Page 3 of 3

Re: Burns undercard

Posted: 26 Aug 2013, 10:59
by geoffburt07
sgtcecil wrote:
geoffburt07 wrote:Paul Appleby returns to the ring aswell. Either 4x3s or 6x3s at light welter
Take it Paul is not with Frank anymore? Is he a Morrison fighter?
Doesn't look like it mate. He just said on twitter he was boxing on the bill and to contact for tickets. Still no opponent yet. Mentioned light welter too

Re: Burns undercard

Posted: 26 Aug 2013, 11:55
by expe
geoffburt07 wrote:Trust me ricky is not 5f 10. Boxrec and other sites have him at 5f 10 but he's defo smaller than that mate.
Gonzalez is 5'8" and he looked to be a couple of inches taller, he was just taller in his socks when Gonzalez had trainers on.

Re: Burns undercard

Posted: 26 Aug 2013, 13:44
by daviddee
geoffburt07 wrote:Trust me ricky is not 5f 10. Boxrec and other sites have him at 5f 10 but he's defo smaller than that mate.
Ricky is basically the exact same height as me and I'm 5ft 9.6 so pretty much 5ft 10.. I've stood beside him and been in the gym.. If anything he may be a tiny bit taller!! So I think his height is pretty accurate mate

Re: Burns undercard

Posted: 26 Aug 2013, 15:46
by geoffburt07
daviddee wrote:
geoffburt07 wrote:Trust me ricky is not 5f 10. Boxrec and other sites have him at 5f 10 but he's defo smaller than that mate.
Ricky is basically the exact same height as me and I'm 5ft 9.6 so pretty much 5ft 10.. I've stood beside him and been in the gym.. If anything he may be a tiny bit taller!! So I think his height is pretty accurate mate
Well I must be 6ft then cause av stood with him a few times also and easily taller.

Re: Burns undercard

Posted: 27 Aug 2013, 06:02
by billy nelson
geoffburt07 wrote:
daviddee wrote:
geoffburt07 wrote:Trust me ricky is not 5f 10. Boxrec and other sites have him at 5f 10 but he's defo smaller than that mate.
Ricky is basically the exact same height as me and I'm 5ft 9.6 so pretty much 5ft 10.. I've stood beside him and been in the gym.. If anything he may be a tiny bit taller!! So I think his height is pretty accurate mate
Well I must be 6ft then cause av stood with him a few times also and easily taller.
Rickys bang on 5'10

Re: Burns undercard

Posted: 27 Aug 2013, 06:23
by geoffburt07
Fair enuff. I have underestimated my height then haha.

Re: Burns undercard

Posted: 27 Aug 2013, 08:33
by expe
geoffburt07 wrote:Fair enuff. I have underestimated my height then haha.
You have to remember to add the extra inch, it's the law that all men must claim they're an inch taller than they are, especially if they're short.

Re: Burns undercard

Posted: 31 Aug 2013, 01:59
by billy nelson
daviddee wrote:
geoffburt07 wrote:Trust me ricky is not 5f 10. Boxrec and other sites have him at 5f 10 but he's defo smaller than that mate.
Ricky is basically the exact same height as me and I'm 5ft 9.6 so pretty much 5ft 10.. I've stood beside him and been in the gym.. If anything he may be a tiny bit taller!! So I think his height is pretty accurate mate
no dave that mad haircut youve got makes you think your taller than you actually are lol just a dundee thing

Re: Burns undercard

Posted: 31 Aug 2013, 11:50
by palooka
expe wrote:
geoffburt07 wrote:Fair enuff. I have underestimated my height then haha.
You have to remember to add the extra inch, it's the law that all men must claim they're an inch taller than they are, especially if they're short.
I always do that when describing myself but when I'm seen in the flesh it's always noticed :OhYes:

Re: Burns undercard

Posted: 31 Aug 2013, 15:37
by Teddy's Toupee
palooka wrote:
expe wrote:
geoffburt07 wrote:Fair enuff. I have underestimated my height then haha.
You have to remember to add the extra inch, it's the law that all men must claim they're an inch taller than they are, especially if they're short.
I always do that when describing myself but when I'm seen in the flesh it's always noticed :OhYes:
They're talking about height, not penis length, palooka; and it wouldn't happen if you stopped flashing.

Re: Burns undercard

Posted: 31 Aug 2013, 15:58
by palooka
It's a terrible compulsion; I don't hurt anyone

Re: Burns undercard

Posted: 31 Aug 2013, 16:58
by sgtcecil
Billy, when is the public workout happening?

Re: Burns undercard

Posted: 31 Aug 2013, 17:10
by billy nelson
sgtcecil wrote:Billy, when is the public workout happening?
I must apoligise mate but because of the birth of Ricky's first child there is now a press workout in the Fighting Scots Gym on Tues @11.30am

Re: Burns undercard

Posted: 31 Aug 2013, 17:13
by sgtcecil
billy nelson wrote:
sgtcecil wrote:Billy, when is the public workout happening?
I must apoligise mate but because of the birth of Ricky's first child there is now a press workout in the Fighting Scots Gym on Tues @11.30am
Oh well, I'm always on shift when they happen and would have been off on this occasion.

Re: Burns undercard

Posted: 31 Aug 2013, 17:17
by sgtcecil
I see on boxrec schedule that Simmons is fighting David Graf http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

Should be another step up for Simmons. Anyone know anything about Graf? I see that he has points wins over Paul Morris and Martyn Grainger.

What happened to the South American he was supposed to be fighting?

Re: Burns undercard

Posted: 31 Aug 2013, 21:03
by daviddee
billy nelson wrote:
daviddee wrote:
geoffburt07 wrote:Trust me ricky is not 5f 10. Boxrec and other sites have him at 5f 10 but he's defo smaller than that mate.
Ricky is basically the exact same height as me and I'm 5ft 9.6 so pretty much 5ft 10.. I've stood beside him and been in the gym.. If anything he may be a tiny bit taller!! So I think his height is pretty accurate mate
no dave that mad haircut youve got makes you think your taller than you actually are lol just a dundee thing
Haha Billy! Don't go slagging the receded hairline now!! I wish I could make out I was taller that I actually was that's why I had the hair sticking up made me 6ft Ricky was a midget to me then. Was gonna come to the show on the 21st but my mrs hit me with a new rule only one show a week I'm allowed too, she's much bigger than me so I won't argue and obviously will need to go see Ronnie. Will be watching on Sky hoping for 2 KO's that week.

Just realised show was next week :( ^^^ boys a fool ha ^^^

Burns v Beltran and undercard

Posted: 04 Sep 2013, 09:16
by jameswilson
Think this looks one of the weaker undercards that I have seen from a Matchroom card in a long time however Simmonds v Graf looks like a really risky fight and for one of the WBCs many fringe titles. Simmons is 8-0 and Graf is 10-0. Also Scott Cardle v Gary Fox looks a decent fight between two guys who are looking to get in on the British title scene. Not sure if Jon Slowey is going to be on the card as he still hasn't had an opponent named (I don't think.)

Usually the recent Matchroom cards in recent times have had a decent fight at British/Commonwealth title level or above as the chief support and here we don't have that.

The main event however is really good and I am really looking forward to it.

Thoughts?

Re: Burns v Beltran and undercard

Posted: 04 Sep 2013, 09:22
by geoffburt07
Slowey v some Spanish guy.
Cardle v Gary fox.
Roberts v nesbitt
Brophy v Jason ball
Luke Campbell v lee Connelly.
Chris Jenkins v French dude.
Paul Appleby v ideh ocuhoko

Re: Burns v Beltran and undercard

Posted: 04 Sep 2013, 09:26
by chad
The undercard isn't fantastic however Matchroom have tried to deliver a card that captures local interest. The majority of the guys fighting on the undercard are Scottish. The problem is that there aren't too many Scots in line for a British or Commonwealth title fight at the moment. Looking forward to seeing Paul Appleby again, and to see what he has left.

Re: Burns v Beltran and undercard

Posted: 04 Sep 2013, 10:39
by expe
jameswilson wrote:Think this looks one of the weaker undercards that I have seen from a Matchroom card in a long time however Simmonds v Graf looks like a really risky fight and for one of the WBCs many fringe titles. Simmons is 8-0 and Graf is 10-0. Also Scott Cardle v Gary Fox looks a decent fight between two guys who are looking to get in on the British title scene. Not sure if Jon Slowey is going to be on the card as he still hasn't had an opponent named (I don't think.)

Usually the recent Matchroom cards in recent times have had a decent fight at British/Commonwealth title level or above as the chief support and here we don't have that.

The main event however is really good and I am really looking forward to it.

Thoughts?
It's a poor show, I'll watch right the way through like usual, but the only fights that really interest me are the main event and possibly the Simmons fight. The Sheffield card with Brook-Senchenko as the headline is looking like being pretty shite as well.

Re: Burns v Beltran and undercard

Posted: 04 Sep 2013, 16:27
by jameswilson
expe wrote:
jameswilson wrote:Think this looks one of the weaker undercards that I have seen from a Matchroom card in a long time however Simmonds v Graf looks like a really risky fight and for one of the WBCs many fringe titles. Simmons is 8-0 and Graf is 10-0. Also Scott Cardle v Gary Fox looks a decent fight between two guys who are looking to get in on the British title scene. Not sure if Jon Slowey is going to be on the card as he still hasn't had an opponent named (I don't think.)

Usually the recent Matchroom cards in recent times have had a decent fight at British/Commonwealth title level or above as the chief support and here we don't have that.

The main event however is really good and I am really looking forward to it.

Thoughts?
It's a poor show, I'll watch right the way through like usual, but the only fights that really interest me are the main event and possibly the Simmons fight. The Sheffield card with Brook-Senchenko as the headline is looking like being pretty shite as well.
In all honesty Burns v Beltran is a good main event. Simmons v Graf is (on the face of it) an even fight but at a level below British title level. Usually, and credit to Matchroom, the chief support has been a good fight at around about British title level and sometimes above. For example Smith v Dodson, Mathews v Coyle and Selby v the Romainian (obviously the latter quite a way above domestic level.)

Re: Burns v Beltran and undercard

Posted: 04 Sep 2013, 17:34
by expe
jameswilson wrote:
expe wrote:
jameswilson wrote:Think this looks one of the weaker undercards that I have seen from a Matchroom card in a long time however Simmonds v Graf looks like a really risky fight and for one of the WBCs many fringe titles. Simmons is 8-0 and Graf is 10-0. Also Scott Cardle v Gary Fox looks a decent fight between two guys who are looking to get in on the British title scene. Not sure if Jon Slowey is going to be on the card as he still hasn't had an opponent named (I don't think.)

Usually the recent Matchroom cards in recent times have had a decent fight at British/Commonwealth title level or above as the chief support and here we don't have that.

The main event however is really good and I am really looking forward to it.

Thoughts?
It's a poor show, I'll watch right the way through like usual, but the only fights that really interest me are the main event and possibly the Simmons fight. The Sheffield card with Brook-Senchenko as the headline is looking like being pretty shite as well.
In all honesty Burns v Beltran is a good main event. Simmons v Graf is (on the face of it) an even fight but at a level below British title level. Usually, and credit to Matchroom, the chief support has been a good fight at around about British title level and sometimes above. For example Smith v Dodson, Mathews v Coyle and Selby v the Romainian (obviously the latter quite a way above domestic level.)
I'd want to see 3 good fights at British title level or above, or 4 at title level, to consider it a good show, this has 1.

Re: Burns undercard

Posted: 06 Sep 2013, 08:00
by Alba
Regardless of who is fighting ,good luck to all the homefighters . :TU:

be goodto see slowey/simmonds pick up first belts . :TU: