BoxRec

It all seems a bit confused.

From another thread:

Board news wrote:

WELTERWEIGHT (Vacant) JOHN O’DONNELL v MICHAEL JENNINGS
The above contest to be promoted by Promoter allegedly, will take place on Saturday, 23rd October 2010 at a venue as yet to be advised.

The Stewards of the Board will consider the Championship status of Mr. Jennings following his proposed contest on Saturday, 18th September 2010.

This doesn't sit well. Why have two big fights involving the same fighter been announced so close together?

Assuming he does fight Brook, win OR lose, will he really be in a position to fight another tough fight scarely a month later?

And it seems odd, too- he is fighting the up-until-recently British champion, now does he need to beat him AND another good opponent to claim the belt?

If Jennings wins, will he want to risk fighting O' Donnell and losing?

It just doesn't really make sense.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote: He says the pessimism was given a 'modicum of credibility' with the withdrawal of Woodhouse. Hardly. Although a title fight, it wasn't one of the supposed seven originally announced.

There is a fair chance that none of the original fights will go ahead - well, except for DeGale vs TBC, since TBC is actually pretty reliable nowadays... All of the rest seem to be high risk fights for at least one of the participants...

Tykemania wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote: He says the pessimism was given a 'modicum of credibility' with the withdrawal of Woodhouse. Hardly. Although a title fight, it wasn't one of the supposed seven originally announced.

There is a fair chance that none of the original fights will go ahead - well, except for DeGale vs TBC, since TBC is actually pretty reliable nowadays... All of the rest seem to be high risk fights for at least one of the participants...

TBC's out mate.

TBA steps in.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Tykemania wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote: He says the pessimism was given a 'modicum of credibility' with the withdrawal of Woodhouse. Hardly. Although a title fight, it wasn't one of the supposed seven originally announced.

There is a fair chance that none of the original fights will go ahead - well, except for DeGale vs TBC, since TBC is actually pretty reliable nowadays... All of the rest seem to be high risk fights for at least one of the participants...

TBC's out mate.

TBA steps in.

4. I think Barker will fake an injury or find an excuse to pull out. Sexton / Chisora won't happen for some reason. Brook / Jennings hasn't happened many times and I think this time will be the same.

With The Magnificent Seven bill in Birmingham on September 18 just nine weeks away, the fraught and often unfair subject of who pulls out, when and why is restricted to the unfortunate Curtis Woodhouse, a charismatic and highly likeable Yorkshireman who was forced out earlier this month with a broken left hand. His intended opponent, Birmingham former amateur sensation, Frankie Gavin, will still appear on the night.
Yesterday, the equally charismatic Kell Brook of Sheffield was given a 'Thunderbirds are Go' for his British welterweight title showdown with Michael Jennings when, thanks to the ever-influential F rank Warren, Brook avoided the ignominy of Community Service after a minor and overblown incident in a Barnsley nightclub and will be tagged instead. It means the unbeaten 24-year-old can train in the day, and he needs to because a rather unfortunate photo of Kell scowling on his way to court revealed that our "Kid", who likes the ol' chocolate, is walking around at middleweight, although he didn't look fat. On the contrary Brook reminded me a little of the superbly built Ken Norton with his defined facial features and American-brown complexion. His fight with Jennings is one of two real gems on The Magnificent Seven show, along with the middleweight clash between Birmingham's Matthew Macklin and unbeaten Londoner Darren Barker - two huge domestic scraps.
Brook fights for his old British title, which he relinquished after cruising to a Lonsdale Belt outright last year. He made such a thing look easy – too easy – and remains a quandary as far as his true boxing worth is concerned, particularly as this fight is made at the fourth time of asking, with injuries and mishaps on both sides popping up to delay what amounts to D-day for Brook. He carved his three notches into his Belt (after winning it) in the space of eight months, including a first-round destruction of lanky Scot and former holder Kevin McIntyre in Glasgow, but an impressive win over Jennings would confirm his potential beyond all doubt. The fight also doubles as a WBO title eliminator and you get the feeling that while promoter Warren was composing a letter to the judge he was playing the game he plays harder than almost anyone. Brook will be fast-tracked to a world title shot if he comes through. The race is on with Matthew Hatton.
Jennings once held the British title himself but lost it surprisingly to the big-hitting Young Muttley in Nottingham in 2006, albeit on a split decision, and was forced to dig deeper and work his way back, which he did, all the way to a WBO title shot at former holder Miguel Cotto, a no-win shot he conceded in five rounds in Madison Square Garden last year. He holds a big early win over Poland's former European champion Rafal Jackiewicz, currently on a 21-fight winning streak and a man either he or Brook could be paired with for the interim WBO title while someone called Manny Pacquiao talks trillions with someone called Floyd Mayweather Jnr. Jennings lacks natural power so he trains hard and fights hard, setting a hot pace and maintaining it. He will be 33 by the time of the fight but lives clean, in memory of his late brother, and enjoys training and you can bet your life that he was out running with his lurchers, already close to the welterweight limit, while Brook was rolling into court. Mental edges are built up in training. Physically, the Chorley nice guy has the style to really frustrate the heavy handed Brook as he nips in and out with straight punches - those punches are hard to block – and the chin to drag the heavy handed youngster into the unchartered territory of the later championship rounds. Brook has never done more than seven. He had just turned 13 when Jennings turned pro.
If Brook-Jennings is classic youth versus experience, the Barker-Macklin showdown is a potentially explosive confrontation of boxer v puncher. Barker, the boxer, brings 22 straight wins and the 'big three' British, Commonwealth and European middleweight titles, although he holds all the belts because Macklin relinquished them (well, the British and European) in pursuit of a world title fight in the States, where Matthew now trains under Freddie Roach. A broken nose in sparring in April derailed such plans and back Matthew comes, wanting his old belts but this time facing the lean, hungry, talented Barker instead of the ageing duo of Wayne Elcock and Amin Asikainen.
Darren is the 28-year-old son of Terry, the cab-driving southpaw who outboxed John Lyon in the 1980 ABA finals on a night when Frank Bruno also came through against the late Rudi Pika, so his own boxing skills, from the orthodox stance, are what you would expect – quite dazzling. Darren's jab is a real jab, sharp and accurate, and everything comes off it, including excellent body work for a man who stands over six feet. He revels in his ability to get in and out unscathed. Macklin has seen it all before, a pro since 2001 and a more hardened 28-year-old, with a fight of the year on his record. He moved up to middleweight in 2006 after a heavy defeat to Jamie Moore in 10 sensational rounds for the British light-middleweight title and, undeterred, was soon punching his way through the ranks again and then destroying Elcock for the British title, a fellow Brummie, and Asikainen for the European, a man who went by the unfortunate nickname of "Idi", although the broken nose Macklin picked up earlier this year means he has been out since December when he outscored a rugged Uruguayan over 10 rounds in Dublin.
Macklin is boxing more these days, which is no bad thing – he picks his shots - but his real assets are still built around strength, aggression, weight of punch and pressure. This fight reminds me of the Tony Sibson-Mark Kaylor triple title bonanza at Wembley in 1984 when Kaylor, a strong, talented man like Barker, pushed the more aggressive, more worldly Sibson all the way before conceding the points, on a night when Sibbo's heavier shots proved the difference, keeping Kaylor 'honest' at vital stages in the fight. I can see the same thing happening in September, Barker breaking off from the exchanges first or holding when Macklin cuts the ring off effectively and tags him.
Macklin, for me, takes the points and the titles, while that man Brook catches up with Jennings and forces a late stoppage.

I like the Sibson - Kaylor comparison, bennie

bennie wrote:Brook fights for his old British title, which he relinquished after cruising to a Lonsdale Belt outright last year.

This is getting REALLY confusing.

whicker wrote:

bennie wrote:Brook fights for his old British title, which he relinquished after cruising to a Lonsdale Belt outright last year.

This is getting REALLY confusing.

The match isn't for the British title. At least not according to the Board's most recent notices. It'll be for that WBO inter-bollocks. I believe the winner gets WBO number one status.

The remarkable Ryan Rhodes faces a tricky defence of his European light-middleweight title against mandatory challenger and former world title challenger Lukas Konecny of the Czech Republic on Septermber 18 in Birmingham, one of The Magnificent Seven fights on the night.
Rhodes, 33 won the title in seven thrilling rounds against division 'boss' Jamie Moore last October in Bolton, an incredible showing from the elusive yet heavy-handed Sheffield southpaw, who went in as the underdog but was moving and boxing well when he stood his ground, rocked Moore with a right hand bomb and then poured in the punches to force a perfectly timed stoppage from referee Howard Foster.
A pro at 19, Ryan seems to have been around forever and through several different boxing careers: his Naz-like reign of terror at light-middleweight in the 1990s, when he romped to a Lonsdale Belt in a record 91 days, his WBO title flings at middleweight, his long, unbeaten middleweight spells thereafter, punctuated by a couple of losses, and then his drop back down to light-middleweight, where he has never lost and where he walked through Italy's gutsy but outgunned Luca Messi in the first defence of his European title in Sheffield in May (six rounds). Messi, no kidding, brought over a priest with him.
Konecny has more of a prayer at 44-3 (21), a man who pushed the unbeaten Sergiy Dzinziruk all the way for the WBO light-middleweight title in Germany in April 2008, conceding a majority decision, and who has won all his fights since, most of them at full middleweight - like Rhodes, a big, strong, battle-hardened, punishing, dangerous light-middleweight. Coincidentally, Rhodes is 44-4 (30) so the two are also neck-and-neck in wins, a massive 88 between them.
This could be some fight. Konecny is busy, aggressive and wears down his opponents while Rhodes is slick, tricky and picks his shots, and quick, heavy shots they are, although he will do well to budge this fella'; the 32-year-old Konecny has never been stopped and will see this as a golden chance – possibly a last chance - to secure another world title shot because Rhodes enjoys a top five ranking with the WBC and the IBF. Expect 12 rounds of world class boxing, with the loose-limbed, swaggering champion timing the challenger's rushes and dropping in the big right hands, after switching to orthodox, and generally landing the cleaner shots in the midst of the exchanges, much like he did against South African handful Vincent "The Rock" Vuma over 12 rounds in 2008, slipping the punches rather than blocking them and always maintaining his composure, as fierce as it might get, and Konecny will be shrugging off the punches, driving himself forward, snarling through his gumshield.
Class always tells, and Rhodes comes through a sparkling fight on a sparkling decision.

bennie wrote:was trailing on the scorecards when he stood his ground, rocked Moore with a right hand bomb and then poured in the punches to force a perfectly timed stoppage from referee Howard Foster.
.

He was winning.

Seems to be an ongoing myth that Rhodes was losing that fight, I think heavily influenced by the Sky commentary team.

Yeah, you're right. That'll teach me to trust The Guardian.

Well, the biggest fight on the card is off - but still seven title fights, only problem is that is isnt 'magnificent' nor is it PPV status.

gasman wrote:but still seven title fights

Aye, this is what will be said...which is why I listed the supposed 'magnificat' at the top. Don't want that one being pulled.

Is Macklin still gonni be boxing at it? if so, who could come in with 2 week notice thats half decent??

gasman wrote:Well, the biggest fight on the card is off - but still seven title fights, only problem is that is isnt 'magnificent' nor is it PPV status.

Well, it's a very decent card still, thats for sure, but yeah, I basically agree that it's just below PPV quality.

Lots of solid bouts, but nothing with a major "wow" factor.

The question, of course- should sports fans be obliged to pay extra for boxing of this quality, or should the subscription channels be providing it as part of their package? These are essentially a series of well matched domestic and European title defences- is that in itself "special" enough for PPV?

How will the ppv cope without the London folk hero Darren Barker?His 4k ticket buyers wont bother now for a start!Along with those who couldnt make it,the whole of Stamford Bridge and Barnet not to mention the Repton lot!

whicker wrote:

gasman wrote:Well, the biggest fight on the card is off - but still seven title fights, only problem is that is isnt 'magnificent' nor is it PPV status.

Well, it's a very decent card still, thats for sure, but yeah, I basically agree that it's just below PPV quality.

Lots of solid bouts, but nothing with a major "wow" factor.

The question, of course- should sports fans be obliged to pay extra for boxing of this quality, or should the subscription channels be providing it as part of their package? These are essentially a series of well matched domestic and European title defences- is that in itself "special" enough for PPV?

Is it fook, they should be boxing's bread and butter. I think it's a disgrace that this is PPV.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:A very ambitious line up. Never mind whether it's worthy of PPV or not - that's for another thread. But we've seen fights announced before (three scheduled July bills by Al didn't happen at all...but this will make up for it) and then for all sorts of reasons, they don't happen. How many of the seven bouts listed below do you think we'll see on September 18th for the listed titles? A great night in prospect if all seven stay made.

Nathan Cleverly v Karo Murat

Kell Brook v Michael Jennings

Enzo Maccarinelli v Alexander Frenkel

Ryan Rhodes v Lukas Konecny

Darren Barker v Matthew Macklin

Derek Chisora v Sam Sexton

James DeGale v TBA (for the WBA International belt)

Well, the answer was five - if you're generous enough to count DeGale v TBA as one of them. More than most expected.