Liverpudlian Tony Bellew will be defending his WBC title for the first time this weekend in-front of a packed out crowd in his hometown. And while he prepares to step into the ring with American BJ Flores, we’ve been busy looking at exactly where the value lies ahead of the big fight.
A quick glance at both fighters’ records will tell you that there isn’t much that separates the pair.
Aged 33, this will be Bellew’s 31st bout, while Flores, four years Bomber’s senior, will be stepping into the ring for the 36th time.
And the Liverpudlian’s record of 27-2-1 is eerily similar to his opponent’s (32-2-1), although Flores has never been KO’ed, while Bellew hit the floor back in 2013 against Adonis Stevenson.
Flores has three more KO’s to his name (30) than Bellew, who promised this week to be the first man to beat El Peligroso by KO. We’re offering odds of 4/7 for Bellew to do what he said he’s going to do, while it’s 9/1 for Flores to win by the same method of victory.
On average, the title-holder lasts roughly 6.6 rounds-per-bout, while despite taking part in more fights, Flores’ average is 5.1 rounds-per-bout.
That means there could well be some value in this fight ending between rounds 5-8 at 11/5.
So why is Bellew such a heavy favourite?
In short, we’re not quite sure..
Granted, Bellew is rightly heading into this one as favourite, and the advantage of fighting in his hometown could play a major role should it go the distance.
But by our reckoning, 1/10 is incredibly short for what we expect to be a close bout.
And it’s not just us that think there’s some value to be had in the 6/1 on Flores to win, as David Haye also feels confident that the American has what it takes to beat Bellew.
Throw into the mix that even Bellew’s trainer, David Coldwell, has failed to rule out a potential upset, and we wouldn’t be surprised if Flores’ odds significantly dropped between now and the fight.
Click here for all the latest Bellew v Flores odds and don’t forget to check back on Saturday for our fantastic Countdown Boosts.
All Odds and Markets are correct as of the date of publishing