BoxRec

ALI wrote:Why would Hearn line up a shot at Vazquez for Mitchell when he has Burns in his stable?

I'm scratching my head over that.

It seems like an attempt to get the ibf title in house to set up the matchroom version of mitchell v burns.

Exactly! Quite sensible really. London lad on the bill going for a world title. If he wins it match him against Burns on another bill-topping show.

smoothmoves wrote:

ALI wrote:Why would Hearn line up a shot at Vazquez for Mitchell when he has Burns in his stable?

I'm scratching my head over that.

It seems like an attempt to get the ibf title in house to set up the matchroom version of mitchell v burns.

If they were trying to get hold of the IBF belt, is Kevin Mitchell really the best chance they have?

expe wrote:

smoothmoves wrote:

ALI wrote:Why would Hearn line up a shot at Vazquez for Mitchell when he has Burns in his stable?

I'm scratching my head over that.

It seems like an attempt to get the ibf title in house to set up the matchroom version of mitchell v burns.

If they were trying to get hold of the IBF belt, is Kevin Mitchell really the best chance they have?

i read somewhere you are 17...i don't believe it.

Waaaaay too wise for that age

If they were trying to get hold of the IBF belt, is Kevin Mitchell really the best chance they have?[/quote]

i read somewhere you are 17...i don't believe it.

Waaaaay too wise for that age [/quote]

Stop grooming him or I'll be on to the mods

expe wrote:

smoothmoves wrote:

ALI wrote:Why would Hearn line up a shot at Vazquez for Mitchell when he has Burns in his stable?

I'm scratching my head over that.

It seems like an attempt to get the ibf title in house to set up the matchroom version of mitchell v burns.

If they were trying to get hold of the IBF belt, is Kevin Mitchell really the best chance they have?

Maybe matchroom are contractually obliged to get mitchell a shot? Or maybe it's just about timing.

It seems like an attempt to get the ibf title in house to set up the matchroom version of mitchell v burns.[/quote]
If they were trying to get hold of the IBF belt, is Kevin Mitchell really the best chance they have?[/quote]

Maybe matchroom are contractually obliged to get mitchell a shot? Or maybe it's just about timing.[/quote]
Either way, its definitely the last chance salloon for him.

This is not the best fight for Mitchell or the fans, Figueroa is much better fight for the fans and Mitchell, it would be a tear up.

rio wrote:This is not the best fight for Mitchell or the fans, Figueroa is much better fight for the fans and Mitchell, it would be a tear up.

Figueroa would be a terrible fight for Mitchell at this point,great for the fans but Vazquez would be the more winnable fight,if he could withstand Figueroa,s onslaught the he could outpoint him but id fancy Omar to KO Kevin before halfway stage

Just listened to the latest Eddie interview on IFL TV he said Vasquez has a cut so won't be able to fight May 31st. But IBF have put Mitchell to fight a Canadian fighter in a final elim so he is unsure whether to try and get Vasqeuz later or go for this guy

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

Naandrew wrote:Just listened to the latest Eddie interview on IFL TV he said Vasquez has a cut so won't be able to fight May 31st. But IBF have put Mitchell to fight a Canadian fighter in a final elim so he is unsure whether to try and get Vasqeuz later or go for this guy

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

No mention of Marsili though, wonder why...
Instead of all the eliminators, why doesn't he put his hand in his pocket and bring a champion over for once, not at purse bids, make them an offer they can't turn down, if he truly believed in his fighters, he would do because any loss that he would make would be made back down the line if they are as good as he claims they are.

There is truly a fortune in the pot for this card. If Eddie doesn't deliver, the minority of real fans will be very disappointed.

Shocker......Hearns been talking about Mitchell fighting for a world title on the froch undercard and instead its going to be an eliminator!! Followed by his famous "final" eliminators! Why doesn't he just bring over Figeroa or Abril if Vasquez isn't ready. All these eliminators do is piss off the fans (see Brook).

expe wrote:

Naandrew wrote:Just listened to the latest Eddie interview on IFL TV he said Vasquez has a cut so won't be able to fight May 31st. But IBF have put Mitchell to fight a Canadian fighter in a final elim so he is unsure whether to try and get Vasqeuz later or go for this guy

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

No mention of Marsili though, wonder why...
Instead of all the eliminators, why doesn't he put his hand in his pocket and bring a champion over for once, not at purse bids, make them an offer they can't turn down, if he truly believed in his fighters, he would do because any loss that he would make would be made back down the line if they are as good as he claims they are.

Isn't that what he was trying to do with Vasquez?

DMA1987 wrote:

expe wrote:

Naandrew wrote:Just listened to the latest Eddie interview on IFL TV he said Vasquez has a cut so won't be able to fight May 31st. But IBF have put Mitchell to fight a Canadian fighter in a final elim so he is unsure whether to try and get Vasqeuz later or go for this guy

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

No mention of Marsili though, wonder why...
Instead of all the eliminators, why doesn't he put his hand in his pocket and bring a champion over for once, not at purse bids, make them an offer they can't turn down, if he truly believed in his fighters, he would do because any loss that he would make would be made back down the line if they are as good as he claims they are.

Isn't that what he was trying to do with Vasquez?

Vazquez isn't the only champion out there and it's not just Mitchell, Bellew, Purdy, Barker, Rose, Brook, Rees and Proksa have all either been through a series of eliminators or been taken abroad as sacrificial lambs in world title fights. The only champion he's brought over was Bute for his bum boy Froch.

Right. But you mentioned it on a Mitchell thread, where the champ he was trying to bring over for Mitchell fell through. Just a bit odd that's all, or probably just not the time and place.

What does his 'bum boy' have to do with it? Grow up, I know you're young (and a credit in your knowledge) but sometimes it is a bit schoolyard.

DMA1987 wrote:Right. But you mentioned it on a Mitchell thread, where the champ he was trying to bring over for Mitchell fell through. Just a bit odd that's all, or probably just not the time and place.

What does his 'bum boy' have to do with it? Grow up, I know you're young (and a credit in your knowledge) but sometimes it is a bit schoolyard.

If he wasn't best buddies with Froch, would he have taken the risk of bringing Bute over, he hasn't done it for anyone else.

expe wrote:

DMA1987 wrote:Right. But you mentioned it on a Mitchell thread, where the champ he was trying to bring over for Mitchell fell through. Just a bit odd that's all, or probably just not the time and place.

What does his 'bum boy' have to do with it? Grow up, I know you're young (and a credit in your knowledge) but sometimes it is a bit schoolyard.

If he wasn't best buddies with Froch, would he have taken the risk of bringing Bute over, he hasn't done it for anyone else.

He had had the mandatory for a long time for Brook. Froch is/was a world name. I mean, which of the others you mention should he have brought somebody over for? Lol @Purdy btw.

DMA1987 wrote:

expe wrote:

DMA1987 wrote:Right. But you mentioned it on a Mitchell thread, where the champ he was trying to bring over for Mitchell fell through. Just a bit odd that's all, or probably just not the time and place.

What does his 'bum boy' have to do with it? Grow up, I know you're young (and a credit in your knowledge) but sometimes it is a bit schoolyard.

If he wasn't best buddies with Froch, would he have taken the risk of bringing Bute over, he hasn't done it for anyone else.

He had had the mandatory for a long time for Brook. Froch is/was a world name. I mean, which of the others you mention should he have brought somebody over for? Lol @Purdy btw.

Purdy was in the sacrificial lamb section, to be fair Eddie did very well to get him a world title fight, probably the best payday he will ever get in any job, shame he chucked 10% away for being overweight. Brook's been mandatory for a long time, but he's still not got into the ring for a world title fight and he couldn't get Alexander over who isn't really a big draw anywhere in the US.

So what re you saying about Purdy? I find it hard to find against Hearn when like you say it's a payday bigger that he would ever get. Plus he then got the euro shot. Purdy has been looked after.

As for the rest, I don't really remember a time when I thought 'he should have brought him over'.