Brook v Bizier

That_Guy

Eubank fight finished just in time for this one. SS1 now.

That_Guy

Bizier looks like he'd rather be anywhere else.

jayo26

Your one holding the Canadian fan is a bit of alright.

Straight Edge Punk

This is embarrassing, why is Brook fighting this nobody?

That_Guy

jayo26 wrote: »

Your one holding the Canadian fan is a bit of alright.

Only thing worth looking at in this "fight".

Mandatory defences are an absolute joke. It really does nothing for either fighter.

Straight Edge Punk

All done, pathetic.

jayo26

**** I forgot im watching it on record after the eubank fight haha. Dirt fight anyway.

That_Guy

Eddie Hearn will struggle to hype Brook up after this.

megadodge

That_Guy wrote: »

Only thing worth looking at in this "fight".

Mandatory defences are an absolute joke. It really does nothing for either fighter.

???????

Would you prefer boxers just box whoever they want and avoid the top contenders then?

Johner

36-0 and fought one decent opponent, Brook is a ****ing joke.

FTA69

This is why people watch UFC, once you have a card for that you're guaranteed evenly matched fights with the best of the best fighting. Tonight I've watched six odd fights consisting of Eastern European journeymen with 25 losses getting hammered as well as utter jokes of bouts. There's too much chaff to sift through that just alienates the casual fan.

Things like Eubank v Blackwell on terrestrial TV is great to see though.

That_Guy

Eddie Hearn is some spoofer.

That_Guy

megadodge wrote: »

???????

Would you prefer boxers just box whoever they want and avoid the top contenders then?

The level of these mandatory defence fighters are a joke. There doesn't seem to be any sort of meritocracy about them at all.

They need to stop pussyfooting about and make the big fights but I think Hearn is slightly worried of losing his cash cow.

FTA69 wrote: »

This is why people watch UFC, once you have a card for that you're guaranteed evenly matched fights with the best of the best fighting. Tonight I've watched six odd fights consisting of Eastern European journeymen with 25 losses getting hammered as well as utter jokes of bouts. There's too much chaff to sift through that just alienates the casual fan.

Things like Eubank v Blackwell on terrestrial TV is great to see though.

Unfair to compare MMA and boxing. They're a different animal.

jayo26

I think the problem with the mandatory fights is there are 3 main body's and its easier for big fights not to happen. In that end of it yeh ufc is better but as was said it's a total different sport.

FTA69

I'm aware the sports are different but its fair to compare and contrast how the different sports are structured. Boxing's politics and alphabet soup of belts is actively working against the sport at this stage, fact. The reality is that fans, casual and diehard alike, just want to see competitive fights and to see the best of the best fight each other. Tuning in to fights to see mismatches and journeymen getting a hiding isn't floating anyone's boat to be honest.

megadodge

That_Guy wrote: »

The level of these mandatory defence fighters are a joke. There doesn't seem to be any sort of meritocracy about them at all.

They need to stop pussyfooting about and make the big fights but I think Hearn is slightly worried of losing his cash cow.

Unfortunately boxing has a long history of undeserving contenders. However, having mandatories means the likes of Wilder can't go on fighting utter nobodies forever.

As for "cash cow", Kell Brook isn't a cash cow - Anthony Joshua is. That's the man that could make Hearn enormous amounts of money.

megadodge

FTA69 wrote: »

I'm aware the sports are different but its fair to compare and contrast how the different sports are structured. Boxing's politics and alphabet soup of belts is actively working against the sport at this stage, fact. The reality is that fans, casual and diehard alike, just want to see competitive fights and to see the best of the best fight each other. Tuning in to fights to see mismatches and journeymen getting a hiding isn't floating anyone's boat to be honest.

Hard to disagree with anything you say there.

mansize

Joshua is the cash cow.

mansize

FTA69 wrote: »

I'm aware the sports are different but its fair to compare and contrast how the different sports are structured. Boxing's politics and alphabet soup of belts is actively working against the sport at this stage, fact. The reality is that fans, casual and diehard alike, just want to see competitive fights and to see the best of the best fight each other. Tuning in to fights to see mismatches and journeymen getting a hiding isn't floating anyone's boat to be honest.

It's what's losing casual fans to MMA.

I hadn't seen that's what you were arguing, but it's costing boxing big time

FTA69

Let's be honest, how many times have people here stayed up til spastic o'clock to watch a fight only to go to bed deflated after watching a lacklustre main event preceded by an often farcical undercard? At least the UFC guarantees a bit of craic.

mansize

FTA69 wrote: »

Let's be honest, how many times have people here stayed up til spastic o'clock to watch a fight only to go to bed deflated after watching a lacklustre main event preceded by an often farcical undercard? At least the UFC guarantees a bit of craic.

More evenly matched fights tbf. Boxing is ruined by promoters protecting their fighters and handpick img fights

mansize

Great fighters like GGG can't get an opponent of his Calibre to fight him

normanoffside

mansize wrote: »

More evenly matched fights tbf. Boxing is ruined by promoters protecting their fighters and handpick img fights

At least the boxers make a decent purse by and large. Even domestic title fighters generally get larger purses than most UFC fighters. I saw that some of the PPV fighters got as little as $14,000 on the recent mcgregor card.
There are some unjust disadvantages to the UFC being a closed shop too.

That_Guy

megadodge wrote: »

As for "cash cow", Kell Brook isn't a cash cow - Anthony Joshua is. That's the man that could make Hearn enormous amounts of money.

I agree Joshua is the cash cow. Sure, Hearn wants the next fight in Sheffield again because it's a guaranteed sell out.

Outside of Sheffield, he isn't a draw. A fight with Khan would do big numbers but I don't think it'll happen anytime soon.

mansize

normanoffside wrote: »

At least the boxers make a decent purse by and large. Even domestic title fighters generally get larger purses than most UFC fighters. I saw that some of the PPV fighters got as little as $14,000 on the recent mcgregor card.
There are some unjust disadvantages to the UFC being a closed shop too.

That tide is changing too as the common punter gives up on boxing and moves to mma

That_Guy

normanoffside wrote: »

At least the boxers make a decent purse by and large. Even domestic title fighters generally get larger purses than most UFC fighters. I saw that some of the PPV fighters got as little as $14,000 on the recent mcgregor card.
There are some unjust disadvantages to the UFC being a closed shop too.

Reebok pay is a bit of a joke with the UFC these days and has been widely criticised. However, these are only disclosed payments. They may get an unofficial bonus after the event which isn't necessarily disclosed.

jayo26

normanoffside wrote: »

At least the boxers make a decent purse by and large. Even domestic title fighters generally get larger purses than most UFC fighters. I saw that some of the PPV fighters got as little as $14,000 on the recent mcgregor card.
There are some unjust disadvantages to the UFC being a closed shop too.

Wouldn't be worried about the purse to be fair whats it matter to us? As long as they are good fights. Seems to be changing now tho with the likes of mcgregor.

megadodge

That_Guy wrote: »

I agree Joshua is the cash cow. Sure, Hearn wants the next fight in Sheffield again because it's a guaranteed sell out.

Outside of Sheffield, he isn't a draw. A fight with Khan would do big numbers but I don't think it'll happen anytime soon.

I don't either, but that's not for lack of trying on Brook's part. He mentions Khan at every possible opportunity, whereas Khan just doesn't seem interested, yet Brook is the one getting criticised.

clever user name

normanoffside wrote: »

At least the boxers make a decent purse by and large. Even domestic title fighters generally get larger purses than most UFC fighters. I saw that some of the PPV fighters got as little as $14,000 on the recent mcgregor card.
There are some unjust disadvantages to the UFC being a closed shop too.

Very true, but what does it matter to the fans how much they make? Money is irrelevant imo...people want to see the best fight the best, end of story. S**t like that tonight shouldn't happen, it was a ridiculous Say what you want about the UFC's pay, but they have the right idea...you don't choose who you fight!

That_Guy

mansize wrote: »

That tide is changing too as the common punter gives up on boxing and moves to mma

I prefer MMA over boxing but there is absolutely nothing better than a big boxing fight.

The British domestic scene actually had some decent fights lately.

Groves/Froch I
Joshua/Whyte
Eubank Jr/Blackwell

As has been mentioned, it's a shame that the different organisations seem at odds with each other to make the fights people want to see.

It's unfair that fighters such as Brook are unable to test themselves due to bad match ups that do nothing for them. He wins? Oh great, another bum goes down.

He loses. Well, that's his hype train derailed.

normanoffside

clever user name wrote: »

Very true, but what does it matter to the fans how much they make? Money is irrelevant imo...people want to see the best fight the best, end of story. S**t like that tonight shouldn't happen, it was a ridiculous Say what you want about the UFC's pay, but they have the right idea...you don't choose who you fight!

I'm just saying that when you run a closed shop like the UFC it is very easy to exploit the fighters. It doesn't sit well with me that lots of big fighters there are making a pittance for what they put themselves through. Entertaining the public is good but the fighters should be fairly paid.
The fact that the likes of Billy Joe Saunders and Andy Lee make more for their fights than 99% of the to UFC fighters shows that the alphabet titles and lack of single governing bodies is good for the fighters themselves. There will always be some great fights in boxing and some stinkers. The IBF and WBA are jokeshop titles at the moment. I actually think that the WBO is fast becoming the second most credible title after the WBC.

mansize

normanoffside wrote: »

I'm just saying that when you run a closed shop like the UFC it is very easy to exploit the fighters. It doesn't sit well with me that lots of big fighters there are making a pittance for what they put themselves through. Entertaining the public is good but the fighters should be fairly paid.
The fact that the likes of Billy Joe Saunders and Andy Lee make more for their fights than 99% of the to UFC fighters shows that the alphabet titles and lack of single governing bodies is good for the fighters themselves. There will always be some great fights in boxing and some stinkers. The IBF and WBA are jokeshop titles at the moment. I actually think that the WBO is fast becoming the second most credible title after the WBC.

Well if there is one promoter, he's making all the money!!! (re UFC)

Can the average man on the street name the heavyweight champ right now?

Doubt it.

FTA69

UFC fighters need a union.

normanoffside

mansize wrote: »

Well if there is one promoter, he's making all the money!!! (re UFC)

Can the average man on the street name the heavyweight champ right now?

Doubt it.

Can the average man on the street name the UFC heavyweight champion? I can't. I think more would know of Fury.

clever user name

normanoffside wrote: »

I'm just saying that when you run a closed shop like the UFC it is very easy to exploit the fighters. It doesn't sit well with me that lots of big fighters there are making a pittance for what they put themselves through. Entertaining the public is good but the fighters should be fairly paid.
The fact that the likes of Billy Joe Saunders and Andy Lee make more for their fights than 99% of the to UFC fighters shows that the alphabet titles and lack of single governing bodies is good for the fighters themselves. There will always be some great fights in boxing and some stinkers. The IBF and WBA are jokeshop titles at the moment. I actually think that the WBO is fast becoming the second most credible title after the WBC.

Not disagreeing with you at all, you're 100% correct. I was just pointing out that the casual fan doesn't care how much the fighters make. Obviously as a fighter its a different story. I'm a boxing fan too, but it just infuriates me the ways its run. So much ducking and diving fights. Just get the f**k on with it.

mansize

normanoffside wrote: »

Can the average man on the street name the UFC heavyweight champion? I can't. I think more would know of Fury.

Not yet... But boxing is declining in popularity at an alarming rate

clever user name

mansize wrote: »

Not yet... But boxing is declining in popularity at an alarming rate

Unfortunately it's true. Andre Ward fighting tonight, one of the best boxers on the planet. Fighting a guy 99% of people haven't heard of. How many people will watch it? Not too many I'd guess, bar the hardcore boxing fans. Sad times.

Richard Hillman

The Brook fight was mandatory. Not his or Eddie Hearne fault.

The overall card however was a disgrace. One of the better performers on the card was an Irish guy who had previously lost 6 fights in a row.

Considering there was no club football on tonight it was a good opportunity to tackle boxings image problem. All we got was people turning up for a purse.

megadodge

mansize wrote: »

Not yet... But boxing is declining in popularity at an alarming rate

I'm afraid I've been hearing that for nearly 40 years now. And I've no doubt it was being said before that too. And if I'm alive in 40 years I'm pretty certain I'll be hearing it then.

I'm tired of having to point out this.

walshb

Very weak card. Lot of sense being posted here regarding these pathetic title fight mismatches. Bizier has a loss to Jo Jo Dan. There's something fooked up that he is a mandatory.

Btw, Mega, Garcia would be too much for Brook!

mansize

megadodge wrote: »

I'm afraid I've been hearing that for nearly 40 years now. And I've no doubt it was being said before that too. And if I'm alive in 40 years I'm pretty certain I'll be hearing it then.

I'm tired of having to point out this.

Are you saying its as popular as ever?

That_Guy

FTA69 wrote: »

UFC fighters need a union.

Don't really want to veer of course but the UFC or MMA in general will never have a union.

The amount of fellow fighters who goad in a fighter's demise when they lose is just ridiculous. They'll never be able to come to any sort of agreement. Sad but true.

megadodge

mansize wrote: »

Are you saying its as popular as ever?

Right now there are professional boxers in more countries than there ever has been, with a wider spread of champions from all over the world (helped by more titles of course, but the point still stands). Look at all the high quality Eastern Europeans that were prevented from turning pro under Communism.

A few years ago Boxing News magazine provided the figures which showed that there were considerably more shows per year and far more active professional boxers in the UK than there were back in the 1960s and 1970s. Obviously I don't have a link because it was in a magazine.

Don't fall into the trap of listening to the whinging American internet posters who think that because they're not dominating boxing the way they used to, it's because "boxing is dying". Worldwide (not a concept most Americans know much about) boxing is in a very healthy state.

holy guacamole

Boxing's biggest problem is the same as it always has been: too many organisations and too many 'world' champions.

Semi-decent fighters can become world champions now and happily avoid the other champs while they earn enough to live off for the rest of their lives.

With no ruling body overseeing the sport there's nothing forcing the champs to fight one another which is why we had to wait almost a decade for the Mayweather Pacquiao fight to happen.

In another era Brook would have had to fight Thurman, Bradley and Garcia to get near a world title and we, the viewing public, would have been the beneficiaries.

megadodge

walshb wrote: »

Btw, Mega, Garcia would be too much for Brook!

I would be happy to put a wager on with you on that result.

Garcia is seriously overrated and I believe Brook is extremely good, even though it's hard to see past the recent weak opposition. However, he deals with them the way you'd expect a top-class fighter to - unlike Garcia.

walshb

Just because there's more boxers and belts and shows does not at all mesn the sport is more popular or loved today.

Andre 3000

megadodge wrote: »

I would be happy to put a wager on with you on that result.

Garcia is seriously overrated and I believe Brook is extremely good, even though it's hard to see past the recent weak opposition. However, he deals with them the way you'd expect a top-class fighter to - unlike Garcia.

The only complete bum Garcia has fought in recent memory is Rod Salka and that led to one of the most devastating KO's of the last 5 years. I don't see how Garcia could have dealt with him any 'better'.

Albeit some being past prime, you cannot consider Guerrero, Paulie, Peterson, Herrera, Judah, Morales etc. weak opposition, they are/were very solid LWW/WW opposition. Dan and Bizier are anything but solid.

megadodge

walshb wrote: »

Just because there's more boxers and belts and shows does not at all mesn the sport is more popular or loved today.

Wha?


More particpants.

In more countries.

More shows.

More members of the public buying tickets and attending boxing events.

But somehow these facts translate into an opinion that "boxing is declining in popularity at an alarming rate"???????

walshb

Popularity isn't solely based on quantity. Appeal and respect and reverence are very important. For me the sport has lost some of this, as well as losing a spark and pizazz!

Andre 3000

The UFC is barely past the drinking age in America and it can compete with Boxing's top events already....and it'll only continue to grow. I mean the last while has been a tough enough time for the UFC with a few of its main cashcows wither losing or being inactive (Rousey, Jones, Silva, GSP). Obviously Conor has been a saviour to them in terms of keeping focus on the organisation but its thriving. You take the main cashcows out of Boxing (Manny, Floyd, Cotto, Canelo) and watch what happens....complete disinterest. I work with kids and several of them are starting MMA classes....it's been ages since I saw or heard a kid say "I do Boxing".

The casual interest isn't there. Just compare the two forums on here, the MMA forum is always wedged and lets face it on here, its more like 8-10 lads having virtual pints at a bar talking about fights rather than a proper forum buzz. You look at the fight night threads over there, massive interest in undercards while here you have casuals ask "what time is the main event/what time does the _____ fight start"? I mean last night Andre Ward, p4p one of the best of the last decade was fighting and I was the only person on who seemed to be watching it live....go figure.

The sport is undoubtedly in decline, is it dead? Not by any means...in fact a rebirth of sorts is due. But there are things in the sport that are doing it no favours, and shoddy match ups are one of the main ones.

Johner

megadodge wrote: »

I would be happy to put a wager on with you on that result.

Garcia is seriously overrated and I believe Brook is extremely good, even though it's hard to see past the recent weak opposition. However, he deals with them the way you'd expect a top-class fighter to - unlike Garcia.

I think Garcia is just one of those fighters that performs better when the opposition is better.

Garcia is 32-0 and Brook 36-0, their respective records don't compare, Garcia has some serious wins on his CV. I think he'd have too much for Brook but it's definitely a decent match up. Brook seriously need to face someone decent next, it's beyond a joke.