BoxRec

billy bessey wrote:people are turning to m.m.a?
the salem fight was o.k the british title fight was terrible yes brook would outclass most. has anyone seen a british title fight being stopped in just the second round because someone is being outclassed? then they show walsh 6-0 v a 4-42 lad then after that a 10-0 former amateur star against a lad who had lost his last 18 i have turned it off now but im gonna be gutted if i miss the mitchell 8-0 v deakin1-17

and before anyone says yes i know you have record padding fights but you shouldnt on t.v not as bad them fights anyway

Mate - you better call this thread a spolier - but by the sounds of it I did a good thing cancelling Sky Sports!

As for MMA - BJ Penn Vs GSP tomorrow..Setanta!

Agree with everythin Billy says ....... piss poor bill by a piss poor promoter!!!

Just think i'm payin for fuckin sky sports to watch this sport live!!!!!!!!!!!


As for tomorrow love Penn but GSP wins this hands down!!!!

Sky Sports need to exert some quality control.

When a weak title fight like tonight's is accepted for broadcast they should be looking for 1 or 2 50/50 support fights that will set the bill alight.

As Billy says the obsession with the unbeaten record needs to be dropped - sometimes a learning loss against a wily vet can be the best thing to happen to a young pro. One defeat does not spell the end of a career.

Years ago boxing wasn't obsessed with perfect ledgers. In the modern age of multiple world champions at each weight this fantasy of unbeaten and unbeatable boxers can be indulged through careful match making and by hiding behind promotional politics.

I am sick and tired of tepid boxing bills to be honest. I used to watch all boxing that was available on TV and at live shows in my area - these days I am a lot more jaded and, as a consequence, a lot more choosey over what I watch.

Needless to say I gave tonight's BS a miss.

This must be the only time I've ever defending Fwarren and a poor British title match.

They need more depth on the undercard, for sure.

But after facing his mandatory, a 22 year old gets a voluntary and takes him out early. It was a poor match. But I do think that Brook is a bit special and would have been quite capable of taking out much better opponents just as quickly.

He did it to the 'real' champ even more quickly, after all.

But, in general, I couldn't agree more re quality control, etc, especially the dire Commonwealth matches we've been getting.

As you say Terry, the focus on the ..'and 0' record needs to be lost. I have mentioned on here before in the past we should match 10-0 v 10-0 fighters against each other & the winner progresses & the loser starts again that way we end up with fighters tested early on & without artificially padded records.

Just think in terms of population & size it is tougher to be Texas state champ than it is British champ & i imagine there are more active fighters in the US

You name a legend of the ring to me who has an 'and 0' record????????????????????

(and please do not quote Joe Calzaghe!!!!!!!)

Fair point, but in my opinion not a true legend!

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:This must be the only time I've ever defending Fwarren and a poor British title match.

They need more depth on the undercard, for sure.

But after facing his mandatory, a 22 year old gets a voluntary and takes him out early. It was a poor match. But I do think that Brook is a bit special and would have been quite capable of taking out much better opponents just as quickly.

He did it to the 'real' champ even more quickly, after all.

But, in general, I couldn't agree more re quality control, etc, especially the dire Commonwealth matches we've been getting.

I am the same as you Ian - I have no problem at all with Kell taking a voluntary defence. The kid is proper class and will take out plenty of fighters early when he has the bit between his teeth.

I have seen a fair bit of Elwell on the way up with im being from around these parts and the former Marine is always fit, with decent skills: He is no mug. (the tough fight he gave John O'Donnell proved that for me) but Sky Sports, as the TV company, should have been looking for a couple of good quality even support card fights to bolster this main event.

Without having seen the broadcast, it doesn't sound like the paying viewer got that.

Are they building a record, or are they building a fighter?

Good that Brook is KOing ppl on TV, but bloody hell...

Brook is special - but - yep the quality needs to be higher!!

Has there ever been a worse card on Sky? And the one from the Friday before was pretty poor too.

The obsession with an unbeaten record is a curse in domestic boxing. A loss can sometimes take an aspiring fighter out of the comfort zone and really benefit him later in the career. One of the main problems I have with these recent shows is not solely the one-sided nature of the main event but the fact of a piss-poor undercard to go along with it. Where's the double headers? Solid support bouts? 50/50 matchups...even prospect v prospect occasionally.

A case in point is Chris Burton V Sam Sexton in the Prizefighter final. Both were young, hungry fighters and came out wanting it, which showed. Burton lost but is now more determined to bounce back while Sexton put himself back onto the radar after a loss to Chisora, which was proof in itself that Frank can match his stable in matches other than ones where one fighter is passing the torch to the next i.e. Cook V Arthur.

billy bessey wrote:people are turning to m.m.a?
the salem fight was o.k the british title fight was terrible yes brook would outclass most. but has anyone seen a british title fight being stopped in just the second round because someone is being outclassed? then they show walsh 6-0 v a 4-42 lad then after that a 10-0 former amateur star against a lad who had lost his last 18 i have turned it off now but im gonna be gutted if i miss the mitchell 8-0 v deakin1-17 fight

and before anyone says yes i know you have record padding fights but you shouldnt on t.v not as bad them fights anyway

I agree, yeah.

Whats on next week?

agreed it was very weak. I had high hopes for sky sports when FW went to setanta and sky said they'd be spending the money on quality matchups instead. It looked good for a bit but now its all gone downhill. I cancelled sky the other week.
I hope they actually take notice when people tell them why they're cancelling.

Just curious, does anyone know what the viewing figures go like for the non-live undercard bouts?

Sky's timing means the main event is shown first, then undercard bouts, which isn't the logical way round! A good undercard should be entertainment to warm you up for the main event.

Also the non-live factor takes a bit away from the appeal.

Other than keen fans (guys like... us!) does anyone sit through these?

Sven Ottke is the man who gave Germany the reputation of bad decisions. He got more gifts than Santa.

DG. wrote:Mate - you better call this thread a spolier - but by the sounds of it I did a good thing cancelling Sky Sports!

Why? Given it was a live broadcast, the post was after the event. If somebody has recorded it, then it's up to them to avoid the result until they watch it. It always bugs me when people come on boxing sites and then complain about learning a result they were trying to avoid. If you're tying to stay dry, you don't go for a walk in the rain!

Does anyone have a direct email address to Sky?