Mitchell V Katsidas II - Yes or No?

So Kevin Mitchell has called for a rematch with Michael Katsidas. Some might say it's pointless, given how decisive Kats initial victory was, and Kevins claims of personal problems are a smokescreen. Others will say Mitchell had genuine problems and would give a much better account second time out. 

Personally it's a fight I'd like to see. From mitchells perspective it will be a good barometer of where he's at - if he can win it might convince some that the first fight was an off night, if he loses it'll show once and for all he's not world level. For Kats it's a winnable fight and good payday, having been outclassed by Guerrero and Marquez since beating Mitchell it's clear kats has become more of a gatekeeper than a divisional top dog. 

Although Mitchell was stopped early before he was boxing decently in the first two rounds, but he walked into some heavy shots which isn't advisable against katsidas at the best if times - let alone if you're not in good condition (as he claims). 

I don't buy it when fighters give excuses after the fight - they should be left outside the ropes if you're willing to climb through them. But I really think a second fight would be a much closer affair and from kevins perspective a necessary one if he's to go down the world title route because he's certainly not ready for Rios yet and if it transpires he's incapable of beating Kats then he'll never be ready. But I think Mitchell deserves credit, to take the Murray fight after 15 months out was bold, and to call for a rematch with the man who humiliated you shows balls and self belief. Anyone else think there's some mileage in a return bout? If not then who should Mitchell fight?

It makes sense to me, like you don't buy into the whole excuses thing. If you turn up not fit to fight more fool you. However a win over Kats would go some way to exorcising the ghost and Kats is well known and fringe world class so would build momentum on the back of the Murray win. The downside is a loss would really mark Mitchell out as a guy who has found his level and as you say Kats has been very much established as a guy below the top men at the weight. However if he is short of top level has to find out sooner or later. Do wonder if the fight sells again though as the first was hardly close.

I'd rather he took another option. I don't see that he is very likely to win and it would dent his confidence. Vasquez would be a better option IMO being a bit more of a boxer type, but not sure who he'd have to fight to gain the necessary ranking. Not a terrible fight though and he'd have a bit of a chance.

It's a fight I'd like to see purely for the reason that Katsidis is never in a bad tussle, and Mitchell gives decent value for money, too. However, at the same time I think Mitchell might be well advised to stay clear of this particular rematch. There was a lot to applaud in his performance on saturday night, but much like the DeGale-Groves bout, the Murray-Mitchell affair showed that while the two of them are good prospects and noteworthy talents, they still have a lot to learn before they can be classed amongst the elite of their divisions.

I think Katsidis stops Mitchell again in a rematch, although probably not quite as early. At 135 lb, Mitchell simply hasn't got the physical presence to hold off a relentless advance, I fear. Murray caught up with him plenty of times and found him with regularity, and that's a recipe for disaster against a proven world class puncher such as Katsidis.

If I were Mitchell I'd look for two or three more European level dust ups before entertaining the likes of Katsidis, Rios etc. He's simply not ready for them yet, in my eyes. That said, I'd certainly be tuning in for Mitchell-Katsidis II if it happens, as it will be entertaining while it lasts.

Its great for boxers to want to avenge a loss - especially if they think they can and expel all doubt ala Lewis

How many on here have hounded Khan for not facing up to Prescott a 2nd time to avenge his defeat? Even though we would all back him to win a return and he would gain nothing from it other then setting his record straight we all would still want him to do it

I think it would be a good move as I think he wants to prove it to himself. I backed him to beat Katsidis the first time and would give him a great chance of beating him in a rematch but he will have to lose his macho tendencies.

What also impressed me about the Murray win (which was so similar to his win over Johanssen) was the variety of work he did with his left hand. Jabs, hooks and uppercuts which he failed to use against Katsidis and he should aim for a points win then I think he would eventually stop him; but getting through those early rounds with out getting involved too much will be key.

It's admirable that Mitchell would look for a rematch and good to see in boxing.

However, it was worrying to see how much bigger and stronger MK looked at the weight in their first fight.

Another mauling by MK could go a long way in undoing the new found confidence Mitchell has surely gained from the Murray fight.

Good for Mitchell, pointless for Katsidas unless he can't get anything better as he's has had two high profile fights since his win over Mitchell, albeit both losses.

Saying this if promoted right again, this could sell big again in the UK or Australia and potentially earn both their highest purses yet.

Makes sense and the logical next step. I would be amazed if the result changes though. Katsidis all the way.

It's a fight I would like to see both are usually good to watch especially Kats. Mitchell could beat him but I think Kats would get to him. Murray got through to Mitchell regularly in the first 6 rounds. With Kats strength and the fact he isn't as crude as Murray (I can't believe I just said that.) I could see him stopping Mitchell again not as early but within 8 rounds

Mitchell will box his head off in a rematch imo, i wouldn't go for him though, Khan didnt fight Prescott again and he got absolutely obliterated and i mean obliterated, so Kev should pursue his world title tilt first. Like i said after the Katsidis fight he got hit by a few shots and got stopped, didn't make him a bad fighter overnight, Katsidis isn't Pacquiao, he is very, very slow movement wise, teak tough with a solid dig, he floored Marquez also, but Mitchell will box his head off now his head's right imo, i just dont think Kev has to fight him when Khan's orite to avoid Prescott again, he doesn't have to fight him. Hopefully Warren's suggestion of fighting Burns when he moves up and gets elivated to number 1 contender to the WBO lightweight title comes off, a big british fight and a fight Kev can win.

Towzer, Khan-Prescott has no relevance and I'm amazed that you keep banging on about it. Fourteen months after losing to Prescott, Khan was a world champion and Prescott had fallen by the wayside. In short, Khan was by then at a much, much higher level than Prescott.

Mitchell isn't at a higher level than Katsidis. It's pretty simple, honestly. How you can act as if Mitchell is all of a sudden above Katsidis is a bit confusing to say the least, given how decisive the first bout was.

88Chris05 wrote:Towzer, Khan-Prescott has no relevance and I'm amazed that you keep banging on about it. Fourteen months after losing to Prescott, Khan was a world champion and Prescott had fallen by the wayside. In short, Khan was by then at a much, much higher level than Prescott.

Mitchell isn't at a higher level than Katsidis. It's pretty simple, honestly. How you can act as if Mitchell is all of a sudden above Katsidis is a bit confusing to say the least, given how decisive the first bout was.

It does, Khan should fight Prescott again then shouldn't he? for redemption, i'm not buying this Mitchell has to but Khan doesn't, and you can bang on about world level all you want he could fight Prescott still and get credit for it, and the fight would sell, although i don't entirely blame him for not fighting Prescott again, just as i don't for Kevin not fighting Katsidis again just yet. It's a dangerous rematch that i'd avoid as Katsidis doesn't have no title, was stopped in his last fight, Mitchell's just beat a fighter who like it or not was rated number 2 by the WBC and very highly in other organizations, Katsidis won't get another shot anytime soon, Mitchell should pursue his next option of fighting for a world title. Miguel Vazquez wouldn't be a bad fight either, i thought Prescott beat him by 2 or 3 rounds, Kevin has the beating of him and he's the IBF champ, it's nice optional wise again for Kevin, after being completely written off he can now choose what he wants to go for.

There was a time when I would have liked to see Khan in with Prescott but that was mainly because on the back of Kotelnik and Paulie I got the impression Khan's opponents were being chose on their inability to punch before any other consideration. However think in facing Maidina Khan has comfortably put those concerns to bed as whatever else his faults Marcos is a big punching natural light welter and Khan, if not with flying colours came through that test.

Ultimately as was discussed on the Duran Buchanan thread yesterday guys do not always help themselves in secuirng a rematch and in getting beaten by run of the mill fighters and schooled by Mitchell have to say Bredis falls into this category.

Young_Towzer wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Towzer, Khan-Prescott has no relevance and I'm amazed that you keep banging on about it. Fourteen months after losing to Prescott, Khan was a world champion and Prescott had fallen by the wayside. In short, Khan was by then at a much, much higher level than Prescott.

Mitchell isn't at a higher level than Katsidis. It's pretty simple, honestly. How you can act as if Mitchell is all of a sudden above Katsidis is a bit confusing to say the least, given how decisive the first bout was.

It does, Khan should fight Prescott again then shouldn't he? for redemption, i'm not buying this Mitchell has to but Khan doesn't, and you can bang on about world level all you want he could fight Prescott still and get credit for it, and the fight would sell, although i don't entirely blame him for not fighting Prescott again, just as i don't for Kevin not fighting Katsidis again just yet. It's a dangerous rematch that i'd avoid as Katsidis doesn't have no title, was stopped in his last fight, Mitchell's just beat a fighter who like it or not was rated number 2 by the WBC and very highly in other organizations, Katsidis won't get another shot anytime soon, Mitchell should pursue his next option of fighting for a world title. Miguel Vazquez wouldn't be a bad fight either, i thought Prescott beat him by 2 or 3 rounds, Kevin has the beating of him and he's the IBF champ, it's nice optional wise again for Kevin, after being completely written off he can now choose what he wants to go for.

Stop banging on about Khan-Prescott. Did Pacquiao rematch Singsurat or Torrecampo? No. Does anyone care? No. If Mitchell can beat a world champion and establish himself as a top-flight name then fine, he shouldn't have to rematch Kats. At the moment though, he hasn't done that.

BALTIMORA wrote:

Young_Towzer wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Towzer, Khan-Prescott has no relevance and I'm amazed that you keep banging on about it. Fourteen months after losing to Prescott, Khan was a world champion and Prescott had fallen by the wayside. In short, Khan was by then at a much, much higher level than Prescott.

Mitchell isn't at a higher level than Katsidis. It's pretty simple, honestly. How you can act as if Mitchell is all of a sudden above Katsidis is a bit confusing to say the least, given how decisive the first bout was.

It does, Khan should fight Prescott again then shouldn't he? for redemption, i'm not buying this Mitchell has to but Khan doesn't, and you can bang on about world level all you want he could fight Prescott still and get credit for it, and the fight would sell, although i don't entirely blame him for not fighting Prescott again, just as i don't for Kevin not fighting Katsidis again just yet. It's a dangerous rematch that i'd avoid as Katsidis doesn't have no title, was stopped in his last fight, Mitchell's just beat a fighter who like it or not was rated number 2 by the WBC and very highly in other organizations, Katsidis won't get another shot anytime soon, Mitchell should pursue his next option of fighting for a world title. Miguel Vazquez wouldn't be a bad fight either, i thought Prescott beat him by 2 or 3 rounds, Kevin has the beating of him and he's the IBF champ, it's nice optional wise again for Kevin, after being completely written off he can now choose what he wants to go for.

Stop banging on about Khan-Prescott. Did Pacquiao rematch Singsurat or Torrecampo? No. Does anyone care? No. If Mitchell can beat a world champion and establish himself as a top-flight name then fine, he shouldn't have to rematch Kats. At the moment though, he hasn't done that.

No i won't its right, if he doesn't have to fight Prescott, Kev shouldn't have to fight him if he doesn't want to, big risk no reward whereas he can fight for a world title again then fight him down the road, it's 1 rule for one and another for the other in your view imo. Super super Kev, super Kevin Mitchell.

By taking on Katsidis again and winning it would for me give him all the more confidence for being able to compete with the best around in his weight class. Even if he were to beat Vasquez, all of the other major names around 135 have beaten Katsidis and I think should he be matched with one of the major fighters Mitchell might have that niggling doubt in the back of his mind as he was not able to beat Katsidis.

A rematch between these 2 should in effect be for a vacant title or an eliminator, but should Katisidis win he will have the issue of fighting guys who have already beaten him.

The Khan scenario was different as Prescott took a nosedive in losing a succession of fights and basically made the fight unsellable to the public. For his own peace of mind I would say Khan should rematch him, but not for free and considering the different directions their careers have gone (and Khan proving his chin is more reliable at 140) it would not cover his training costs with the amount of people who would by the fight.

For that fight to happen Brediss needs a big win rather than harp on about getting lucky a couple of years back

Agree that Khan - Prescott is red herring. Basically, Mitchell has not yet done enough to warrant a rematch with Kats yet. What is in it for Kats? Another win over someone who he beat conclusively awhile ago? Mitchell must get another couple of significant wins under his belt before Katsidis will look at him seriously as a prospect.

Do you ever read what people write or do you just jump in feet first

The general consensus is that Mitchell doesn't have to face Katsidis but it's a fight that makes sense at the moment and is viable, a fight just below world level to propel the winner to a title shot. There was a time when Khan facing Prescott was a viable option but he's now at a completely different level to him so would be a step in the wrong direction.

Murray to Katsidis makes sense
Maidana/McCloskey/Judah to Prescott does not make sense

[quote="Imperial Ghosty"]Do you ever read what people write or do you just jump in feet first

Who were you talking about? I see why Mitchell needs Katsidis, but Kats does not need Mitchell. Hence the need for Mitchell to get a couple more serious wins under his belt before challenging him seriously

Think he meant towser pal.

Yeah he meant me, Prescott is a fight that would sell and is a big fight over here, and he would have a decent chance of exposing that paper chin again, just as he did in their first fight. Do me a favour as well talking about world level, Salita, McCloskey are definitely not world level. Mitchell shouldn't risk an immediate world title shot with a fight against a guy who has proved he has the beating of him just yet imo, i have no doubt you will not try and see my point, head first if you don't agree with me i don't want to know - that's you imperial minty, that's my opinion anyway, i'm still laughing by the can't wait to see you squirm comment as well. What a plonker.

Such a bitter little man aren't you Towzer, if I didn't feel so sorry for you I may laugh

McCloskey was european champion was he not just like Murray who Mitchell proved himself to be world class against apparently, Kotelnik, Malignaggi, Maidana and McCloskey were all top ten ranked opposition when Khan beat them which is why he's on a different level to Prescott now. I realise Katsidis is a high risk fight for Mitchell but it's a viable one after all Kats is still ranked higher than Mitchell with only the champions and Guerrero above them.

Both Towzer and Ghosty are both wrong and right. Khan shouldn't fight Prescott because he is a nothing fighter. To avenge a slip does not make business sense and may pay short term, but try and use it as a stepping stone to a bigger fight and see what happens. The only winner is Prescott with a huge pay packet for him. The reverse argument for Katsidis. Mitchell holds nothing for him, so has to work harder to deserve another chance.

Young_Towzer wrote:Yeah he meant me, Prescott is a fight that would sell and is a big fight over here, and he would have a decent chance of exposing that paper chin again, just as he did in their first fight. Do me a favour as well talking about world level, Salita, McCloskey are definitely not world level. Mitchell shouldn't risk an immediate world title shot with a fight against a guy who has proved he has the beating of him just yet imo, i have no doubt you will not try and see my point, head first if you don't agree with me i don't want to know - that's you imperial minty, that's my opinion anyway, i'm still laughing by the can't wait to see you squirm comment as well. What a plonker.

I see what you mean. You're saying Mitchell should wait until Katsidis is REALLY, DEFINITELY shot, and then rematch him.

Like it or not, Salita was a mandatory and McCloskey was Euro level/fringe contender. Mitchell beating Prescott gave Khan even less reason to rematch him.

And yes, bhb is right: Mitchell offers Katsidis absolutely nothing.

mitchel thinks he is world level, so for a rematch is a definte yes, if he wants to go on to bigger and better thing then he needs to prove he did actually have an "off night". if he fails a second time then he has found his level and its not at the very top. as long as he gives a good account of i say go himself i think his career would be by no means over, people would still pay to watch murray fight euro and domestic level, but if he cannot get past katidisis the he has no hope of a world title. i say go for it mitchell, people will get behind him, although i dont think ill have any money on him.

Mitchell should go for the glory and fight for a world title if offered. Fighting Rios or Kats he is going to get sparked, might as well earn more money by fighting for a title. He would also have the excuse that he lost to a world champion and could then have a money spinner with Kats as they will both be coming off losses.

I dont buy all this "Mitchell will box his head off" nonsense. The first fight was not even close. Rios chops Mitchell down in 2 and Kats in 5.

BALTIMORA wrote:

Young_Towzer wrote:Yeah he meant me, Prescott is a fight that would sell and is a big fight over here, and he would have a decent chance of exposing that paper chin again, just as he did in their first fight. Do me a favour as well talking about world level, Salita, McCloskey are definitely not world level. Mitchell shouldn't risk an immediate world title shot with a fight against a guy who has proved he has the beating of him just yet imo, i have no doubt you will not try and see my point, head first if you don't agree with me i don't want to know - that's you imperial minty, that's my opinion anyway, i'm still laughing by the can't wait to see you squirm comment as well. What a plonker.

I see what you mean. You're saying Mitchell should wait until Katsidis is REALLY, DEFINITELY shot, and then rematch him.

Like it or not, Salita was a mandatory and McCloskey was Euro level/fringe contender. Mitchell beating Prescott gave Khan even less reason to rematch him.

Yeah but some would say why doesn't Prescott merit a rematch after absolutely wiping the floor with him.

Young_Towzer wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Young_Towzer wrote:Yeah he meant me, Prescott is a fight that would sell and is a big fight over here, and he would have a decent chance of exposing that paper chin again, just as he did in their first fight. Do me a favour as well talking about world level, Salita, McCloskey are definitely not world level. Mitchell shouldn't risk an immediate world title shot with a fight against a guy who has proved he has the beating of him just yet imo, i have no doubt you will not try and see my point, head first if you don't agree with me i don't want to know - that's you imperial minty, that's my opinion anyway, i'm still laughing by the can't wait to see you squirm comment as well. What a plonker.

I see what you mean. You're saying Mitchell should wait until Katsidis is REALLY, DEFINITELY shot, and then rematch him.

Like it or not, Salita was a mandatory and McCloskey was Euro level/fringe contender. Mitchell beating Prescott gave Khan even less reason to rematch him.

Yeah but some would say why doesn't Prescott merit a rematch after absolutely wiping the floor with him.

Despite having this explained several times, it appears you are unable to grasp this concept. I'm not sure how to explain so that someone like you will understand. Any suggestions?

[quote="Young_Towzer Yeah but some would say why doesn't Prescott merit a rematch after absolutely wiping the floor with him.[/quote]

This has been answered too may times to be funny. Until Prescott significantly moves up the world rankings, then Khan will be wasting time in such a fight to slight some imaginary wrong. Khan got caught, he learnt, now he is a better fighter. Prescott got lucky and is now nowhere.

He was once a viable option for a rematch but he no longer is, to put it as simply as possible Khan has been beating world level fighters in Kotelnik, Maidana and Malignaggi whereas Prescott has been losing to Vasquez and Mitchell, he just isn't on the radar any more.

Katsidis has been since pumped twice, what would it prove? That Katsidis is more shot than he was first time round in all probability. But who knows, maybe he's slid that far Mitchell may not get sparked inside 3 this time.

Get him in with Rios then watch him get his head taken off his shoulders, should hopefully then reinforce that Mitchell is a half decent divisional opponent but doesn't belong in the upper echelons of the elites fighting at the weight.

And before you come back with the Kats arguement, Kats is still world class, a recognised goal keeper or aspirations with world title aspirations. Mitchell has not show this enough yet, so does not deserve another shot

bhb001 wrote:And before you come back with the Kats arguement, Kats is still world class, a recognised goal keeper or aspirations with world title aspirations. Mitchell has not show this enough yet, so does not deserve another shot

Don't make me laugh, If Murray had stopped Mitchell like most said on saturday he'd of boxed for a world title. Does it mean Katsidis didn't deserve a world title shot because he didn't go back and beat Diaz? your deluded, Mitchell earned another world title shot by smashing to bits the best lightweight in europe, WBC number 2. You can't say just because someone lost at world level in 1 fight they don't deserve another crack, the Khan v Prescott fight wasn't even at world level and he got obliterated and come back superbly, Ricky Burns lost at domestic level and came back to school a genuine world champ. Mitchell can do the same.

You do love your hyperbole, don't you Towzer? Every time someone wins, regardless of how close it was, you tell us all that they "destroyed" or "schooled" them. Now, apparently, Mitchell "smashed Murray to bits"? Erm, no. He outgamed and outfought him, but took a fair share of punishment himself along the way, and on most people's cards the fight was quite even by the half way stage. It's like saying that Eubank smashed Benn to bits, or that Hatton smashed Tszyu to bits, which would be nonsense.

Overexaggerating absolutely everything won't help your case. If someone said that Katsidis "smashed Mitchell to bits" you wouldn't stop banging on about how Mitchell 'won the first two rounds' and 'would have won if it hadn't been for personal issues.' A bit of consistency might help.

Young_Towzer wrote:

bhb001 wrote:And before you come back with the Kats arguement, Kats is still world class, a recognised goal keeper or aspirations with world title aspirations. Mitchell has not show this enough yet, so does not deserve another shot

Don't make me laugh, If Murray had stopped Mitchell like most said on saturday he'd of boxed for a world title. Does it mean Katsidis didn't deserve a world title shot because he didn't go back and beat Diaz? your deluded, Mitchell earned another world title shot by smashing to bits the best lightweight in europe, WBC number 2. You can't say just because someone lost at world level in 1 fight they don't deserve another crack, the Khan v Prescott fight wasn't even at world level and he got obliterated and come back superbly, Ricky Burns lost at domestic level and came back to school a genuine world champ. Mitchell can do the same.

Hang on. So because Murray was the WBC-ranked #2 that means something in your pro-Mitchell argument? A few posts back you were complaining that Salita wasn't world-level (which admittedly he's not), despite him being the #1 ranked WBA contender!!

StandardsStandards.

88Chris05 wrote:You do love your hyperbole, don't you Towzer? Every time someone wins, regardless of how close it was, you tell us all that they "destroyed" or "schooled" them. Now, apparently, Mitchell "smashed Murray to bits"? Erm, no. He outgamed and outfought him, but took a fair share of punishment himself along the way, and on most people's cards the fight was quite even by the half way stage. It's like saying that Eubank smashed Benn to bits, or that Hatton smashed Tszyu to bits, which would be nonsense.

Overexaggerating absolutely everything won't help your case. If someone said that Katsidis "smashed Mitchell to bits" you wouldn't stop banging on about how Mitchell 'won the first two rounds' and 'would have won if it hadn't been for personal issues.' A bit of consistency might help.

And therein lies my gripe. Well said.

BALTIMORA wrote:StandardsStandards.

We should do all our posts like this. "The
c
o
u
n
t
until the big fight" etc.

88Chris05 wrote:You do love your hyperbole, don't you Towzer? Every time someone wins, regardless of how close it was, you tell us all that they "destroyed" or "schooled" them. Now, apparently, Mitchell "smashed Murray to bits"? Erm, no. He outgamed and outfought him, but took a fair share of punishment himself along the way, and on most people's cards the fight was quite even by the half way stage. It's like saying that Eubank smashed Benn to bits, or that Hatton smashed Tszyu to bits, which would be nonsense.

Overexaggerating absolutely everything won't help your case. If someone said that Katsidis "smashed Mitchell to bits" you wouldn't stop banging on about how Mitchell 'won the first two rounds' and 'would have won if it hadn't been for personal issues.' A bit of consistency might help.

No, i don't love hyperbole, or superbowl for that matter. You don't look at what i'm saying, Mitchell can either go to America and either fight WBA champ Rios and earn a lot of money in a fight he could win, or fight Vazquez for the IBF title, a fighter who could be brought to England, or fight Burns for the vacant WBO title if possible, 3 fights that he can win, or fight a known puncher who has stopped him before and ruin his world title ambitions, i think i'd rather fight for a genuine WBA title against a fighter who is so easy to hit its untrue, Kevin aint a powder puff puncher either, is much, much skillfuller and faster, lets agree to disagree, eh? , Mitchell smashed him to bits, bust his nose open, puffed up both his eyes, floored him with a superb left hook, then finished him with 4 superb left hands, that's smashing someone to bits, helping my case? i couldn't care less if you agree with me or not, i don't need to help nothing the Murray fight shows me everything i need to know. Oh and by the way, save your bull, i haven't once not given Katsidis credit for stopping Mitchell, he caught Kevin with some big shots, and won the fight legit, i said if Mitchell hadn't had the problems he had he would of won which i stick by, that's not Katsidis' fault he won the fight, Kevin shook off huge punches off Murray, the conditioning was there, if you train hard the conditioning is there to soak up punishment.

I think if Warren is careful and clever, which in truth he is most of the time, then Mitchell will get a shot at one of the titles without needing to go near someone as dangerous as Katsidis.
I'm not convinced that his win over Murray is prove that his loss to Katsidis was due to not training properly, he just wasn't good enough for a genuine top 5 lightweight.

Your on a highway to nowhere Chris, if you want to debate sensibly your better off looking elsewhere, a brick wall perhaps?

So do you think that Katsidis would have beaten Marquez were it not for his personal problems? Imagine what Douglas would have to Tyson if he didn't have problems, scary thought

Mitchell can go one of two ways, the Lennox Lewis route of avenging his loss(es) or the Amir Khan route of avoidance. I think he'll have 3 or 4 more bouts then go back after the Kat.

Boxing Challenges

Think that would be the most sensible option. In an ideal world that has 1 champion per weight class then Mitchell would have to likely face Katsidis again or someone who has beaten Katsidis to get a shot at number 1. But good luck to Mitchell whatever route is chosen for him.

Mitchell is a good fighter but I think the Kat would blast him out early again if they had a rematch

Steffan wrote:Mitchell is a good fighter but I think the Kat would blast him out early again if they had a rematch

He'd blast out Gavin Rees too.

No, i don't love hyperbole, or superbowl for that matter.
-------
Brilliant on so many levels.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:No, i don't love hyperbole, or superbowl for that matter.
-------
Brilliant on so many levels.

But mainly because he clearly doesn't know how to pronounce hyperbole?