prize fighter? why no reserves?(spoiler)

Post Reply
bigped
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1572
Joined: 05 Jul 2004, 16:26

prize fighter? why no reserves?(spoiler)

Post by bigped »

paddy gallacher just been beat in first fight fair and sqaure of eric, eric away to hospital hopefully a quick recovery, but why no reserves anymore? hows paddy been reinstated this a new thing?
expe
Super Middleweight
Posts: 6871
Joined: 07 Oct 2012, 10:10

Re: prize fighter? why no reserves?(spoiler)

Post by expe »

Does seem a bit stupid, they have two reserves waiting, but Gallagher is in effect being rewarded for losing.
bigped
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1572
Joined: 05 Jul 2004, 16:26

Re: prize fighter? why no reserves?(spoiler)

Post by bigped »

its terrible they must want paddy to win it maybe no expecting him to lose first round, a reserve goes through surely? so paddy can go on to win this when he got beat in first round lol
DMA1987
Cruiserweight
Posts: 2927
Joined: 04 Jun 2011, 17:05

Re: prize fighter? why no reserves?(spoiler)

Post by DMA1987 »

Probably more palatable than somebody going into the next round completely fresh.
Horse
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 22335
Joined: 03 Jul 2005, 17:09

Re: prize fighter? why no reserves?(spoiler)

Post by Horse »

What a round!
bigped
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1572
Joined: 05 Jul 2004, 16:26

Re: prize fighter? why no reserves?(spoiler)

Post by bigped »

DMA1987 wrote:Probably more palatable than somebody going into the next round completely fresh.
but in the past resevres have went in the final fresh and won it
skanksta
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 16809
Joined: 17 Oct 2008, 10:25

Re: prize fighter? why no reserves?(spoiler)

Post by skanksta »

which reserve won ?
I remember a reserve getting £16k for losing the final I think..
jameswilson
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 13502
Joined: 08 Jan 2004, 18:01

Re: prize fighter? why no reserves?(spoiler)

Post by jameswilson »

bigped wrote:
DMA1987 wrote:Probably more palatable than somebody going into the next round completely fresh.
but in the past resevres have went in the final fresh and won it
That's what he means. Maybe they have changed their policy based on that.
expe
Super Middleweight
Posts: 6871
Joined: 07 Oct 2012, 10:10

Re: prize fighter? why no reserves?(spoiler)

Post by expe »

jameswilson wrote:
bigped wrote:
DMA1987 wrote:Probably more palatable than somebody going into the next round completely fresh.
but in the past resevres have went in the final fresh and won it
That's what he means. Maybe they have changed their policy based on that.
What's the point in having reserves then? If they aren't going to be used, might as well not have them.
amirah
Super Middleweight
Posts: 120
Joined: 18 May 2013, 09:51

Re: prize fighter? why no reserves?(spoiler)

Post by amirah »

Say someone is knocked out but the winner breaks his hand and cnt box on,that's why they still have reserves because in that situation you would have know one moving on to the next round
TerribleTerry
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5272
Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 12:30

Re: prize fighter? why no reserves?(spoiler)

Post by TerribleTerry »

Eggington just did a number on the Pexican.

On that form he can win the whole thing.

Great result for the Stourbridge lad
bigped
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1572
Joined: 05 Jul 2004, 16:26

Re: prize fighter? why no reserves?(spoiler)

Post by bigped »

skanksta wrote:which reserve won ?
I remember a reserve getting £16k for losing the final I think..

robert loyd tayor no? someone fainted same as eric and he came in and won it?
ShadrachSimmo
Cruiserweight
Posts: 4738
Joined: 20 Oct 2010, 05:42

Re: prize fighter? why no reserves?(spoiler)

Post by ShadrachSimmo »

Now gallaghers in the final and he's been beaten!
bigped
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1572
Joined: 05 Jul 2004, 16:26

Re: prize fighter? why no reserves?(spoiler)

Post by bigped »

ShadrachSimmo wrote:Now gallaghers in the final and he's been beaten!
he will win it its stupid shud have put a reserve in
TerribleTerry
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5272
Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 12:30

Re: prize fighter? why no reserves?(spoiler)

Post by TerribleTerry »

bigped wrote:
ShadrachSimmo wrote:Now gallaghers in the final and he's been beaten!
he will win it its stupid shud have put a reserve in
Coyles neat counter punching might just be the antidote to Gallaghers power; stylewise its a cracking final.
Coco
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 28545
Joined: 08 May 2007, 05:42

Re: prize fighter? why no reserves?(spoiler)

Post by Coco »

There was a decent case for Coyle losing both of his first fights.
Gallagher looks a proper chinny banger
Last edited by Coco on 06 Apr 2014, 14:18, edited 1 time in total.
CharlesListon
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 888
Joined: 24 May 2010, 16:17

Re: prize fighter? why no reserves?(spoiler)

Post by CharlesListon »

They changed the rule about 18 months to 2 years ago. People felt it unfair that a fresh reserve could walk into the final against someone that had already done 6 hard rounds. The current rule is the boxer who lost will advance, unless they have an injury that would prevent them from doing so (or don't want to).
They changed the rules partly (at least) because of the complaints of fans.
mikiesb
Middleweight
Posts: 218
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:47

Re: prize fighter? why no reserves?(spoiler)

Post by mikiesb »

I agree no reserves.only.fighters.who had fought and lost.get another chance.
dubliner
Cruiserweight
Posts: 120
Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 15:15

Re: prize fighter? why no reserves?(spoiler)

Post by dubliner »

bigped wrote:
ShadrachSimmo wrote:Now gallaghers in the final and he's been beaten!
he will win it its stupid shud have put a reserve in
Stupid? Are you telling me that a reserve deserves to go through more than some body's who boxed there heart out and lost to the guy that won but had to pull out I think it would be stupid to put a reserve through
Kilburn
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6722
Joined: 25 Jul 2002, 07:27

Re: prize fighter? why no reserves?(spoiler)

Post by Kilburn »

Really enjoyed this Prizefighter show , and it's certainly been a while since I said that.

Thrills and spills a plenty.
expe
Super Middleweight
Posts: 6871
Joined: 07 Oct 2012, 10:10

Re: prize fighter? why no reserves?(spoiler)

Post by expe »

dubliner wrote:
bigped wrote:
ShadrachSimmo wrote:Now gallaghers in the final and he's been beaten!
he will win it its stupid shud have put a reserve in
Stupid? Are you telling me that a reserve deserves to go through more than some body's who boxed there heart out and lost to the guy that won but had to pull out I think it would be stupid to put a reserve through
Can't reward someone for losing though, either you bring in a fresh fighter, or you put a fighter who's lost through, which sort of defeats the object of the tournament.
ILikeBeer
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 10947
Joined: 25 Dec 2004, 07:23

Re: prize fighter? why no reserves?(spoiler)

Post by ILikeBeer »

expe wrote:Does seem a bit stupid, they have two reserves waiting, but Gallagher is in effect being rewarded for losing.
You could look at it another way though.

Imagine somebody won two fights, got to the final, but was injured along the way and a reserve had to step in. How is it fair that somebody who hasn't fought has to go against somebody who won two fights to get to the final?

At least letting the loser progress means they've fought the required amount of times. Earned their money that way, rather than somebody who turns up, fights three rounds and wins the whole tournament.
Post Reply