BoxRec

If I'm not mistaken I think they fight on the same night. If so, and they are on the same bill, a few fights in the UK topped by Mitchell-Katsidis followed by a switch stateside for Khan, then this bill might be worth getting.

Khan vs Malignaggi & Mitchell vs Katsidis is a pretty good bill.

Horse wrote:Khan vs Malignaggi & Mitchell vs Katsidis is a pretty good bill.

Got to agree with that, not a bad nights viewing at all

Good - but at the same time worrying. If Mitchell is successful, will this mean he is now a SBO fighter.

Will Sky promote ANY British world champion from now on, on "normal" Sky????

stujones wrote:Good - but at the same time worrying. If Mitchell is successful, will this mean he is now a SBO fighter.

Will Sky promote ANY British world champion from now on, on "normal" Sky????

It's not that worrying 'if' we get a US card after it, a'la the way this one seems to be. Realistically it's the only way they could justify putting world title fights with people like Mitchell, Burns, Munroe etc. on PPV at the moment.

In my opinion, Mitchell V Katsidis is not a PPV quality match up. That said, I'm sure Sky and the promoters know their business, so good luck to them.

Maybe Mitchell will become the "next Ricky Hatton" to the public, but who knows?

whicker wrote:In my opinion, Mitchell V Katsidis is not a PPV quality match up. That said, I'm sure Sky and the promoters know their business, so good luck to them.

Maybe Mitchell will become the "next Ricky Hatton" to the public, but who knows?

Maybe it's not a PPV fight on its own, but on the same PPV bill as Khan-Malignaggi, the Olympians and then maybe a decent undercard fight or two from MSG. That's not too bad. We've been dished up worse in the past!

And people dare to slag off Mr W arren and his abilities as a promoter - what other promoter puts on this sort of show on a consistent basis!!!

Many of you name other promoters because "you like" another promoter but when it comes down to the FACTS - whilst W arren in some peoples opinions is not a particularly likeable chap - he produces the results in the quality of his shows time and time again.

Spud wrote:And people dare to slag off Mr W arren and his abilities as a promoter - what other promoter puts on this sort of show on a consistent basis!!!

Many of you name other promoters because "you like" another promoter but when it comes down to the FACTS - whilst W arren in some peoples opinions is not a particularly likeable chap - he produces the results in the quality of his shows time and time again.

No need to wet yourself over this- Mitchell V Katsidis isn't THAT big of a fight.

For sure, it will be a good scrap, an its for an "intrim" world title, but lets not over play this.

...

Moreover, you talk of "the quality of his shows"- Who else is fighting on the show?

winkveron wrote:

whicker wrote:In my opinion, Mitchell V Katsidis is not a PPV quality match up. That said, I'm sure Sky and the promoters know their business, so good luck to them.

Maybe Mitchell will become the "next Ricky Hatton" to the public, but who knows?

Maybe it's not a PPV fight on its own, but on the same PPV bill as Khan-Malignaggi, the Olympians and then maybe a decent undercard fight or two from MSG. That's not too bad. We've been dished up worse in the past!

True, if there is a double-up with Khan thats adding to it, but (unless they are matched competativly) I wouldn't say the Olympians add anything to a pay per view bill.

I would pay for a Mitchell-Katsidis/Khan-Malignaggi double bill, and I buy PPVs pretty rarely.

whicker wrote:

winkveron wrote:

whicker wrote:In my opinion, Mitchell V Katsidis is not a PPV quality match up. That said, I'm sure Sky and the promoters know their business, so good luck to them.

Maybe Mitchell will become the "next Ricky Hatton" to the public, but who knows?

Maybe it's not a PPV fight on its own, but on the same PPV bill as Khan-Malignaggi, the Olympians and then maybe a decent undercard fight or two from MSG. That's not too bad. We've been dished up worse in the past!

True, if there is a double-up with Khan thats adding to it, but (unless they are matched competativly) I wouldn't say the Olympians add anything to a pay per view bill.

I know what you mean about the Olympians, but I feel they have more pulling power than a couple of journeymen fighting way down on the bill, or a one-sided commonwealth title fight. If you got the Olympians, Mitchell, Good undercard fight or 2 from MSG then Khan, I think that's a pretty decent bill.

Sexton v. Williams will be on this

winkveron wrote:

whicker wrote:

winkveron wrote: Maybe it's not a PPV fight on its own, but on the same PPV bill as Khan-Malignaggi, the Olympians and then maybe a decent undercard fight or two from MSG. That's not too bad. We've been dished up worse in the past!

True, if there is a double-up with Khan thats adding to it, but (unless they are matched competativly) I wouldn't say the Olympians add anything to a pay per view bill.

I know what you mean about the Olympians, but I feel they have more pulling power than a couple of journeymen fighting way down on the bill, or a one-sided commonwealth title fight. If you got the Olympians, Mitchell, Good undercard fight or 2 from MSG then Khan, I think that's a pretty decent bill.

Yeah, thats true- and I see what you mean. However, I don't think the Olympians, in themselves are a factor as to whether or not people would buy a PPV.