tone veers between preachy 'activism' and crude popularism. Meanwhile Condé Nast itself appears to be suffering from one long existential crisis. Is it even still a publishing house (the one that brought us Vanity Fair, Glamour, GQ, World of Interiors, House & Garden, Tatler and numerous international editions of Vogue), or, as it lately suggests, an events company that makes money from rubber-neck red carpet products such as Vogue World? In the midst of Condé Nast's descent into the banal, the most frequently asked question asked about Wintour's embattled tenure has been 'why is she still bothering?' One theory is that she wanted to surpass Edna Woolly Chase's 37 year tenure as US editor-in-chief. In the event she has only equalled it. Or perhaps she felt she had some 'reputational' issues to finesse. In 2020, at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests, demonstrators with placards massed outside Wintour's picturesque red brick downtown townhouse to protest against what they saw as Condé Nast's (and her) long history of elitism and racism. The case for the prosecution against Wintour has been going on since she was first appointed editor of the then genteel and cosy British Vogue in 1988. Her brusque manner, Stakhanovite work ethic and immunity to the cold (she wore micro minis throughout her two pregnancies there) inspired the moniker 'Nuclear Wintour'. Many of the ideals, values and people she has championed in her magazine – fur, P Diddy, Mike Tyson, more fur, Kanye West, Harvey Weinstein, John Galliano and Asma al-Assad – seem tone deaf, especially viewed with hindsight. There are numerous witnesses to her rudeness. You don't inspire a culture defining book and a film (The Devil Wears Prada) by being bland. Equally there are plenty who testify to her kindness, whilst her ability to fundraise – delicately arm twisting the rich to hand over $300,000 a table for her Met Ball whilst elegantly kneeing them in the accounts department for a donation to the Democratic party – is spectacular. She's an operator of the highest order, drawn, since she was a London teenager, sniffing out the most expensive labels and most beautiful folk, to power. The late André Leon Talley, once an editor at large at US Vogue and her personal dresser and advisor until they fell out, wrote 'Anna has mercilessly made her best friends people who are the highest in their chosen fields'. Wintour publicly apologised for her alleged sins after the BLM debacle, vowing to right the wrongs. Condé Nast is now more inclusive of skin colour and (a little more) inclusive of body type. On an unforgivable downside, in its general confusion about what it's meant to be (you'd have thought the clue was in the name), Vogue, particularly online and on social media, has become a fetid hotbed of blatantly uninformed, anti-Israel propaganda, identity politics and keffiyehs. I know of at least one Jewish digital content editor who left a job she initially loved under Wintour because the perceived attitude of her team, which she felt powerless to challenge, became unbearable. Other Jewish editors still in the company are deeply unhappy – feeling unheard and unsupported by the powers that be. What does this have to do with Wintour? It's happening under her watch. For the past decade, she has been ever more promoted within the company until her purview reaches just about every nook and cranny. 'Anna knows what's on every page,' one European director of editorial content told me. She authorises every editor's foreign trips and keeps an eye on their public exposure, which perhaps explains why, unlike in the days of Roitfeld or Alt, no one in that company has anywhere near the profile she does. Her successor at American Vogue is unlikely ever to be another Wintour – the new structure there simply won't allow it. Names in the running include Chioma Nnandi, the charming, self-effacing British journalist and long time Wintour protege, currently editorial content director of British Vogue. Sarah Moonves, who edits W Magazine, to industry acclaim (and who, in 2019, helped organise its buyout from Condé Nast where it was floundering) is another. Laura Brown, the popular, ebullient Australian former editor of US In Style, now a social media personality, or Eva Chen, another Wintour mentee, who has a huge job at Instagram, would both be quite the catch too, in the unlikely event Condé Nast could match their current earnings. But will any of them want it? 'Après moi, le deluge,' is one description of Wintour's legacy strategy that keeps repeating itself over the past decade. In 'stepping back' from her editorship, yet simultaneously maintaining a vice-like grip on all the others, it seems one prophecy about her that may come true.
