BoxRec

It makes interesting reading, if a little confusing. Gary Woolcombe to fight Ryan Rhodes on April 18 live on Sky at the York Hall. But on the same night unbeaten prospects John Murray and John Fewkes meet at the Nottingham Arena (I presume as main support for Carl Froch v Denis Inkin). So does this mean both shows are being shown on Sky? Or has Hennessy Sports shows moved to another TV channel? John McDermott meets Pele Reid on a Saturday March 1 and on the the same night Paul Smith should have a fairly entertaining fight against Cello Renda. Paul Appleby v Martin Lindsay on February 29 should be a classic. Just wondering how many of these fights will go ahead and how many will be televised?

Well I can tell you the Rhodes Woolcombe fight is DEFINITELY on.

Forch Inkin is going to purse bids in Feb. So who knows where it will be and what date.

twenty six wrote:Well I can tell you the Rhodes Woolcombe fight is DEFINITELY on.

a lot of people were saying (on here anyway) that Woolcombe's not proper Brit Champ material.
However, my suspicion is that he will have a bit too much for Rhodes nowadays...................opinions on that one??

I think Rhodes will stop Woolcombe by the seventh.

NEBF,
You seriously need to watch more boxing mate.
To say what you have you cannot possibly have seen any of these two boxers last 6 outings.
Rhodes is unbeaten at LM and it's the other way round.
Rhodes is too powerful for Woolcombe at the weight, and too experienced.
This fight will be over inside the distance and Rhodes will prevail.

twenty six wrote:NEBF,
You seriously need to watch more boxing mate.
To say what you have you cannot possibly have seen any of these two boxers last 6 outings.
Rhodes is unbeaten at LM and it's the other way round.
Rhodes is too powerful for Woolcombe at the weight, and too experienced.
This fight will be over inside the distance and Rhodes will prevail.

thanks for your expert knowledge mate I never thought I'd ever hear the phrase "you need to watch more boxing" directed at me.

you're correct to a point. These 2 aren't my specialist subjects. I though they were both LM though so strength and power I'd have rated them somewhere similar.

I've actually seen a bit of Woolcombe from dishing out beatings to copping one off Facey. (I'd have seen more against Portman if Sky's coverage had been so randomly recorded, highlighted and frankly shit) As for Rhodes, I've seen very little of his recent form..........from what I can gather he dismantled a novice in his last fight and a 2 minute win over a caught cold Buchannan most have been of invaluable benefit to him eh

I'm not saying Rhodes can't fight or doesn't have a chance , and I admit Woolcombe is not exactly "tested" at this level............I just have a HUNCH that over the championship distance the younger man will win in this one.

We will pick up this debate at a later date mate I'm sure

NEBF,
I have no idea of who you are, or your boxing background.
No intention of being rude to you mate, but I stick by my observations on seeing these two's recent pwerformances.
More than happy to resurrect the thread once April has come and gone !
If I've got egg on my face, I'll take my medicine

sorry twentysix, there's an entire forum out there so I'm chucking it open to anyone who wants to put their twopence worth in............no shortage on this forum then

are you with twentysix on Rhodes, or are you as clueless about boxing as me and going for Woolcombe? I'm sure I ain't the only one.

twentysix I'm guessing you though Rhodes would wipe the floor with that Canadian schoolteacher called Otis back in the day? (who to be fair was handy).

So come on folks........Rhodes or Woolcombe? YOU DECIDE.

twenty six wrote:NEBF,
You seriously need to watch more boxing mate.
To say what you have you cannot possibly have seen any of these two boxers last 6 outings.
Rhodes is unbeaten at LM and it's the other way round.
Rhodes is too powerful for Woolcombe at the weight, and too experienced.
This fight will be over inside the distance and Rhodes will prevail.

Mate you're so blinkered towards Rhodes it's unbelievable. You make him out to be King Fecking Kong.

Woolcome is no great shakes either but he's fresher and fitter. He'll take a decision.

PS NEBF ...twentysix is a pal of Rhodes, hence the username. No problem with that, seems a nice chap but needs to be realistic!

Rhodes and Woolcombe will be close, but that's his level now. Neither is better than domestic level. Rhodes has been on a good run of late, but it ends here.

Captain Hook wrote:PS NEBF ...twentysix is a pal of Rhodes, hence the username. No problem with that, seems a nice chap but needs to be realistic!

Rhodes and Woolcombe will be close, but that's his level now. Neither is better than domestic level. Rhodes has been on a good run of late, but it ends here.

cheers skipper

i didn't know 26 was a pal........what's with the nickname like, I know Rhodes set some kind of record.
he was beginning to make me feel like I'd been asleep for the last 2 yrs and missed something.......
hey , no sweat with him being pals with the lad, I think a few of us on here have got boxing pals. Good luck to the pair, I think it will be a close one too, with Rhodes possibly too cute for Woolcombe to get out of there.

We saw Woolcombe get off to a bad start against Facey and he just lost the plot and got desperate and predictable instead of sticking to a game plan............the experience of that painful night alone will be of benefit to him against Rhodes.

Early, I'd say Rhodes.......late I'd say Woolcombe.......I think you might be on the money with Woolcomb on points. (Prime for prime Rhodes without doubt).

Anyone else before I kill the thread?

Hook,
Answer me this. Other than the last Woolcombe fight, how many of Gary's fights have you seen ?
Other than the Lockett fight, how many of Rhodes fights have you seen ?
I've seen several. On that basis I can give view.
King kong my arse. I've watched boxing all my life and now I'm semi retired I'm watching even more.
I'm disappointed more users haven't joined the thread.
This has nothing to do with bias.
I have loads of boxing friends and have no problem at all in telling it as it is.
NEBF - the Grant fight was his first at middleweight against a seasoned pro. Rhodes was just 21 and he was thrown in too early, simple as.
Rhodes hasn't been beaten at LM - and it's where he should have stayed but that's history now.
Grant's record speaks for itself. He even gave RJJ a run for his money at LH.
Look at Woolcombe's record and tell me the best he's faced. Look at Rhode record. Experience counts for a lot, and Rhodes is in th last chance saloon. He will win this fight.

Can't see Rhodes losing this one. It must concern him though, that Maloney won the purse bids . It does seem like Warren perhaps doesn't rate Rhodes any more as he won't have put him on one of his shows for 2 years - or have I got it wrong and he's no longer his promoter?

Woolcombe has always looked fragile to me and I don't see him as some smooth boxer who is going to outbox Rhodes. His power is coming along nicely though and he is starting to put his shots together well but I see Rhodes winning via stoppage around the 5/6 round mark

The purse bids were very close. FW only missed out by 3k. FW is still Rhodes Promotor / Joint Manager.
The difference between the two Promotors is that FW is struggling to keep all of his boxers active and can easily fill his bills, whereas FM has obligations to Sky to fulfill, and he can put this as a headliner at Bethnal Green.
Beagle - if FW wasn't interested / no longer involved, why would he bother bidding at all ?
Maloney's winning bid was very competitive fo what is after all just a domestic match up.

If FW is still his promoter, surely Rhodes is a little cheesed off not to even get
a fight on an undercard in 2 years

Sorry mate you've lost me.
He's fought 5 times in the last 2 years, one of which was at the Millenium Stadium for the WBU against Lockett.
FW was indirectly involved in all of the other Promotions, but they weren't televised.
Why would he be cheesed off ?
He's got his chance now - up to him to take it.

Woolcombe seems like an honest hard working pro and a likeable fella but if Rhodes is in form he should beat Woolcombe who lets be honest is nothing special - probably inside I would have thought. I think if Rhodes had had more 12rounders in his lead up to the Lockett fight he would have won - he seemed a bit worried about going the full 12 and took his foot of the gas letting Lockett outwork him.

twenty six wrote:Sorry mate you've lost me.
He's fought 5 times in the last 2 years, one of which was at the Millenium Stadium for the WBU against Lockett.
FW was indirectly involved in all of the other Promotions, but they weren't televised.
Why would he be cheesed off ?
He's got his chance now - up to him to take it.

The Lockett fight was in 2006
Sports Network have had regular shows since then with big undercards
Whatever you say ,Rhodes must be cheesed off that he hasn't featured in one of them
I'm expecting him to stop Woolcombe

Ermmm - 2006 is less than 2 years ago beagleboy - or have I been in a coma ?
Anyway its small talk about a domestic match up.
Panther - it was always a risk for Rhodes to take the Lockett fight due to a serious back injury. You are right, he didn't see the 36 minutes through but nothing to do with anything other than the injury.
He's fully recovered now and back in the correct weight division.

Despite numerous SN shows , Rhodes hasn't featured on one for 18 months.
His next scheduled fight is a Maloney show in April
If SN do actually put Rhodes on a show in the summer, he won't have appeared on one of their shows for 2years.
Keep up 26, it's not rocket science

So you expect us to believe that Rhodes has not been even a little cheesed off with the situation?

Absolutely.
Far more active than the dark days waiting for Hennessey to use him.

Maybe you have been in a coma 26
First you don't seem to realize that it is 2008
Then you claim he's happy with his promoter not putting him on a show for 2 years
Dark days of Hennessey? Could you explain,please. Did he not put him on for 2 years?

Just thought I'd resurrect this thread as I did say I'd return to the debate with NEBF.
Also, just to put this Promotional crap to bed once and for all, Rhodes is contracted to Wazza until he is 34.
End of.
Hook - wrong mate.