Tonight's Prizefighter from a Purist

some good lads on there last night

 

I agree with what most have said. Prizefighter went stale when they started introducing all these old pros trying to kickstart there careers. Last night proved the concept can work. Young hungrey pros who all came to win at all costs. None of them came to coast to the final, they all put it on the line every fight. It's a nice payday and its also put there names out there. I wouldn't mind seeing 6 out the 8 again

 

Quite like to see Gaynor v Foot at 9 or 12 rounds.

 

Enjoyed last nights,was Impressed with a lot of the fighters Evans v Eggington was a good tear up. Foot was a good winner and the final was decent. If Evans had landed that body shot earlier it might have been his night. Think fight of the night had to be Eggington v Evans though. The lad looked like you could blow him over but is hard as nails,did his career no harm at all last night. Foot,Eggington,Evans and Chad(cant remember 2nd name)were all good.

 

I didn't say otherwise. I said he was "thinking of the concept" which is different to indicating this is Hearn's invention. It's not.

I don't see why people have such a big issue with Prizefighter. Whether it's good or not relies solely upon the quality of the fights, not the format of the tournament. If you get a load of **** fighters in it who stink it out, yeah, it'll be a terrible night but if you get 6 hungry, determined lads who are desperate to win, it'll turn out to be an entertaining night, just like it was yesterday. Nobody has 'lost' anything but several fighters gained something and there are a few new names to look out for, especially Foot. Furthermore, it was a great night of TV entertainment and there would have been plenty of casual fans who loved it.

Where exactly is the issue? People seem to dislike Prizefighter without being able to rationalise their feelings for it. The fighters like it, the TV companies like it, the advertisers like it, casual fans like it...it just seems to be a few 'purists' who are blindly against the format for the sake of it.

 

Plenty of people have explained why they don't like it, but the defenders just ignore that and keep coming out with the same thing. All I can tell you is why I don't like it.

1 - it forces fighters to adopt one basic tactic - be aggressive
2 - fighters who have pressure styles tend to be at a disadvantage, and counter-punchers also end up losing out because judges score for aggression
3 - the standard of fighters involved, along with the inherent bias towards aggression, tend to mean fights end up as unedifying mauling competitions
4 - the three round format is dreadful - again, it favours aggression over skill or tactics. The only tactic is to be aggressive

That, to me, just isn't very entertaining or interesting to watch. It focuses too much on one element and I don't think it's genuinely widening interest in the sport. None of my casual boxing mates have ever watched it.

But that's not to say it's always awful. There have been some decent fights in it, just not enough for me to like it. It's a good idea, as IB mentioned, if it gets young, up and coming fighters some exposure, but I'd prefer if it didn't appear on their records.

For example, Derry Matthews is 1-1 with Choi, all because he knew he could make it three rounds without his chin letting him down.

 

Me too,think that would be a good fight over the longer distance. I think Eggington v Evans would be another good fight to be made off the back of last night. The only fighter who didnt do himself justice was Thompson. There is as the sky people were saying most likely some kind of injury there.

 

I disagree. There's definitely place for classy, skilled boxing in Prizefighter. If a fighter is going to throw 100 punches per round, they're going to leave themselves open plenty of times, so a skilled opponent should be able to pick them off rather than be forced into trading and throw 100 punches themselves.

Surely this is a problem with judging though? The fights should be scored in the same manner a 12 round fight is. If there is a change in mentality, that's a fault against the judges, not the format.

This is true and it's part of the reason Prizefighter can be so scrappy. I'm not a fan of those bouts, nobody is. However, it's part of boxing. When I do see an ugly bout like that, I'm just thankful it's in a 3 rounder rather than for the British title over 12

Why? It isn't in amateur boxing, so why is the only way to win in Prizefighter to be aggressive? There's room for classy boxing. The format doesn't dictate the style of the fighter, nor do they need to fight one way to win. A guy like Rigo could fight in a Prizefighter event and win every single round at a slow pace, just by picking his will opponents off.

I think this is a big issue with a lot of the people who dislike it. A average fighter can beat someone who is better than them, and then it's on their record forever, which is perhaps unfair on the better fighter who'd win a 12 round bout. However, I'd counter that by saying that nobody really cares about Prizefighter losses. Yeah, it's on their record forever but no serious boxing historian or fan is going to consider a Prizefighter loss legitimate. Nobody 'loses' in Prizefighter and has their career suffer from it. In fact, as you saw last night with Eggington, a loss on Prizefighter is beneficial to their career because they show they're pretty decent, fun fighters.

Ultimately though, if the fighters think it's worth the risk, why should fans care? Robin Reid lost to Webb on Prizefighter but he knew that could always happen and he took the risk anyway. Reid would have likely won in a 12 round bout but he took the gamble and it didn't pay off for him. However, I think when Reid retires and people look at his career, they won't look at the loss to Webb in the same light as the loss to Anderson, for example.

 

Agreed. The next Prizefighter will be nowhere near as exciting as the one last night, I don't think, but it's tough for Hearn though because the fighters who sell tickets and attract TV audiences don't come to fight, and those who come to fight don't attract big TV numbers.

Personally, I'd like to just see young, up and comers in Prizefighter because it makes for more entertainment but I'm not sure Sky would be too happy with that.

 

You could have stopped there. You can provide your view all you want, it doesn't mean I'm wrong or you're right. I don't like the format.

Don't ask for people to explain why they don't like something and then try and disprove their personal feelings. That's just silly.

 

I think the prizefighter shows divide fans a little bit. I dont mind them and really enjoyed last nights show. One of my mates who is a big fan of the sport hates the shows and wont watch them at all.

 

Obviously I'd rather watch title fights and big domestic bouts, but the more boxing on telly the better for me. It gives lesser known boxers exposure and a chance of a good payday, which is fare enough.

 

That's pretty much the point of a forum, mate :good I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just disagreeing.

 

I went last night and it was class, really entertaining night. Had to miss the final to get the last train back though, which was a pisser.

I thought Eddie's comments on the latest i-Film London interview were interesting. He compared the Prizefighter format to 20/20 cricket, which was a fair point if perhaps a slightly unfortunate one. The growth of 20/20 is already proving seriously detrimental to the development of more subtle skills which are needed for longer formats of cricket, and just because the general public have short attention spans and there's money to be made out of them doesn't mean that administrators should just ignore this.

That being said, there's a place for 20/20 in cricket just like there's a place for Prizefighter in boxing, it's just important that it isn't overdone. Fortunately it doesn't look likely to happen with boxing, but I wonder if Eddie can appreciate people's reservations about it from this point of view. Hopefully he'll read DFTaylors post up the page, seen as he clearly comes on this forum quite a bit.

 

saturdays Prizefighter was 1 of the best for a while. Chad Gaynor would have won if the format was longer. It was good to see young & up & comers (with ability) slugging it out. I dont mind sometimes seeing an old face coming back into prizefighter now & then but really it should be about young fighters with 7 or 8 fights under there belt & winning records fighting it out. The lightweights 1 was good as well.