BoxRec

Friday Fight night undercard- same old smale old, shame they didn't feel the need to put at least one other competative match up on the undercard. Anything of note? Results seem predicatable and all that.

The 3 Walsh brothers beat 3 Tomato Cans and they act afterwards like they beat world-beaters.
F*ckin terrible undercard

dve3333 wrote:The 3 Walsh brothers beat 3 Tomato Cans and they act afterwards like they beat world-beaters.
F*ckin terrible undercard

The way they are matched is a bit of a joke.

Hopefully at some point their own fans will be asking for them to be matched more competativley. ;;-)

And then Vinny Mitchell.... Johnny Greaves , in Mitchell's 10th fight.... Is he ever going to be stepped up?

dve3333 wrote:The 3 Walsh brothers beat 3 Tomato Cans and they act afterwards like they beat world-beaters.
F*ckin terrible undercard

Liam stopped John Baguley who in 24 previous fights, including against Crolla and Fehintola, had never been stopped. at his level he is decent and definitely no tomato can. this was only liams 6th fight, great result and a great talent.

Liam is decent, and seems like the most mellow out the brothers (if i can remember rightly).

Still can't wait for the day that Michael gets sparked.

whicker wrote:

dve3333 wrote:The 3 Walsh brothers beat 3 Tomato Cans and they act afterwards like they beat world-beaters.
F*ckin terrible undercard

The way they are matched is a bit of a joke.

Hopefully at some point their own fans will be asking for them to be matched more competativley. ;;-)

And then Vinny Mitchell.... Johnny Greaves , in Mitchell's 10th fight.... Is he ever going to be stepped up?

They'll probably be happy watching them beat up on the likes of tonights opponents ( although that was the first time Baguley had been stopped I think) for a long time yet

I always try not to be too judgemental when I haven't been impressed by first impresssions, but there's something about these lads that rub me up the wrong way

BIGMARK wrote: We have big batch of young talent and in the next 18 months i expect to see

Do we really, though?

Or do we have a large number of fighters who show a decent level of ability, and are well supported, but who are perhaps not nearly as good as we are made to think they are and who will be woefully exposed when they do "step it up."

Seems that nowadays nearly any young fighter is billed as a "talented prospect...."

BIGMARK wrote:yes some of the matches could of been better but a lot of these guys are still just starting out and are very young so why rush them?

Fair enough, but the problem is such boxers take up the entire left-collumn of the undercard.

I'd like to see shows with a more mixed selection of fights, not JUST "prospects V opponents" matches. There certainly should be a notable fight, area title maybe, or eliminator for British title, as support.

dbflex wrote:

dve3333 wrote:The 3 Walsh brothers beat 3 Tomato Cans and they act afterwards like they beat world-beaters.
F*ckin terrible undercard

Liam stopped John Baguley who in 24 previous fights, including against Crolla and Fehintola, had never been stopped. at his level he is decent and definitely no tomato can. this was only liams 6th fight, great result and a great talent.

Have you looked at Fehintolas Ko ratio? Hardly a banger is he. I know I boxed him in the AMs twice. :surprised:

dbflex wrote:

dve3333 wrote:The 3 Walsh brothers beat 3 Tomato Cans and they act afterwards like they beat world-beaters.
F*ckin terrible undercard

Liam stopped John Baguley who in 24 previous fights, including against Crolla and Fehintola, had never been stopped. at his level he is decent and definitely no tomato can. this was only liams 6th fight, great result and a great talent.

Well said mate. Liam looks a class act. He clinically took Baguely apart. Baguely is a tough customer and he took a real thrashing in there.

As for the other two, well, they beat what was put in front of them.

Liam Walsh looks a better prospect than BJ Saunders to me. Terrific body shots.

forcefraser wrote:Well said mate. Liam looks a class act. He clinically took Baguely apart. Baguely is a tough customer and he took a real thrashing in there.

Fair enough then- so presumably soon we can expect to see Liam being matched with fighters who will test him more?

whicker wrote:

forcefraser wrote:Well said mate. Liam looks a class act. He clinically took Baguely apart. Baguely is a tough customer and he took a real thrashing in there.

Fair enough then- so presumably soon we can expect to see Liam being matched with fighters who will test him more?

Its his 6th fight! lets compare his level of opposition to the Olympians.

Agree with everyone I would much rather see a competitive bout than a prospect vs a journeyman. I was impressed with Liam Walsh he seemed good I cant stand the other 2 though

I think BJS will of learnt a lot from his fight he fought poor but still got the win Spitko is very tough and comes to fight

Liam Walsh is a class act. He was the first to stop Jon Baguley and very nearly stopped Youssef Al Hamidi and won every round easily. (if it was a 6 rounder he would of stopped him) John Murray Struggled with Hamidi and everyone is talking about world title for him. I can see Liam doing very well.

dbflex wrote:

whicker wrote:

forcefraser wrote:Well said mate. Liam looks a class act. He clinically took Baguely apart. Baguely is a tough customer and he took a real thrashing in there.

Fair enough then- so presumably soon we can expect to see Liam being matched with fighters who will test him more?

Its his 6th fight! lets compare his level of opposition to the Olympians.

It don't really understand why it being his 6th fight makes a lot of difference- if he is talented and able, from a fan's point of view, it's good to see him in with boxers who will make a more even match up.

Not sure how far it is valid to compare the level of opposition to the Olympians- after all, they have been pro sinse Feb 28th 2009, Walsh bothers since 2nd Feb 2008.



Also- to add- I wasn't "picking on" Liam Walsh's fight. My point was that the whole undercard was bouts of this nature.

I think Baguely in a 6th fight is a decent enough opponent.

In general I agree that Fwank undercards are one sided affairs, but what are the options these days with no one wanting to put their prospects in against each other. It is about making money after all. the unbeaten record seems to mean more than who you have beaten, which is utter bollox in my opinion.

I might keep repeating it, but ba lot of the mexican fighters are hard men, cos they have been in countless hard fights, not 28 second Michael Walsh blowouts. This stands them in good stead for later in their careers (either that or retires them to the knackers yard before they get a shot)

The Walshes extra 1 yr as pros is balanced by the olympians huge advantage in amateur experience. Michael DID fight a tomato can but Baguley is decent and durable. compare liam to vinny mitchell whos had almost twice as many fights, only just stepped up to 6 rds and fought Johnny Greaves. liam is knocking ouer journeymen who dnt normally
get stopped, like Naz and Amir did at a similar stage.

dbflex wrote:The Walshes extra 1 yr as pros is balanced by the olympians huge advantage in amateur experience. Michael DID fight a tomato can but Baguley is decent and durable. compare liam to vinny mitchell whos had almost twice as many fights, only just stepped up to 6 rds and fought Johnny Greaves. liam is knocking ouer journeymen who dnt normally
get stopped, like Naz and Amir did at a similar stage.

I agree that all are getting matched correctly at the moment, but I feel the problem is that there weren't enough competitive fights. Often on undercards you have a selection of fighters at different stages of their career, so you do end up getting some good fights.
Unfortunately the home undercard fighters just had preliminary learning encounters against overmatched fighters. Of course there is a place for this but it should not stretch along the whole bill.

Coco wrote: I agree that all are getting matched correctly at the moment, but I feel the problem is that there weren't enough competitive fights. Often on undercards you have a selection of fighters at different stages of their career, so you do end up getting some good fights.
Unfortunately the home undercard fighters just had preliminary learning encounters against overmatched fighters. Of course there is a place for this but it should not stretch along the whole bill.

Exactly.

Sky should request at least one quality , well balanced main support for it's two hour Friday Fight Night bill.

Completely agree. compared to the Maloney Bolton bill, which has at least 6 relatively even fights on paper, its awful.

dbflex wrote:Completely agree. compared to the Maloney Bolton bill, which has at least 6 relatively even fights on paper, its awful.

That bill does look great, although with the way things are at the moment it's the exception, not the rule.

But it does look a fantastic card:

Main Event, Very well matched

Supported by 2 well matched, decent looking British Title Fights and an English Title Fight,


Plus some keen match ups on the undercard, and a heavyweight prospect in action.


.....

Ok, thats exceptional, but I'd say a good format for a Friday Night show would be -

Main Event
Support- English title maybe
2 or 3 competative matchups/comeback fights
3 or 4 prospect workouts.

That way TV could aim to show the main event live, support live and perhaps one other live, ending with a bit of highlights- exactly like ITV used to do early this year, in fact.

the walsh brothers back in action then.

liam walsh does have a bit of talent.

tough to judge when he's fighting at such a low level.

u could argue a top prospect blasts that guy in no more than 1 or 2 rds. :>

dbflex wrote:Completely agree. compared to the Maloney Bolton bill, which has at least 6 relatively even fights on paper, its awful.

Be careful of describing FW's bills as awful, BN doesn't have deep enough pockets for libel action

Dbflex is right, last night bill was garbage and the bill on the 23rd puts that to shame. Sky had a better format when they used to show the chief support fight first then went onto the main event.

hitman_hatton1 wrote:u could argue a top prospect blasts that guy in no more than 1 or 2 rds. :>

Really? because both Naz and Ricky Hatton were taken the 6 round distance, by Peter Buckley and Mark Ramsey respectively, in their 6th fights. not saying Walsh is that good but ur logic isnt sound

Coco wrote:Be careful of describing FW's bills as awful, BN doesn't have deep enough pockets for libel action

Theyd need Johnny Cochrane to defend it lol. in fairness, the mitchell and saunders fights were more competitive than they appeared on
paper. but chief support Del boy v punchbag? il b honest in the mag too