BoxRec

Did anyone else just see that on Ringside? Broner is lining him up apparently.

smoggy7188 wrote:Did anyone else just see that on Ringside? Broner is lining him up apparently.

Haven't seen it yet, come on Sykes

jessi wrote:

smoggy7188 wrote:Did anyone else just see that on Ringside? Broner is lining him up apparently.

Haven't seen it yet, come on Sykes

Pure destuction I think, different levels, different planets.

I hope Gary gets it but a mullering seems on the cards in all honesty.

Good luck to Sykes.

I'd like to see more British fighters in Sykes' position getting world title shots out of the blue like this. They have little to lose and a lot to gain.

Yes goodluck to sykes as he will need a shitload of it.

He's good lad and a nice guy.

But there's only 1 result here.

Hope he get through it with a nice payday and with his face still attached to his head.

[quote="Horse"]Good luck to Sykes.

I'd like to see more British fighters in Sykes' position getting world title shots out of the blue like this. They have little to lose and a lot to gain.[/quote agreed mate if your not in it you wont win it

billy nelson wrote:

Horse wrote:Good luck to Sykes.

I'd like to see more British fighters in Sykes' position getting world title shots out of the blue like this. They have little to lose and a lot to gain.[/quote agreed mate if your not in it you wont win it

Politely disagree. A bad loss can be massively damaging to a fighter's confidence and inhibit their development. I want to see British fighters not just in credible world title fights, but winning them, and that requires timing on occasion.
In terms of this specific example, this would be real 'lamb to the slaughter' stuff that I for one can't get remotely enthused about.

Horse wrote:Good luck to Sykes.

I'd like to see more British fighters in Sykes' position getting world title shots out of the blue like this. They have little to lose and a lot to gain.

10-rounder mate, not a title shot (allegedly)

Glyn Leach wrote:

Horse wrote:Good luck to Sykes.

I'd like to see more British fighters in Sykes' position getting world title shots out of the blue like this. They have little to lose and a lot to gain.

10-rounder mate, not a title shot (allegedly)

That's a shame, but it is still a good opportunity.

Deserter wrote:Politely disagree. A bad loss can be massively damaging to a fighter's confidence and inhibit their development. I want to see British fighters not just in credible world title fights, but winning them, and that requires timing on occasion.
In terms of this specific example, this would be real 'lamb to the slaughter' stuff that I for one can't get remotely enthused about.

Is Sykes ever likely to get in a position where he is likely to win a world title? If he turned this down he probably wouldn't get another chance.

Horse wrote:

Deserter wrote:Politely disagree. A bad loss can be massively damaging to a fighter's confidence and inhibit their development. I want to see British fighters not just in credible world title fights, but winning them, and that requires timing on occasion.
In terms of this specific example, this would be real 'lamb to the slaughter' stuff that I for one can't get remotely enthused about.

Is Sykes ever likely to get in a position where he is likely to win a world title? If he turned this down he probably wouldn't get another chance.

Yes, and that's fair comment in this specific case. However, from my perspective as a fan (as opposed to the fighter himself), it's not a match I can feel comfortable with in the same way I didn't enjoy the Lockett-Pavlik and Barrera-Wenton debacles. Levels apart.

Deserter wrote:Yes, and that's fair comment in this specific case. However, from my perspective as a fan (as opposed to the fighter himself), it's not a match I can feel comfortable with in the same way I didn't enjoy the Lockett-Pavlik and Barrera-Wenton debacles. Levels apart.

I won't be getting very excited about it, but I wasn't excited about Hope vs Proksa either and Hope surprised me and won that.

Horse wrote:

Deserter wrote:Yes, and that's fair comment in this specific case. However, from my perspective as a fan (as opposed to the fighter himself), it's not a match I can feel comfortable with in the same way I didn't enjoy the Lockett-Pavlik and Barrera-Wenton debacles. Levels apart.

I won't be getting very excited about it, but I wasn't excited about Hope vs Proksa either and Hope surprised me and won that.

This is about levels though. Broner will destroy Sykes. Hopefully in the first round because he really could hurt Sykes here.

Grab the opportunity Mr Sykes,

You can possibly tell your kids 'your fought a great in Vegas' if everything people predict for broner comes to fruition.

G0mez wrote:Grab the opportunity Mr Sykes,

You can possibly tell your kids 'your fought a great in Vegas' if everything people predict for broner comes to fruition.

Aye, that's a good shout.

I assume they sought out a British opponent for a reason. Are they trying to build Broner up to the Sky audience, with it being Khan undercard?

J-C wrote:I assume they sought out a British opponent for a reason. Are they trying to build Broner up to the Sky audience, with it being Khan undercard?

Is it definitely on Sky?

Glyn Leach wrote:

J-C wrote:I assume they sought out a British opponent for a reason. Are they trying to build Broner up to the Sky audience, with it being Khan undercard?

Is it definitely on Sky?

Not sure actually Glyn. I just assumed it was because they showed the last one, I also thought I remembered reading that Khan was back with Sky now.

Ouch!

Deserter wrote:

billy nelson wrote:

Horse wrote:Good luck to Sykes.

I'd like to see more British fighters in Sykes' position getting world title shots out of the blue like this. They have little to lose and a lot to gain.[/quote agreed mate if your not in it you wont win it

Politely disagree. A bad loss can be massively damaging to a fighter's confidence and inhibit their development. I want to see British fighters not just in credible world title fights, but winning them, and that requires timing on occasion.
In terms of this specific example, this would be real 'lamb to the slaughter' stuff that I for one can't get remotely enthused about.

completly agree with the above, all we have to look at is jennings vs cotto and lockett vs pavlick as prime examples

J-C wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:

J-C wrote:I assume they sought out a British opponent for a reason. Are they trying to build Broner up to the Sky audience, with it being Khan undercard?

Is it definitely on Sky?

Not sure actually Glyn. I just assumed it was because they showed the last one, I also thought I remembered reading that Khan was back with Sky now.

Wouldn't surprise me to see the fight on Primetime TBH. You might be right, maybe Khan is contracted to Sky, but they'll go where the money is I imagine. Apparently BoxNat put in a very big bid for Froch-Bute, they might have done the same here. Very competitive out there now.

Glyn Leach wrote:

J-C wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote: Is it definitely on Sky?

Not sure actually Glyn. I just assumed it was because they showed the last one, I also thought I remembered reading that Khan was back with Sky now.

Wouldn't surprise me to see the fight on Primetime TBH. You might be right, maybe Khan is contracted to Sky, but they'll go where the money is I imagine. Apparently BoxNat put in a very big bid for Froch-Bute, they might have done the same here. Very competitive out there now.

What are allegedly paying for things with. Look at the promotors 2011 accounts! Its live on sky sports 1.

J-C wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:

J-C wrote:I assume they sought out a British opponent for a reason. Are they trying to build Broner up to the Sky audience, with it being Khan undercard?

Is it definitely on Sky?

Not sure actually Glyn. I just assumed it was because they showed the last one, I also thought I remembered reading that Khan was back with Sky now.

On Ringside they mentioned about the fights they have this month and then said something about a very exciting May including the rematch of the year Peterson v Khan. So almost certain unless something changes very soon they have it. Plus I think when they showed the last fight they said it was atleast a 3 fight deal.