Page 3 of 5

Re: Conquest vs Mckenzie RBR

Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 16:59
by crusader
Khomitsky is a tough mofo.

Re: Conquest vs Mckenzie RBR

Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 16:59
by jameswilson
rossij8 wrote:
jameswilson wrote:
rossij8 wrote:its good to see competitive fights - sorry for both Fwanks though
Getting KO'd after losing most of the rounds is competitive is it?
I mean in reverse towards the home fighter - most of the time they are home shut outs
To be honest Buglioni should (and usually is) several fights down the card. I say it all the time but beneath the top 3 or 4 fights on a televised card you are going to get these guys in their learning fights.

Maybe there was a bit of pressure to step him up a bit too quick, as columbo said, and it has backfired.

Re: Conquest vs Mckenzie RBR

Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 17:00
by lefty
jameswilson wrote:
rossij8 wrote:
jameswilson wrote:
Getting KO'd after losing most of the rounds is competitive is it?
I mean in reverse towards the home fighter - most of the time they are home shut outs
To be honest Buglioni should (and usually is) several fights down the card. I say it all the time but beneath the top 3 or 4 fights on a televised card you are going to get these guys in their learning fights.

Maybe there was a bit of pressure to step him up a bit too quick, as columbo said, and it has backfired.
I wonder if that fight would of been made if Dean Powell was still here.

Re: Conquest vs Mckenzie RBR

Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 17:01
by Andrew
Khomitsky is a beast.

Bet Eddie wouldn't put him near Callum Smith anytime soon. Though I would be interested to see how that would turn out :bag: :bag:

Re: Conquest vs Mckenzie RBR

Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 17:02
by expe
Boxing Prospect wrote:
expe wrote:
Boxing Prospect wrote:Be great to see Franks 2 ticket sellers lose on the same show! Bye bye Copperbox shows!
Why would it be good to see them lose? The Copperbox shows are decent and they keep fighters active, why would anyone want to see less shows put on domestically?
It's good to see over-hyped guys exposed, it may now actually be a case of putting on more good match ups to sell shows rather than relying on 2 guys with undeserved popularity.
They were mainly hyped as a result of selling lots of tickets, wasn't really like anyone had truly bought into it and thought they were world beaters. You can't say their popularity was undeserved either, what does a fighter have to do to deserve popularity? They sell lots of tickets, most likely because they're probably sound lads who are a good laugh to be around and as time goes on, more and more people start coming along, it's not really a reflection of ability, loads of very average fighters have been very popular, Arturo Gatti being a good example, then there's fighters like Rigondeaux who have more talent in their little toe, but he's not great to watch if you're not a purist, so he's not a big draw.

Re: Conquest vs Mckenzie RBR

Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 17:02
by lefty
Naandrew wrote:Khomitsky is a beast.

Bet Eddie wouldn't put him near Callum Smith anytime soon. Though I would be interested to see how that would turn out :bag: :bag:
I think Smith would deal with him. Probably a points win but i'd fancy him in that fight.

Re: Conquest vs Mckenzie RBR

Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 17:03
by Sklar
From a boxing POV, it's nights like these that the professonal void left by the death of Dean Powell are most noticeable. They had a matchmakng 'mare tonight.

Re: Conquest vs Mckenzie RBR

Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 17:04
by Andrew
Have to admit I would enjoy Eubank Jr getting beat now.

He just said Kerry Hope pulled out for no particular reason.... just like he ducked Nick Blackwell for no particular reason.

Re: Conquest vs Mckenzie RBR

Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 17:04
by lefty
Sklar wrote:From a boxing POV, it's nights like these that the professonal void left by the death of Dean Powell are most noticeable. They had a matchmakng 'mare tonight.
Yeah was just saying that mate.

Re: Conquest vs Mckenzie RBR

Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 17:06
by expe
columbo wrote:
jameswilson wrote:
rossij8 wrote:
I mean in reverse towards the home fighter - most of the time they are home shut outs
To be honest Buglioni should (and usually is) several fights down the card. I say it all the time but beneath the top 3 or 4 fights on a televised card you are going to get these guys in their learning fights.

Maybe there was a bit of pressure to step him up a bit too quick, as columbo said, and it has backfired.
I wonder if that fight would of been made if Dean Powell was still here.
Possibly not, it looked a dangerous one on paper and it certainly proved to be so. Buglioni would probably have been better off going in with someone like Cello Renda or Jahmaine Smyle.

Re: Conquest vs Mckenzie RBR

Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 17:06
by jameswilson
Sklar wrote:From a boxing POV, it's nights like these that the professonal void left by the death of Dean Powell are most noticeable. They had a matchmakng 'mare tonight.
At least it's a packed house.......

Re: Conquest vs Mckenzie RBR

Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 17:06
by expe
Naandrew wrote:Have to admit I would enjoy Eubank Jr getting beat now.

He just said Kerry Hope pulled out for no particular reason.... just like he ducked Nick Blackwell for no particular reason.
Hope got cut in his last fight 3 weeks ago. And Danny Butler and Billy Joe Saunders and Gary O'Sullivan, the list of names on that list is endless.

Re: Conquest vs Mckenzie RBR

Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 17:08
by Sklar
jameswilson wrote:
Sklar wrote:From a boxing POV, it's nights like these that the professonal void left by the death of Dean Powell are most noticeable. They had a matchmakng 'mare tonight.
At least it's a packed house.......
But will it be next tme?

Re: Conquest vs Mckenzie RBR

Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 17:12
by jameswilson
Boom.

Re: Conquest vs Mckenzie RBR

Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 17:12
by lefty
I dont think it was classy of Eubank to be posturing when the guy was laying completely outcold.

Re: Conquest vs Mckenzie RBR

Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 17:14
by jameswilson
columbo wrote:I dont think it was classy of Eubank to be posturing when the guy was laying completely outcold.
He was wanting to copy his Dad vs Reginaldo Dos Santos.

Re: Conquest vs Mckenzie RBR

Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 17:14
by expe
columbo wrote:I dont think it was classy of Eubank to be posturing when the guy was laying completely outcold.
We already knew he was a twat, like he always says, it's in the DNA, but this was just 100% confirmation for anyone who was doubting it.

Re: Conquest vs Mckenzie RBR

Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 17:15
by lefty
jameswilson wrote:
columbo wrote:I dont think it was classy of Eubank to be posturing when the guy was laying completely outcold.
He was wanting to copy his Dad vs Reginaldo Dos Santos.
He's trying to be his dad. He should be his own man.

Re: Conquest vs Mckenzie RBR

Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 17:15
by ShadrachSimmo
columbo wrote:I dont think it was classy of Eubank to be posturing when the guy was laying completely outcold.
The guys an embarrassing parody of his dad.

A fight with someone like Saunders or Ryder etc just won't happen anytime soon.

He needs to step up and fast.

Re: Conquest vs Mckenzie RBR

Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 17:16
by lefty
expe wrote:
columbo wrote:I dont think it was classy of Eubank to be posturing when the guy was laying completely outcold.
We already knew he was a twat, like he always says, it's in the DNA, but this was just 100% confirmation for anyone who was doubting it.
The fight with BJS interests me I have to say.

Re: Conquest vs Mckenzie RBR

Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 17:16
by Boxing Prospect
expe wrote: They were mainly hyped as a result of selling lots of tickets, wasn't really like anyone had truly bought into it and thought they were world beaters. You can't say their popularity was undeserved either, what does a fighter have to do to deserve popularity? They sell lots of tickets, most likely because they're probably sound lads who are a good laugh to be around and as time goes on, more and more people start coming along, it's not really a reflection of ability, loads of very average fighters have been very popular, Arturo Gatti being a good example, then there's fighters like Rigondeaux who have more talent in their little toe, but he's not great to watch if you're not a purist, so he's not a big draw.
They were hyped on tickets, but who really cares about the tickets? It should be talent that gets spoken about. For some reason in this country we seem to spend more time saying "well they sell 800 tickets" rather then "they were a 3 time amateur national champion". We seem to focus promotion on tickets rather than making promoters promote shows. The ticket seller system might be needed but it makes promoters lazy.

What does a fighter need to do to deserve to be popular? Something. Keane and Buglioni were hyped to the heavens on debut due to their popularity. That is undeserved and achievement should earn you popularity and should the way you achieve it.

Gatti was popular due to his style, as you said, did Buglioni strike you as that style? Did Keane? To me the answer is no.
Neither Keane nor Buglioni had anything that great about them in the ring and neither made me think "wow, I can't wait to see these" the only thing I got from watching them was "why are the comms sucking them off? They look clumsy, defensively flawed and aren't doing anything that makes me think wow"

Re: Conquest vs Mckenzie RBR

Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 17:21
by MightyWarrior
Poor stoppage of Frankie Buglioni, thank god his corner waved it off, as the clueless idiot ref appeared happy to let Frankie get his head taken off. Someone needs to take that ref to task as that was shockingly bad.

Re: Conquest vs Mckenzie RBR

Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 17:22
by Ian1973
columbo wrote:
jameswilson wrote:
columbo wrote:I dont think it was classy of Eubank to be posturing when the guy was laying completely outcold.
He was wanting to copy his Dad vs Reginaldo Dos Santos.
He's trying to be his dad. He should be his own man.

Yeah he is. His dad was amusing though, at least he was to me, a real character. Eubank junior isn't a character he's just a t**t, a wannabe.

If he wants any respect he'd be best advised to stop trying to be his old man, it's not novelty now, it's boring, been done before.

Re: Conquest vs Mckenzie RBR

Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 17:23
by Andrew
ShadrachSimmo wrote:
columbo wrote:I dont think it was classy of Eubank to be posturing when the guy was laying completely outcold.
The guys an embarrassing parody of his dad.

A fight with someone like Saunders or Ryder etc just won't happen anytime soon.

He needs to step up and fast.
He has learnt f*ck all since his fight with Bradley Pryce. Complete mis - match just now huge size difference he should have been done with those fights a while ago.

He could have fought Nick Blackwell last year to become mandatory for the British a year ago which would have been genuine 50/50 and he was ready then.

Reason I can't stand the guy is that he mouthed off how he would beat BJS easy then pulls out of a chance to force a fight with him.

Re: Conquest vs Mckenzie RBR

Posted: 12 Apr 2014, 17:25
by JC
Be keen to see the BJS fight.

Thing is with Eubank Jr, his Dad needed the arrogant image to get attention. Jr turned pro in a blaze of publicity, with most boxing fans desperate for him to succeed. He probably could have become very popular playing the humble role. Seems like he's actually hurting his marketability.