BoxRec

Notice how allegedly said in the interview after the Gavins fight he needs more dates to put Gavin on, Dose he deserve more dates after putting a show on like last nights??????????

It wasn't his fault all the fighters pulled out, it started out a really good card and I still thought it was a good one tbf

To be fair, the show WAS a massive improvement from the old "Friday Fight Night Days."

We got a good undercard bout shown live- no-ones fault that was so short- and then they quickly had a decent support bout also on live, and then the main event. So, three live fights.

Certainly a big improvement on the Friday Fight Night Style.

So, a to Sky from me.

I'd go to see a show of that quality every week. Billy Morgan deserved to be shown on the telly too, he had a great almost perfect performance against a tough opponent. If Bellew had fought it would have taken the show from good to great, but IMO if every small-hall show was as good as that, we'd all be happy.

whicker wrote:To be fair, the show WAS a massive improvement from the old "Friday Fight Night Days."

We got a good undercard bout shown live- no-ones fault that was so short- and then they quickly had a decent support bout also on live, and then the main event. So, three live fights.

Certainly a big improvement on the Friday Fight Night Style.

So, a to Sky from me.

What time did the SKY card start?

MatthewS wrote:I'd go to see a show of that quality every week. Billy Morgan deserved to be shown on the telly too, he had a great almost perfect performance against a tough opponent. If Bellew had fought it would have taken the show from good to great, but IMO if every small-hall show was as good as that, we'd all be happy.

That's an interesting viewpoint. As I saw it last nights card had one 50-50 fight on paper (Larry v Big John) while Gavin, Skeete, Heffron and Turner were young prospects in tough fights that they were 95% certain to win. I'd like to have seen at least one of the support fights being a scrap with some uncertainty over the outcome. This is not to say that good prospects don't need to be carefully matched - they do. But an entire card with just one fight carrying doubt over the result is far from perfect.

Who'd be a promoter?
I think FW sometimes gets a bad press he doesn't really deserve. The card was pretty good when announced but for whatever reason altered quite dramatically.
Last night's show was pretty good to be fair, could have been better but I've been to many which were far, far worse!
FW is the premier promoter in the UK, has been for many years and hopefully for a few more to come.

You can't blame Frank for last night's withdrawals... who'd be a promoter!?!

earsjohn wrote:

MatthewS wrote:I'd go to see a show of that quality every week. Billy Morgan deserved to be shown on the telly too, he had a great almost perfect performance against a tough opponent. If Bellew had fought it would have taken the show from good to great, but IMO if every small-hall show was as good as that, we'd all be happy.

That's an interesting viewpoint. As I saw it last nights card had one 50-50 fight on paper (Larry v Big John) while Gavin, Skeete, Heffron and Turner were young prospects in tough fights that they were 95% certain to win. I'd like to have seen at least one of the support fights being a scrap with some uncertainty over the outcome. This is not to say that good prospects don't need to be carefully matched - they do. But an entire card with just one fight carrying doubt over the result is far from perfect.

Seconded. If you would seriously pay to go a card with one (on paper) 'live' fight on, you're very easily pleased. Depends what you want though - if you like seeing the prospects moving through a couple of gears, fine.

DIRT SUGAR wrote:You can't blame Frank for last night's withdrawals... who'd be a promoter!?!

But there was only one withdrawal - Tony Bellew. Jason Cook was drafted in as Frankie Gavins original opponent wasn't deemed big enough to co-headline (for which Warren can be held responsible - Guebbas didn't withdraw) and when the card was originally mooted Liam Walsh and Jamie Cox were both due to fight but no explanation for their non appearance was provided.

Promoters should be cut some slack when an originally decent card is torn asunder by drop-outs, but last night shows that one good fight (Bellew - McKenzie II) can cover up a multitude of sins.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

earsjohn wrote:

MatthewS wrote:I'd go to see a show of that quality every week. Billy Morgan deserved to be shown on the telly too, he had a great almost perfect performance against a tough opponent. If Bellew had fought it would have taken the show from good to great, but IMO if every small-hall show was as good as that, we'd all be happy.

That's an interesting viewpoint. As I saw it last nights card had one 50-50 fight on paper (Larry v Big John) while Gavin, Skeete, Heffron and Turner were young prospects in tough fights that they were 95% certain to win. I'd like to have seen at least one of the support fights being a scrap with some uncertainty over the outcome. This is not to say that good prospects don't need to be carefully matched - they do. But an entire card with just one fight carrying doubt over the result is far from perfect.

Seconded. If you would seriously pay to go a card with one (on paper) 'live' fight on, you're very easily pleased. Depends what you want though - if you like seeing the prospects moving through a couple of gears, fine.

I think that while Gavins fight wasnt 50-50 neither was it 95-5, Lomax was live enough and not in trouble - the corner pulled him because it was clear he was a level below but thats not the same as being stamped on. They key word in ears' post is young... Skeete, Heffron, Turner, Patterson and Morgan had 29 completed rounds between them before last night - who should they be fighting? If other fighters had been on the show, that is a valid point, but we know how hard it can be to keep a show together. Its a bit like Gladiator, this 'are you not entertained?'. And the games not played on paper, as they say.

DIRT SUGAR wrote:You can't blame Frank for last night's withdrawals... who'd be a promoter!?!

No, he can't be blamed for Bellew's injury, but the rest lies firmly at his door. Why is it that any Warren show is announced and immediately followed by cries of "like that'll ever happen"? Because he has such extensive history is why...Mitchell vs Murray is just the most recent example of an advertised fight that had little chance of going ahead.

Furthermore, I do find it slightly annoying that Warren is so much about protecting prospects. Yes, we all recognise that the average fighter needs time to develop - but so many Warren fighters go to 15-0 or so without ever fighting anyone, so the numbers mean nothing. Would it hurt for a 6-0 prospect to fight another 6-0 prospect so that we get an idea of who the real prospect actually is?

Failing that, why not have a crossroads fight or two on each show? The Wembley Bill - without Sky's money I'll add - featured Watson/O'Donnell and and Daws/Theophane for titles - both pick 'em fights - and Fury vs some Brazilian lump which was never likely to be a pick em but at least had an unbeaten opponent rather than a journeyman who found out about the fight on Wednesday evening after a 12 hour shift...

I know what you're saying, Matt. But I think most people would like to pay for a bill where there are three fights which are at least 70-30. I don't think that's too much to ask. We've been conditioned to accepting sh1te. Prospects should be having learning fights. But there should be other matches to bolster a card. And earsjohn is right, of course.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:I know what you're saying, Matt. But I think most people would like to pay for a bill where there are three fights which are at least 70-30. I don't think that's too much to ask. We've been conditioned to accepting sh1te. Prospects should be having learning fights. But there should be other matches to bolster a card. And earsjohn is right, of course.

We had a thread a little while ago, which I think worked well, where posters used a given budget related to the ratings points on here, and put together a card. I'd like to see that again.

I don't think its too much either, and as someone said above, the Bellew fight did leave the card shallow.

If I had time I could go to see West Ham every other week, for £40. I enjoyed last night more than I do going to Upton Park, even when we win. QED.

Question: I've been to a show in the past where the main event fighter pulled out amongst others but the show still went ahead. I rang the promoter in question to get a refund and he basically said no chance. I know all tickets say "bouts subject to change".

So has anyone ever managed to get a refund after a bill changes dramatically from what was originally proposed?

I feel for promoters when this happens, it's a nightmare. But its also a punters nightmare too.

orbtastic wrote: What time did the SKY card start?

I think it was 8?

whicker wrote:

orbtastic wrote: What time did the SKY card start?

I think it was 8?

Ah right, in that case the only bouts shown live were Larry & Frankie's.

orbtastic wrote:

whicker wrote:

orbtastic wrote: What time did the SKY card start?

I think it was 8?

Ah right, in that case the only bouts shown live were Larry & Frankie's.

was Heffron not televised then?

It was, but I don't think it was live. Could be wrong.

I've deleted it off the sky + now so don't know without downloading it.

orbtastic wrote:It was, but I don't think it was live. Could be wrong.

I've deleted it off the sky + now so don't know without downloading it.

if you watched it between larry and frankie then id say it was live...

yeah, I actually can't remember, was doing 2 things at once when I watched the broadcast

orbtastic wrote:yeah, I actually can't remember, was doing 2 things at once when I watched the broadcast

fair play.