Is Mitchell v Burns on the undercard of Haye v Chisora?

I read an article last week saying it was confirmed but haven't heard anything from any of the boxing websites that I follow. If so, who wins? Personally I think Kevin takes Ricky's title...

My guess would be Warren initially planned this for the undercard but having seen how tickets are shifting will have decided it is a big expense for a show that appears to be pulling in fans irrespective of the undercard.

i saw haye tweet that only 10,000 tickets left is this true? and whats the attendance for upton park for boxing. seems like all the numpty football fans have fell for this hook line and sinker. be very suprised if its not a easy nights work for haye

More than possible CnR I know they were saying 17,000 had been shifted in the first couple of days. Think they are planning on setting it up for 40,000. Believe there were 20,000 at Mitchell Kats and there was comfortably rom to increase that by a considerable amount.

Wasn't Mitchell/Burns scheduled in before Haye/Chisora? I think it was originally planned as the headline fight. Perhaps FW has decided that it's too big to be on the undercard, as they could get decent numbers in their own right on another card.

This is my concern with boxnation (one of them). This fight should be on a stacked undercard, but because Warren needs to spread his fights out, he will prob not put it on the card. Argh.

Seanusarrilius wrote:This is my concern with boxnation (one of them). This fight should be on a stacked undercard, but because Warren needs to spread his fights out, he will prob not put it on the card. Argh.

I see your point but in fairness he was trying to get Povetkin vs Rahman and i'd be surprised in MItchell isn't on the card whether it be against Burns or not

Unbeatable Georgey Groves wrote:

Seanusarrilius wrote:This is my concern with boxnation (one of them). This fight should be on a stacked undercard, but because Warren needs to spread his fights out, he will prob not put it on the card. Argh.

I see your point but in fairness he was trying to get Povetkin vs Rahman and i'd be surprised in MItchell isn't on the card whether it be against Burns or not

Rahman weighed in at 284 in last fight. I will say no more than that.

Hope Burns v Mitchell is on there. Genuine pick em

Think is is staggering Rahman can still be considered worthy of being anywhere near a world title ring even for a belt as devalued as the one Povetkin holds, was ordinary even when he was at his best, has made a decent living out of getting Lewis when he could not be bothered to train or focus.

rowley wrote:Think is is staggering Rahman can still be considered worthy of being anywhere near a world title ring even for a belt as devalued as the one Povetkin holds, was ordinary even when he was at his best, has made a decent living out of getting Lewis when he could not be bothered to train or focus.

i agree Rahman's poor but tbf to him he was mandatory so not much Povetkin can do

Suppose not UGG but seriously how does he end up as mandatory, since getting chased out of the ring by Wlad he has beaten five absolute nobodies, is that really now enough to earn you a world title shot?

rowley wrote:Suppose not UGG but seriously how does he end up as mandatory, since getting chased out of the ring by Wlad he has beaten five absolute nobodies, is that really now enough to earn you a world title shot?

i guess in theory no, but in context who else can you say deserves it more? apart from a Huck rematch you have perhaps Pulev, Arreola or Adamek - apart from that you have the young american heavies who will rot on undercards for the next few years, and euros such as Boystov who are 35-0 but have been in maybe one 12 round fight