Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Tony Bellew vs. Nathan Cleverly II



Frutos

.
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patron
May 3, 2006
35,569
Northumberland
The big fight night is here, supported by a cracking undercard as follows:

Nathan Cleverly v Tony Bellew (12 rounds, Cruiserweight)

Anthony Joshua v Michael Sprott (10 rounds, WBC International Heavyweight Title)

George Groves v Denis Douglin (12 rounds, WBC Silver Super-Middleweight Title)

James DeGale v Marco Antonio Periban (12 rounds, Super-Middleweight)

Scott Quigg v Hidenori Ohtake (12 rounds, WBA World Super-Bantamweight Title)

Callum Smith v Nikola Sjekloca (12 rounds, WBC International Super-Middleweight Title)

Jamie McDonnell v Javier Chacon (12 rounds, WBA World Bantamweight Title)

Thoughts and predictions?

As far as the Main Event goes, I reckon Bellew by stoppage in 9 or 10 rounds of a cracking fight.
 








Cloughie

New member
Jun 7, 2009
426
I agree. Amazed that a domestic fight lacking two World Class fighters could ever be a PPV.

What time is the main events ring walk?

Oh, Cleverly win. Late, late stoppage or on unanimous decision.
 


Cloughie

New member
Jun 7, 2009
426
The worst PPV card EVER and you can't be a boxing fan if you call that a cracking undercard, all the home fighters are between 1/10 & 1/150 to win

Is Hearn the new Warren?
 








big nuts

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2011
4,866
Hove
Just called Sky to voice my displeasure at this Box Office event. When I explained that this just isn't a fight worthy of a pay per view event, the advisor said "it is a title fight" I obviously corrected him on this and then he mentioned the undercard and I replied that there isn't one fighter under 7/1 in the betting.

He ended up offering me half price Sky Sports for 3 months as I threatened to cancel my subscription as this is the quality of fight which should be on the standard channel.

Saved £33 with the phone call but I still refuse to pay £17 for a non-title fight where both fighters were shown up horribly when stepping up in class. I've got Box Nation so I'll watch Pacquiao tomorrow morning and I'm not completely adverse to Box Office events when it's a top quality fight and whilst I think it's an interesting and even contest the quality isn't there.

Hopefully the event flops otherwise look forward to several others next year such as:-

Quigg Vs Frampton
Groves Vs De Gale 2
Khan Vs Brook - which might be the only one worth paying for IMO
 




pornomagboy

wake me up before you gogo who needs potter when
May 16, 2006
6,015
peacehaven
What time is the main fight
 


Cloughie

New member
Jun 7, 2009
426
At least Frank Warren put on bona fide top fighters like Nigel Benn and Prince Naseem when he did PPV's

Being honest, who has he got on his books who is as distinguished a fighter as those two?
If people are willing to pay for it - why wouldn't he put it on? Personally I hope people refuse to pay it and Matchroom have a rethink.
 






Ernest

Stupid IDIOT
Nov 8, 2003
42,739
LOONEY BIN
Just called Sky to voice my displeasure at this Box Office event. When I explained that this just isn't a fight worthy of a pay per view event, the advisor said "it is a title fight" I obviously corrected him on this and then he mentioned the undercard and I replied that there isn't one fighter under 7/1 in the betting.

He ended up offering me half price Sky Sports for 3 months as I threatened to cancel my subscription as this is the quality of fight which should be on the standard channel.

Saved £33 with the phone call but I still refuse to pay £17 for a non-title fight where both fighters were shown up horribly when stepping up in class. I've got Box Nation so I'll watch Pacquiao tomorrow morning and I'm not completely adverse to Box Office events when it's a top quality fight and whilst I think it's an interesting and even contest the quality isn't there.

Hopefully the event flops otherwise look forward to several others next year such as:-

Quigg Vs Frampton
Groves Vs De Gale 2
Khan Vs Brook - which might be the only one worth paying for IMO

A proper bill next week to look forward to
 


BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
In yesterdays papers De Gale said Froch will retire rather than fight him as he knows he would lose his titles and would prefer to fight Groves again as he knows he can beat him.
 






Bring back Bryan wade!!

I wanna caravan for me ma
Jun 28, 2010
4,318
Hassocks
Just called Sky to voice my displeasure at this Box Office event. When I explained that this just isn't a fight worthy of a pay per view event, the advisor said "it is a title fight" I obviously corrected him on this and then he mentioned the undercard and I replied that there isn't one fighter under 7/1 in the betting.

He ended up offering me half price Sky Sports for 3 months as I threatened to cancel my subscription as this is the quality of fight which should be on the standard channel.

Saved £33 with the phone call but I still refuse to pay £17 for a non-title fight where both fighters were shown up horribly when stepping up in class. I've got Box Nation so I'll watch Pacquiao tomorrow morning and I'm not completely adverse to Box Office events when it's a top quality fight and whilst I think it's an interesting and even contest the quality isn't there.

Hopefully the event flops otherwise look forward to several others next year such as:-

Quigg Vs Frampton
Groves Vs De Gale 2
Khan Vs Brook - which might be the only one worth paying for IMO

I think i will have a go at that myself ;)
 












D

Deleted member 18477

Guest
For next weekend do you have to subscribe to box nation to watch the Eubank fight? Or can you buy a one off fight like with Sky box office?

This could be a long night tonight! Still 4 fights left!
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here