# Jamie McDonnell ‘shouldn’t play second fiddle’



## sim_reiss (Jun 6, 2012)

http://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk...-second-fiddle-1-5921994#.Uf-GwjWjA-4.twitter

DONCASTER FREE PRESS

Jamie McDonnell should be the headline fighter on any show now he is world champion according to manager Dennis Hobson.

Negotiations are on-going over the Hatfield boxer's first defence of his IBF world bantamweight crown.

But a defence in Sheffield in October on the same bill as Kell Brook has been ruled out by Hobson.

"We offered to work with Matchroom (Brook's promoters) on that card but it quickly became clear that they wanted Jamie to play second fiddle," Hobson told the Free Press.

"I could understand it if Kell was world champion or was fighting for a world title but he's not.

"The days of Jamie being chief support are over.

"He is a world champion, one of only four in Britain, and he deserves recognition for that.

"Recognition comes with the headline slot and with a purse to reflect his position.

"What they were offering for Jamie was scandalous.

"He is worth a lot more than that and that's what I will be getting for him."

Hobson admits he hopes to this week make an announcement over a date and venue for McDonnell's first title defence.

He said: "There are plenty of options open for us in terms of venues and dates.

"Doncaster, Sheffield and other places in the UK are open, it's just about sorting out what's best for Jamie.

"I've been to Asia and the Middle East over the last few weeks trying to get things in place for the next stage of Jamie's career.

"It's going to be an exciting time."

McDonnell began fitness work in the gym last week for the first time since his world title win in May.

TIME RUNNING OUT

The clock is ticking for Jamie McDonnell's camp to decide his own destiny.

As the IBF world bantamweight title was vacant when McDonnell won it, he must make a mandatory defence within six months.

Any voluntary defence must take place no fewer than 60 days before the mandatory defence is due.

This means if McDonnell is to make a money-spinning, relatively safe voluntary defence, he must do so before the end of September. If not he will face a likely tougher first defence mandated by the IBF before November.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. McDonnell must hope that his team can do better for him than a undercard slot for Brook-Senchenko. However Hobson's attitude seems to be more entitlement than enterprising. He made the title fight in a stadium and expected TV coverage and fans to flock through the turnstiles without doing much promotion. I hope for Jamie's sake he can deliver something better than just asking Matchroom if they'll give McDonnell one of their headline slots

2. Although he says they won't play second fiddle, he also said he'd "understand" being so if Brook had a world title shot. Given a "tougher" mandatory has to take place before November, I'd love to see Hearn try and get that fight on any Froch-Groves PPV bill. If he really tried to make an "outrageous" bill, he could easily get 3 world champions in Burns, Quigg and McDonnell on the undercard in good fights.

Thoughts?


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

Sounds like he won't be working with Matchroom as things stand.

Let Frank/Hatton/Maloney sort out the undercard and get it on.


----------



## Alba (Aug 4, 2013)

Grant said:


> Sounds like he won't be working with Matchroom as things stand.
> 
> Let Frank/Hatton/Maloney sort out the undercard and get it on.


that is what i was thinking ,could he not get hatton to do the undercard and say have McDonnel be the headliner ?


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

Feel sorry for McDonnell. Ever since he won the belt he's just fell off the radar. Haven't seen any IFilm interviews with him or many articles. It's understandable his team saying he shouldn't have to be an undercard fighter anymore but at the end of the day he's not a huge draw. The fight that makes the most money is main event most of the time and they need to realise that. Hope they can sort something out for him.


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

Hobson seems a bit deluded to McDonnell's worth, nobody really knows him and it's Hobson's job to make sure people do.

He's saying the money offered wasn't good to fight on the Brook undercard but I'm not sure what he expects, does he think Hearn is going to pay top dollar to elevate a fighter that could ply his trade with Frank/Boxnation the fight after.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

To be fair McDonnells fan base is tiny, he is a world champion but unless he can sell tickets or do good numbers then no one is gonna have him headline any big shows. Brook sells ten times over what Jamie does and when it comes own to money that speaks more than who is boxing at the higher level or for more prestige etc

Simply put McDonnell aint getting any big dtes or purses until he becomes marketable, he wont get much better over at BoxNation and they musn't have done well on Primetime otherwise they would have just stuck there and not be trying to get on other networks.


----------



## adamcanavan (Jun 5, 2012)

Mcdonnell has great potential but hobson is deluded when it comes to him, to have mcdonnell headlining above brook would be madness. The attendance for the keepmoat was only just over tue full capacity of the dome leisure centre, his usual home venue


----------



## bruthead (Jun 20, 2013)

McDonnell needs the exposure more than Hearn needs McDonnell.


----------



## Smeg (Jul 25, 2013)

He doesn't sell tickets in Sheffield, nor are Sky really interested in him, where they've hyped Brook to the hills. The casual would rather see Brook v Senchenko than a world champion they've never heard out outside Doncaster.


----------



## Danny (May 31, 2012)

Chatty said:


> To be fair McDonnells fan base is tiny, he is a world champion but unless he can sell tickets or do good numbers then no one is gonna have him headline any big shows. Brook sells ten times over what Jamie does and when it comes own to money that speaks more than who is boxing at the higher level or for more prestige etc
> 
> Simply put McDonnell aint getting any big dtes or purses until he becomes marketable, he wont get much better over at BoxNation and they musn't have done well on Primetime otherwise they would have just stuck there and not be trying to get on other networks.


This. And the comment in OP about entitlement more than enterprising was perfect. McDonnell in theory deserves to be headlining shows and I feel for him as a world champ that's he's not commanding the sort of purses, audiences and recognition he perhaps should be getting, however boxing is a business, and if McDonnell can't draw crowds, he's not headlining anything as big as a Matchroom card anytime soon.

I agree that the best bet would be to perhaps get on the Froch-Groves undercard.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Casual Eddie and his casual following mong's are the bane of this sport.


----------



## Bajingo (May 31, 2012)

McDonnell doesn't have much of a fanbase and because his manager insisted on him headlining a show in a empty stadium and promoting on his own, nobody watched his world title fight. It's a shame but Hearn has no reason to have him headlining a show when he doesn't sell tickets on his own. After one or 2 defences on Sky that might change. It's either that, carrying on with no TV or fanbase or having to travel abroad.


----------



## tdw (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill said:


> Casual Eddie and his casual following mong's are the bane of this sport.


Just go and watch small hall boxing Bill. 100 hardcores in a WMC. Bliss for you.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

tdw said:


> Just go and watch small hall boxing Bill. 100 hardcores in a WMC. Bliss for you.


I'ts getting that way mate, Eddie and his lack of respect is turning me away from the sport.


----------



## tdw (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill said:


> I'ts getting that way mate, Eddie and his lack of respect is turning me away from the sport.


Sports would be dead without casual interest


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

tdw said:


> Sports would be dead without casual interest


True but that shouldn't mean you cater to them all the time and in doing so, alienating the hardcore support that is your bread and butter money.


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

tdw said:


> Sports would be dead without casual interest


Like it was dead 10 years ago? Boxing needs casuals yes but hardcores have proven time and time again that we care enough about the sport to keep it going when it's having a bad time. Ask any promoter in this country who's not called Hearn.


----------



## tdw (Jun 6, 2012)

PaulieMc said:


> Like it was dead 10 years ago? Boxing needs casuals yes but hardcores have proven time and time again that we care enough about the sport to keep it going when it's having a bad time. Ask any promoter in this country who's not called Hearn.


Are you saying that there wasn't a casual audience 10 years ago?! A casual audience is not a new creation from Matchroom!


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

tdw said:


> Are you saying that there wasn't a casual audience 10 years ago?! A casual audience is not a new creation from Matchroom!


No but Matchroom ALWAYS have gone after the casuals, even more so than the other promoters have. Matchroom always fuck and leave whenever the casuals lose interest (usually because there isn't a big name fighter about) and then only come back when fountain starts to spring again.

The sport goes through lulls and when it does certain people, promoters and fans, fuck off. Hardcores don't and because of that so certain promoters have stayed in business.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2013)

Hobson needs to be realistic. McDonnell has a world title but no profile. Do the first fight on the Kell Brook card, then you have the momentum to headline your own show.


----------



## tdw (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill said:


> True but that shouldn't mean you cater to them all the time and in doing so, alienating the hardcore support that is your bread and butter money.


Alienating? Where is the evidence of this?


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

I feel alienated, I know that in Eddie's greedy mind, I am an afterthought and some casual prick that don't know better is at the forefront of Eddies agenda, I find that insulting.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2013)

Bill said:


> I feel alienated, I know that in Eddie's greedy mind, I am an afterthought and some casual prick that don't know better is at the forefront of Eddies agenda, I find that insulting.


Why don't you reach out to Hearn and discuss this with him?


----------



## tdw (Jun 6, 2012)

PaulieMc said:


> No but Matchroom ALWAYS have gone after the casuals, even more so than the other promoters have. Matchroom always fuck and leave whenever the casuals lose interest (usually because there isn't a big name fighter about) and then only come back when fountain starts to spring again.
> 
> The sport goes through lulls and when it does certain people, promoters and fans, fuck off. Hardcores don't and because of that so certain promoters have stayed in business.


Every significant promoter goes after a casual audience. What was Haye-Chisora last year? Boxnation's attempt to bring in a casual audience. You cannot survive without doing it on a significant level. This isn't exclusive to boxing


----------



## McKay (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill said:


> True but that shouldn't mean you cater to them all the time and in doing so, alienating the hardcore support that is your bread and butter money.


I don't get this at all. How would putting McDonnell on before Brook be alienating you as a fan? If it's a solid card then I don't care who's topping the bill, if it's Kell Brook who's going to sell the show then feel free to fucking put him there, as long as I'm getting to see several good fights I don't care. It seems to me that you just love to moan about something mate. I share your gripes with the Prizefighter stuff, and can understand why you're against PPV (although it's bordering on RobPalmereseque obsessiveness the amount you bring it up), but literally everything Matchroom do you find a daft reason to cry about it.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

So people want Matchroom to just cater to hardcore fans and not make any money. That's not what promoters do, they're aim is to make money. 

Some people actually claim that the Hearns don't cater to the hardcore audience at all, look at mot of the shows he does, copetitive domestic level fights right through the cards, then to fit they're agenda they will say 'Thats a shit card, not enough big name fighters' :lol: It's hilarious how hypocritical some people are.

As for McDonnell I'm surprised Frank hasn't tried to sign him.


----------



## tdw (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill said:


> I feel alienated, I know that in Eddie's greedy mind, I am an afterthought and some casual prick that don't know better is at the forefront of Eddies agenda, I find that insulting.


What is it you want from him Bill? You want Brook fighting in a half full arena? You don't think Mathews-Coyle was for a hardcore fan? What about Rees-Crolla? Geale-Barker not interest you? You don't like having the undercard on the red button?

Give me something Bill!


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

McKay said:


> I don't get this at all. How would putting McDonnell on before Brook be alienating you as a fan? If it's a solid card then I don't care who's topping the bill, if it's Kell Brook who's going to sell the show then feel free to fucking put him there, as long as I'm getting to see several good fights I don't care. It seems to me that you just love to moan about something mate.


It's not just Brook?MaDonnell it's Eddie in general, I don't like his whole attitude and him screaming business sense all the time, like that makes it an excuse to put on average cards and charging top dollar for ones that's not a lot better, I moan because I feel it is a reason to moan about.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

tdw said:


> What is it you want from him Bill? You want Brook fighting in a half full arena? You don't think Mathews-Coyle was for a hardcore fan? What about Rees-Crolla? Geale-Barker not interest you? You don't like having the undercard on the red button?
> 
> Give me something Bill!


How about him charging extra money for fight cards that's nothing special and his overall boxing ouput and quality being nothing more than average, or how about not getting value for money for your boxing on sky.


----------



## tdw (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill said:


> It's not just Brook?MaDonnell it's Eddie in general, I don't like his whole attitude and him screaming business sense all the time, like that makes it an excuse to put on average cards and charging top dollar for ones that's not a lot better, I moan because I feel it is a reason to moan about.


So you want bigger cards but don't want to make fights that bring in a casual audience to generate extra money to pay for them nor do you want to pay PPV to try and bring in more revenue from the hardcore base?


----------



## tdw (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill said:


> How about him charging extra money for fight cards that's nothing special and his overall boxing ouput and quality being nothing more than average, or how about not getting value for money for your boxing on sky.


Were you happier with small hall shows every week or was that not value for money?


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Bill said:


> It's not just Brook?MaDonnell it's Eddie in general, I don't like his whole attitude and him screaming business sense all the time, like that makes it an excuse to put on average cards and charging top dollar for ones that's not a lot better, I moan because I feel it is a reason to moan about.


Average cards? You're acting like all of them are, Barker wembley card was awful, Blackpool show was fairly average. That's two so far this year, what about the good ones Bill? Obviously Prizefighter is dog shit as well.

Frampton-Martinez 
Bellew-Chilemba 
Burns-Gonzalez
Froch-Kessler
Rees-Crolla
Hull card

Surely you agree that they were good? Burns-Beltran coming up, Woodhouse-Matthews and Smith-Ochieng Liverpool show soon as well as Joshua card which looks alright.


----------



## McKay (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill said:


> It's not just Brook?MaDonnell it's Eddie in general, I don't like his whole attitude and him screaming business sense all the time, like that makes it an excuse to put on average cards and charging top dollar for ones that's not a lot better, I moan because I feel it is a reason to moan about.


Well if you don't feel that we're getting better domestic cards than what we were being served up a few years ago I think you're off your head. There's definitely things that can be improved upon still but it seems that it goes beyond that with you and you just can't stand Eddie Hearn and like to find any daft reason to whinge about him.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

tdw said:


> So you want bigger cards but don't want to make fights that bring in a casual audience to generate extra money to pay for them nor do you want to pay PPV to try and bring in more revenue from the hardcore base?


It's not my place to think of the business side of things, it's my place to be a fan/customer that is content with what I'm getting, at the moment I feel short changed.

Does Eddie invest the money back into the sport?


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

tdw said:


> Every significant promoter goes after a casual audience. What was Haye-Chisora last year? Boxnation's attempt to bring in a casual audience. You cannot survive without doing it on a significant level. This isn't exclusive to boxing


Of course yes but Matchroom do it more than other promoters in subtle ways. Like telling all their fighters to get on twitter and talk to fans, getting them on chat shows and such like Johnathan Ross or SSN in order to reach a mainstream audience, playing up the "he supports this football team" angle. It's all designed to get the average joe interested in a fighter. It's a clever to be fair and you're right, loads of businesses do it. Just when this audience dries up Matchroom pack up and leave.

My argument is that anyone who says hardcore fans don't matter or are irrelevant when it comes to business clearly hasn't experienced being a fan when the sport is having a lull period. In those times the hardcores are the main reason the sport stays alive.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Why do promoters have to either cater to casuals or hardcore fans? They can, and the majority do, cater to both audiences. People can say that Hearn doesn't deliver for the boxing fans but which British promoter has put on better cards than him this year? Whilst all the other promoters are putting on cards which are 8 deep in mismatches, Hearn is the only promoter who is putting on competitive undercard fights which hardcore fans should love. Ekundayo/Foot, Camacho/Conquest, Mathews/Woodhouse, Smith/Ochieng are just some of the examples from Hearn's next couple of shows.

Hearn has mentioned casual fans a few times but there's absolutely no evidence to say he caters his shows just for them. A promoter like Mick Hennessy does, given that his cards are routinely atrocious apart from the main event, yet where are people calling him "Casual Mick" or some other bollocks? 

Every promoter caters to casual fans and hardcore fans. Some cater more to casual fans but Hearn isn't one of them. His shows are deeper in competitive fights than any other promoter right now, which is surely what boxing fans want? When all the casual fans are drinking beer during undercard bouts, they're missing fights that hardcore fans are enjoying.


----------



## tdw (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill said:


> It's not my place to think of the business side of things, it's my place to be a fan/customer that is content with what I'm getting, at the moment I feel short changed.
> 
> Does Eddie invest the money back into the sport?


Have you ever not felt short changed from their boxing coverage? Was it better in your opinion having one small hall show a week?


----------



## tdw (Jun 6, 2012)

Jack said:


> Why do promoters have to either cater to casuals or hardcore fans? They can, and the majority do, cater to both audiences. People can say that Hearn doesn't deliver for the boxing fans but which British promoter has put on better cards than him this year? Whilst all the other promoters are putting on cards which are 8 deep in mismatches, Hearn is the only promoter who is putting on competitive undercard fights which hardcore fans should love. Ekundayo/Foot, Camacho/Conquest, Mathews/Woodhouse, Smith/Ochieng are just some of the examples from Hearn's next couple of shows.
> 
> Hearn has mentioned casual fans a few times but there's absolutely no evidence to say he caters his shows just for them. A promoter like Mick Hennessy does, given that his cards are routinely atrocious apart from the main event, yet where are people calling him "Casual Mick" or some other bollocks?
> 
> Every promoter caters to casual fans and hardcore fans. Some cater more to casual fans but Hearn isn't one of them. His shows are deeper in competitive fights than any other promoter right now, which is surely what boxing fans want? When all the casual fans are drinking beer during undercard bouts, they're missing fights that hardcore fans are enjoying.


To be fair, Mathews-Woodhouse is the main event! And Warren has a couple of good undercards to his next 2 shows (accurate at time of typing)


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

Jack said:


> Why do promoters have to either cater to casuals or hardcore fans? They can, and the majority do, cater to both audiences. People can say that Hearn doesn't deliver for the boxing fans but which British promoter has put on better cards than him this year? Whilst all the other promoters are putting on cards which are 8 deep in mismatches, Hearn is the only promoter who is putting on competitive undercard fights which hardcore fans should love. Ekundayo/Foot, Camacho/Conquest, Mathews/Woodhouse, Smith/Ochieng are just some of the examples from Hearn's next couple of shows.
> 
> Hearn has mentioned casual fans a few times but there's absolutely no evidence to say he caters his shows just for them. A promoter like Mick Hennessy does, given that his cards are routinely atrocious apart from the main event, yet where are people calling him "Casual Mick" or some other bollocks?
> 
> Every promoter caters to casual fans and hardcore fans. Some cater more to casual fans but Hearn isn't one of them.


Hearn doesn't cater to the casual fan? Which Hearn is this, surely you don't mean Eddie? Of course he fucking does.
Getting his fighters (usually Froch) on Sky Sports News every week to talk about fights, having these 24/7 style documentaries in the run up to the big fights, having his fighters play up their football allegiances, pushing his fights on twitter constantly, giving IFilmLndn a helping hand to get to his shows so that all his fighters can be interviewed. Matchroom's whole business strategy is to aim for casuals. In boxing, snooker, darts and everything they're involved in. Hence why we have things like Prizefighter, shot clocks in Snooker and fully grown men allowed to go the darts in fancy dress and pissed out of their skull.

I'm not saying they neglect hardcores, of course they don't. They do put some top fights on for us. Just it's very clear who they're more arsed about impressing. That's fine, casuals are what brings in money. What angers people like me and Bill is his attitude about it.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

tdw said:


> Have you ever not felt short changed from their boxing coverage? Was it better in your opinion having one small hall show a week?


There's never been a happy medium or the right balance imo, the shows of yesteryear were poorer ( not by that much mind you would still get some crackers) it was nearly every week but there are so few dates now, just 14 and when you add the return of PPV, it's not value for money.


----------



## tdw (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill said:


> There's never been a happy medium or the right balance imo, the shows of yesteryear were poorer ( not by that much mind you would still get some crackers) it was nearly every week but there are so few dates now, just 14 and when you add the return of PPV, it's not value for money.


If Froch-Kessler/Groves and Haye-Fury didn't happen this year and instead you'd had Haye-Charr and Froch against say Bika and Steiglitz, would you be satisfied? (I'm not saying you're wrong to think this just want to know more than just fuck casual Eddie)


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2013)

Bill said:


> Does Eddie invest the money back into the sport?


Yes.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2013)

Bill's hate of Hearn is a little bit over the top, but he does make some good points and he is only really asking for what Hearn has promised him. I have been one of Hearns biggest supporters this past year but even I think he is under delivering at the moment.

I do find it strange that Bill seems to hate Hearn so much, because he really is the best of a bad bunch.

You absolutely need to appeal to the casual sports fan. The problem is promoters never seem to capitalize on this and build a bigger fan base for the sport overall. I am not expecting everyone that buys Haye v Fury to starting posting on CHB, but maybe if they watch a good undercard fight, say Scott Quigg v Salinas, they will be inclined to watch Scott Quiggs next fight on TV or even attend if they are local, and then they will hear talk about Carl Frampton, and they will go and check his fights on youtube or subscribe to BoxNation. Then when the big fight happens between the two of them, they really buy in and the hype of a major boxing match hooks them like it hooked every poster on this forum.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Getting away from Eddie Hearn for a minute.

This is the perfect opportunity for frank Maloney to rebound after David prices defeat,Maloney used to promote the shows on sky that McDonnell headlined working with Hobson.all of his notable fights hall,napa,jamoye and Europeans were Maloney shows,now if they still have a good working relationship this makes sense.

Stick McDermott,Danny price,Gary Cornish and Jon Lewis Dickinson on the undercard and use warren fighters to fill the card up,so Dickinson-Dawson could be made as chief support for the British then hold it at a reasonably sized venue close to Doncaster because you want to fill it for McDonnell.

I think that if Maloney had a contract with boxnation then the vacant title fight would have been on there,now Hobson is obviously going to exhaust other avenues first because he is aiming for maximum exposure.
On the other hand Hobson promoted hatton and they had a good relationship too.
So this smacks of being on boxnation.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

tdw said:


> If Froch-Kessler/Groves and Haye-Fury didn't happen this year and instead you'd had Haye-Charr and Froch against say Bika and Steiglitz, would you be satisfied? (I'm not saying you're wrong to think this just want to know more than just fuck casual Eddie)


Yeah I would, I was looking forward to Froch/Kessler as it was a 50/50 but the undercard let it down and wasn't worth £15, out of the 3 fights mentioned that would be the only one that's arguable, Haye/Fury I think is a mismatch and Haye will bang him out early, them two talking shit to each other doesn't make it worthy of PPV, Froch/Groves is a decent fight but hardly anything special and this bullshit of it having to be PPV to be made, is bollocks and I have a simple solution to it, don't make it then, it's hardly a massive loss.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

One to watch said:


> *Getting away from Eddie Hearn for a minute.*
> 
> This is the perfect opportunity for frank Maloney to rebound after David prices defeat,Maloney used to promote the shows on sky that McDonnell headlined working with Hobson.all of his notable fights hall,napa,jamoye and Europeans were Maloney shows,now if they still have a good working relationship this makes sense.
> 
> ...


That's a bannable offence on here, lad.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Bill's hate of Hearn is a little bit over the top, but he does make some good points and he is only really asking for what Hearn has promised him. I have been one of Hearns biggest supporters this past year but even I think he is under delivering at the moment.
> 
> I do find it strange that Bill seems to hate Hearn so much, because he really is the best of a bad bunch.


I can see through him Rob and his agenda, he does do something's well but they get overshadowed by what he's doing wrong and big thing's like PPV which is expensive and costing me a lot of money or asking a lot of money from me.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> That's a bannable offence on here, lad.


I get the interest and am guilty myself,he is a big figure in British boxing and his stable is a talking point.

But it's amazing the amount of talk on him,how many threads started on another subject end in talk about Hearn.the Americans on the general don't spend all their time talking promoters and they have a Cold War on their hands.its a British disease like hooliganism.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2013)

Bill said:


> I can see through him Rob and his agenda, he does do something's well but they get overshadowed by what he's doing wrong and big thing's like PPV which is expensive and costing me a lot of money or asking a lot of money from me.


What are you seeing through? What is this hidden agenda? Hearn has always been pretty upfront about wanting to make money.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

One to watch said:


> I get the interest and am guilty myself,he is a big figure in British boxing and his stable is a talking point.
> 
> But it's amazing the amount of talk on him,how many threads started on another subject end in talk about Hearn.the Americans on the general don't spend all their time talking promoters and they have a Cold War on their hands.its a British disease like hooliganism.


Yeah, I've got nothing more to say about Hearn. He's not someone that's important enough for me to want to discuss him so much. I agree with @Bill and @PaulieMc for the most part, but it's a continuous circular debate really.

Then again, maybe it's because most of his stable are as dull as dishwater in terms of charisma, whereas Used Car Eddie does have charisma, and folk tend to want to talk about the latter more than the former.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Bill said:


> I can see through him Rob and his agenda, he does do something's well but they get overshadowed by what he's doing wrong and big thing's like PPV which is expensive and costing me a lot of money or asking a lot of money from me.


H has made one PPV Bill, is 15 quid really alot of money? I have one suggestion mate, if you don't think it's value for money don't pay for the PPVs.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2013)

One to watch said:


> Getting away from Eddie Hearn for a minute.
> 
> This is the perfect opportunity for frank Maloney to rebound after David prices defeat,Maloney used to promote the shows on sky that McDonnell headlined working with Hobson.all of his notable fights hall,napa,jamoye and Europeans were Maloney shows,now if they still have a good working relationship this makes sense.
> 
> ...


It would make more sense for Hobson to just sign a direct deal with BoxNation. Problem is with Hobson being so vocal about rejecting Hearn/Sky, Frank doesn't need to make him a particularly lucrative offer and I don't think Hobson and Frank are best friends.

Plus its 6 weeks since that press conference and we haven't even heard rumours about a show from McGuigan, Maloney & Hatton. The only one was the Price v Thompson rematch that was already set up and its a bit late to announce a September show now.


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> H has made one PPV Bill, is 15 quid really alot of money? I have one suggestion mate, if you don't think it's value for money don't pay for the PPVs.


He's already got 2 PPVs in the works though before the year is over. And we'll likely get even more next year. 1 or 2 PPVs a year isn't much to moan about sure but people surely can't believe that'll be the case? They're feeding is 3 PPVs in 6 months in 2013.

I'm not buying any of these PPVs, I'll just watch them down the pub or on a stream. I suggest you all do the same.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> What are you seeing through? What is this hidden agenda? Hearn has always been pretty upfront about wanting to make money.


In a way I suppose, he is upfront about it which makes even worse, he gets a free ride because he smiles while he short changes you, I can see through his cheeky chappy I'm your mate bollocks and that he's in it for the long term, If things don't start going his way or somehow Warren comes back to form, he'll be on his toes and wouldn't think twice about it.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> H has made one PPV Bill, is 15 quid really alot of money? I have one suggestion mate, if you don't think it's value for money don't pay for the PPVs.


Can you not see why I don't want to pay PPV for fight's worthy of normal sky that I by rights already pay for in my subscription?


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

PaulieMc said:


> He's already got 2 PPVs in the works though before the year is over. And we'll likely get even more next year. 1 or 2 PPVs isn't much to moan about sure but people surely can't believe that'll be the case? They feeding is 3 PPVs in 6 months in 2013.
> 
> I'm not buying any of these PPVs, I'll just watch them down the pub or on a stream. I suggest you all do the same.


One PPV, Froch-Groves.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Bill said:


> Can you not see why I don't want to pay PPV for fight's worthy of normal sky that I by rights already pay for in my subscription?


Of course I can, you just said its costing you alot of money, you paid a one off for the Froch-Kessler fight and I'm pretty sure you've stated you're not buying any PPVs in the future.


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> One PPV, Froch-Groves.


Haye vs Fury as well. Fuck all the "that's a separate promotion" talk. Hearn's deal with Sky means he gets a say in ALL their boxing output remember?


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

PaulieMc said:


> Haye vs Fury as well. Fuck all the "that's a separate promotion" talk. Hearn's deal with Sky means he gets a say in ALL their boxing output remember?


If Hearn had anything to do with it I'm sure he'd be promoting it, that would be a huge show for Matchroom.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Of course I can, you just said its costing you alot of money, you paid a one off for the Froch-Kessler fight and I'm pretty sure you've stated you're not buying any PPVs in the future.


Fair point, it has only been one but the tone and pace he has set don't bode well and every fight he decides to put PPV is a fight that is being taken from me as a subscriber, so I still lose out either way.

That's why I also expect more from his normal cards because if he is going to do PPV then at least give value for money back to the subscribers and give them something really decent.


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> If Hearn had anything to do with it I'm sure he'd be promoting it, that would be a huge show for Matchroom.


Whether he gets any fighters on the bill remains to be seen but I'm convinced he'll have at least some fingers in the pie.


----------



## Lazarus (Jun 2, 2012)

Glad to hear it. He certainly shouldn't be second fiddle, especially to Kell f*cking Brook.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2013)

Bill said:


> In a way I suppose, he is upfront about it which makes even worse, he gets a free ride because he smiles while he short changes you, I can see through his cheeky chappy I'm your mate bollocks and that he's in it for the long term, If things don't start going his way or somehow Warren comes back to form, he'll be on his toes and wouldn't think twice about it.


who is giving him a free ride? Jack....thats it!

Your basing your last point on a hunch, nothing more.....and is that what you really want?


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> Whether he gets any fighters on the bill remains to be seen but I'm convinced he'll have at least some fingers in the pie.


He isn't the promoter and you can notice the difference with Matchroom not being involved to be honest. Fight still hasn't sold out and theirs been no real promotion since the presser.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> who is giving him a free ride? Jack....thats it!


It seem's to me quite a few people have double standards regarding Hearn or are less likely to criticize him as other promoters, less so now because I think the penny's starting to drop that he is no saviour and is as greedy as the rest.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2013)

Bill said:


> It seem's to me quite a few people have double standards regarding Hearn or are less likely to criticize him as other promoters, less so now because I think the penny's starting to drop that he is no saviour and is as greedy as the rest.


its really just Jack. And you are as overboard in your criticisms of him as Jack is in praising and defending him.....if anything worse.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> its really just Jack. And you are as overboard in your criticisms of him as Jack is in praising and defending him.....if anything worse.


I don't think I am, I just say how I feel and how I'm being treated as a fan and sky customer and I don't like it. It's that simple, I'm not getting value for money and I'm being asked to pay overboard for average fights, I have every right to be pissed off.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

I'm confused. When Eddie Hearn or Frank Warren spout off ridiculous shite they're just doing their job, but when Hobson does he's being unreasonable? Hobson commented after McDonnell won the IBF belt that he didn't stick around to promote himself when Hobson could have got him some stuff lined up, as he'd rather have went on holiday to Turkey with his missus; McDonnell just isn't really someone that's going to promote himself too much. Hobson's trying to stir up interest in him. He did try to get McDonnell's title fight on Sky with Matchroom, but he's more or less said that he feels Hearn stopped returning his calls, and he's had no such problems with George Warren. He'll likely end up working out a deal to get him on BoxNation if he can't get an agreement he's happy with agreed with Matchroom.

And while he can be slagged for promoting the McDonnell/Ceja fight in a mostly empty stadium, McDonnell needed that home advantage. It was unfortunate timing with Burns also fighting on Sky that night - thus Hobson trying to work out something with Matchroom - but that's that. He got his fighter the fight on the best possible terms for him - had he fought in Mexico he'd probably have lost, and he'd be rebuilding for what? British or European?

Hobson did well for Clinton Woods, and lost money on working with Ricky Hatton when he thought he'd make a killing. He's hardly the worst guy out there. He'll try to do right for McDonnell, and if that means he's going to try to big him up by making claims like "HBO should take a look at him," then so be it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> I'm confused. When Eddie Hearn or Frank Warren spout off ridiculous shite they're just doing their job, but when Hobson does he's being unreasonable? Hobson commented after McDonnell won the IBF belt that he didn't stick around to promote himself when Hobson could have got him some stuff lined up, as he'd rather have went on holiday to Turkey with his missus; McDonnell just isn't really someone that's going to promote himself too much. Hobson's trying to stir up interest in him. He did try to get McDonnell's title fight on Sky with Matchroom, but he's more or less said that he feels Hearn stopped returning his calls, and he's had no such problems with George Warren. He'll likely end up working out a deal to get him on BoxNation if he can't get an agreement he's happy with agreed with Matchroom.
> 
> And while he can be slagged for promoting the McDonnell/Ceja fight in a mostly empty stadium, McDonnell needed that home advantage. It was unfortunate timing with Burns also fighting on Sky that night - thus Hobson trying to work out something with Matchroom - but that's that. He got his fighter the fight on the best possible terms for him - had he fought in Mexico he'd probably have lost, and he'd be rebuilding for what? British or European?
> 
> Hobson did well for Clinton Woods, and lost money on working with Ricky Hatton when he thought he'd make a killing. He's hardly the worst guy out there. He'll try to do right for McDonnell, and if that means he's going to try to big him up by making claims like "HBO should take a look at him," then so be it.


Have you got a link to where he said Hearn wasnt taking his calls but George Warren is?


----------



## Elmo (Jun 14, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> I'm confused. When Eddie Hearn or Frank Warren spout off ridiculous shite they're just doing their job, but when Hobson does he's being unreasonable? Hobson commented after McDonnell won the IBF belt that he didn't stick around to promote himself when Hobson could have got him some stuff lined up, as he'd rather have went on holiday to Turkey with his missus; McDonnell just isn't really someone that's going to promote himself too much. Hobson's trying to stir up interest in him. He did try to get McDonnell's title fight on Sky with Matchroom, but he's more or less said that he feels Hearn stopped returning his calls, and he's had no such problems with George Warren. He'll likely end up working out a deal to get him on BoxNation if he can't get an agreement he's happy with agreed with Matchroom.
> 
> And while he can be slagged for promoting the McDonnell/Ceja fight in a mostly empty stadium, McDonnell needed that home advantage. It was unfortunate timing with Burns also fighting on Sky that night - thus Hobson trying to work out something with Matchroom - but that's that. He got his fighter the fight on the best possible terms for him - had he fought in Mexico he'd probably have lost, and he'd be rebuilding for what? British or European?
> 
> Hobson did well for Clinton Woods, and lost money on working with Ricky Hatton when he thought he'd make a killing. He's hardly the worst guy out there. He'll try to do right for McDonnell, and if that means he's going to try to big him up by making claims like "HBO should take a look at him," then so be it.


Have you got a link to where he said Hearn wasnt taking his calls but George Warren is?


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Elmo said:


> Have you got a link to where he said Hearn wasnt taking his calls but George Warren is?


He hinted at it - thus more or less said - in Boxing Monthly.



> "I don't think it's healthy for the sport that Sky just go with one promoter, whether I'm involved or not. It points to a monopoly and no monopoly is good in any business. If other people are involved, it keeps people on their toes, but a monopoly just suits the person at the top of the tree. There needs to be more than one main player.
> 
> You can get a certain arrogance when you've got all the balls. I've got businesses and I'm on the phone making sure everyone is happy with their service.
> 
> ...





> "I've spoken to Eddie Hearn and I've spoken to George Warren, Frank's son. Completely different. I ring George, he rings me and, whether we do business or not, it's all done in a polite manner. I don't like how some people don't return your calls.
> 
> There aren't many people in the country busier than me, but I always try and return people's calls. I don't like ignorance and that's why I ended up doing my own thing."


Hobson owns his own businesses, so that's what he'll mean by being one of the busiest men "in the country" - he'll be busier than a lot of guys in boxing due to those outside businesses, which fund boxing.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2013)

Its not always going to be in Hearns interest to be everybody's best friend. If Hearn isn't returning calls, its probably for a valid reason, or a negotiation ploy.


----------



## Libertarian (Jun 2, 2012)

I think he should take the undercard slot.

Put on an absolute stormer of a performance and then ask for the bigger bucks.

He is someone that casuals could warm to if they had access to him. Taking short or shorter money could be a worthwhile investment in himself.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2013)

Dinamita said:


> I think he should take the undercard slot.
> 
> Put on an absolute stormer of a performance and then ask for the bigger bucks.
> 
> He is someone that casuals could warm to if they had access to him. Taking short or shorter money could be a worthwhile investment in himself.


I think Hobson just thinks he has a bigger asset than he actually has. He had a world title fight in a football ground and could only get 3,000 in. He needs to get real.


----------



## Elmo (Jun 14, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> I think Hobson just thinks he has a bigger asset than he actually has. He had a world title fight in a football ground and could only get 3,000 in. He needs to get real.


How big is his asset?


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2013)

Elmo said:


> How big is his asset?


keep trying.


----------



## Elmo (Jun 14, 2013)

Yeah ok, I do fine. When everyone says fuck off I will. We talk everyday and say things are cool, stop it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2013)

Elmo said:


> Yeah ok, I do fine. When everyone says fuck off I will. We talk everyday and say things are cool, stop it.


jeez don't be so sensitive.

The joke wasn't funny....thats what I said that!


----------



## Elmo (Jun 14, 2013)

Jokes are better than... yeah whatever.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Elmo said:


> Yeah ok, I do fine. When everyone says fuck off I will. We talk everyday and say things are cool, stop it.


I wouldn't take note of it tbh. Some folk are hung up on "he only got 3,000 people in Doncaster" as if it's a shambles, and miss the main point that Hobson knew - McDonnell needed to be fighting at home for that fight; both for the mental edge, the difference it makes to your training, and because he'd never have won the decision in Mexico. He went into that promotion knowing that his best hope was to break even with over 5,000 in attendance and a decent viewership on Primetime. He was never under any illusions.

And he won't take an undercard slot on a Matchroom show if he's not happy with the offer made by Hearn. If it's the best offer for his fighter or if McDonnell really wants to be on the card then he will; I think he'll end up on BoxNation.


----------



## Elmo (Jun 14, 2013)

I think he probably will but I think he would be wrong. He will make more cash with Hearn.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Elmo said:


> I think he probably will but I think he would be wrong. He will make more cash with Hearn.


Not necessarily. It's a bit of a myth that if you're with Hearn you're going to be a billy big time compared to if you're with another promoter. Plus Hearn wouldn't be paying him that handsomely when he's not one of his stable. Only way McDonnell gets a pay day is if he still has the belt whenever Yafai is pushed onto world level, and how likely that is I don't know - but I'd say not very; either McDonnell has lost it well before then or Yafai competes full time at super bantam.


----------



## Ishy (Jun 2, 2012)

Hobson is been a short-sighted tit. 

Does he expect McDonnell to build any sort of following stuck on Primetime? Holding a world title doesn't automatically grant you the right to headline shows or earn big purses, you've got to earn that.


----------



## Elmo (Jun 14, 2013)

I watched prime time once and much as I'd give cordingly an awkward 30 seconds, her "come on Carl" the shitty fee and overall card means I won't be again.

i think Hearn is smart, he will look after you if you get on board with matchroom.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2013)

Isnt McDonnell on a fight by fight deal with Hobson anyway?


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2013)

Elmo said:


> I watched prime time once and much as I'd give cordingly an awkward 30 seconds, her "come on Carl" the shitty fee and overall card means I won't be again.
> 
> i think Hearn is smart, he will look after you if you get on board with matchroom.


Yeh. And he is gonna be weary of bigging up a fighter he doesnt control after what happened with Frampton.


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

You do have to smile a bit at the Hearn stuff. Gets a slating for catering to the casuals then announces a card in Liverpool which has a few trade fights and gets grief cos there's no big name.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Hobson did very well to get a title shot over here for McDonnell. I imagine he lost plenty of money on staging that fight, so fair play to him. He obviously wants a return on his investment that he won't get if McDonnell goes back on an undercard though, so you can understand this decision from his perspective. I guess it depends how much faith he has in McDonnell. If he thought his fighter would defend his world title 7 to 10 times, I have no doubt that he'd take the short term loss of money, but given how tough the division is, it's hard to imagine McDonnell being a champion in a couple of years, so this long term investment people are talking about might not exist then.

I can see it from both sides, honestly. Personally, I'd want to stick McDonnell on Sky to build his name but I can see why Hobson would prefer to put on his own shows instead. If Hobson could get on BoxNation, it might work out well for him though I doubt Warren would allow it.


----------



## Elmo (Jun 14, 2013)

Marlow said:


> You do have to smile a bit at the Hearn stuff. Gets a slating for catering to the casuals then announces a card in Liverpool which has a few trade fights and gets grief cos there's no big name.


This is exactly right. He puts on decent uk cards.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Marlow said:


> You do have to smile a bit at the Hearn stuff. Gets a slating for catering to the casuals then announces a card in Liverpool which has a few trade fights and gets grief cos there's no big name.


I thought this myself.
The Joshua night is a card filled with trade fights and there's been complaints there's no biggie on that,I would of thought Anthony Joshua's debut and Kevin Mitchell in a competitive fight is what Eddie is thinking are the names.its a nice looking card that could be a very good night of boxing.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2013)

One to watch said:


> I thought this myself.
> The Joshua night is a card filled with trade fights and there's been complaints there's no biggie on that,I would of thought Anthony Joshua's debut and Kevin Mitchell in a competitive fight is what Eddie is thinking are the names.its a nice looking card that could be a very good night of boxing.


Who is Kev Mitchell fighting?


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Who is Kev Mitchell fighting?


Well it was said to be Gary Sykes who's camp denied it.

Ok there is no evidence he will be In a competitive fight so far,I just think he has to be from his and hearns point of view plus they had him planned to meet Sykes.
There is a lot of good lightweights and super feathers who would be up for the pay day and exposure.flannigan would be tidy.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2013)

One to watch said:


> Well it was said to be Gary Sykes who's camp denied it.
> 
> Ok there is no evidence he will be In a competitive fight so far,I just think he has to be from his and hearns point of view plus they had him planned to meet Sykes.
> There is a lot of good lightweights and super feathers who would be up for the pay day and exposure.flannigan would be tidy.


Mitchell was planning another warm up fight.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Mitchell was planning another warm up fight.


Still down as Sykes on boxrec and that ain't a bad fight with Sykes workrate


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2013)

One to watch said:


> Still down as Sykes on boxrec and that ain't a bad fight with Sykes workrate


Boxrec is wrong as always.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

One to watch said:


> I thought this myself.
> The Joshua night is a card filled with trade fights and there's been complaints there's no biggie on that,I would of thought Anthony Joshua's debut and Kevin Mitchell in a competitive fight is what Eddie is thinking are the names.its a nice looking card that could be a very good night of boxing.


Being Olympic gold champion does not mean you automaticly will be a good pro fighter and I don't agree with him topping a bill on his debut, that's just my personal preference, it's giving him unrealistic expectations and not allowing him to work his way up a card and learn his trade, he is being fast tracked and it will end in disaster, also while there are a lot of competitive fights it's at lower level does Hearn think that's all the hardcore fans want to see, if Mitchell/Sykes happens it will add a lot to the card but having a higher level competitive fight involving a name isn't to much to ask for, especially now Hearn has brought PPV back and is ''Investing?'' money back into the sport.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Marlow said:


> You do have to smile a bit at the Hearn stuff. Gets a slating for catering to the casuals then announces a card in Liverpool which has a few trade fights and gets grief cos there's no big name.


What's the bill for this big card in Liverpool then?


----------



## A Force (Jul 21, 2013)

I can't see the issue here, Kell's got a big profile, he can sell out an arena fighting Matthew Hatton & pulled in some of Sky's best ever viewing figures in modern times for a boxing card. McDonnell just needs to keep grafting & hopefully the recognition will follow, if this means been chief support to Brook then crack on with it like Maccarinelli & Cook did when Khan was headlining there card before he was a world champion.

Having 10,000 watching you on a Brook card plus several hundred thousand viewers on Sky has to be better than 3,000 in Doncaster & probably less than 5,000 watching on Primetime & a few thousand more watching an illegal stream


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> What's the bill for this big card in Liverpool then?


Its not a big card, who's mislead you?


----------



## A Force (Jul 21, 2013)

Also why should Hearn put McDonnell above Brook when he doesn't have a stake in his career. If he'd got some sort of co-promotional deal you could understand him doing so but he's in the Kell Brook business, Kell's the one he's got a long term interest in so he's going to have his man headlining. Surely this is common sense?


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Marlow said:


> Its not a big card, who's mislead you?


Nobody has misled me. I'm just asking what the card is. Whether it's big or not wasn't really the main point of the post.


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> Nobody has misled me. I'm just asking what the card is. Whether it's big or not wasn't really the main point of the post.


Mathews/Woodhouse
Smith/Ochieng
Stalker
Smith
Fielding


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Marlow said:


> Mathews/Woodhouse
> Smith/Ochieng
> Stalker
> Smith
> Fielding


Depends on who the TBA is for Fielding for me. Smith/Ochieng is a good domestic fight - but as much as I like both Matthews and Woodhouse I wouldn't be too fussed about the card if that was the only other competitive fight. It is a decent trade fight though, so I can see your point about some folk wanting their cake and eating it.

The main reason I asked is because I've read Mitchell/Sykes being referred to as a good trade fight and I don't see it as such, so just wondered what the trade fights you'd referred to were.


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> Depends on who the TBA is for Fielding for me. Smith/Ochieng is a good domestic fight - but as much as I like both Matthews and Woodhouse I wouldn't be too fussed about the card if that was the only other competitive fight. It is a decent trade fight though, so I can see your point about some folk wanting their cake and eating it.
> 
> The main reason I asked is because I've read Mitchell/Sykes being referred to as a good trade fight and I don't see it as such, so just wondered what the trade fights you'd referred to were.


Mitchell/Sykes isn't great tbh.

On the Oct 5th card I think Ekundayo/Foot and Camacho/Conquest are on, again decent trade fights for me.

I can understand the point about Joshua not been a headline attraction but It's only going to be once and why not capitalise on a Heavyweight Gold medalist.

Mitchell needs a good fight sometime soon though, plenty of depth in his division.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Bill said:


> Being Olympic gold champion does not mean you automaticly will be a good pro fighter and I don't agree with him topping a bill on his debut, that's just my personal preference, it's giving him unrealistic expectations and not allowing him to work his way up a card and learn his trade, he is being fast tracked and it will end in disaster, also while there are a lot of competitive fights it's at lower level does Hearn think that's all the hardcore fans want to see, if Mitchell/Sykes happens it will add a lot to the card but having a higher level competitive fight involving a name isn't to much to ask for, especially now Hearn has brought PPV back and is ''Investing?'' money back into the sport.


The debuts will be different from every other fight though. I think Campbell's and Joshua's debuts are worthy of headlining a card, just because the attention is huge, but after that, they're going to be relegated to undercard bouts which I think is fine. If they were headlining every time, that'd be a problem but they won't headline another card until a British title fight or something like that probably.


----------



## tdw (Jun 6, 2012)

Joshua isn't a headline attraction... other than the fact that he is shifting a ton of tickets


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Jack said:


> The debuts will be different from every other fight though. I think Campbell's and Joshua's debuts are worthy of headlining a card, just because the attention is huge, but after that, they're going to be relegated to undercard bouts which I think is fine. If they were headlining every time, that'd be a problem but they won't headline another card until a British title fight or something like that probably.


Oh if it's a one off then I can understand but they shouldn't be headlining any fight after until it's a fight worthy of it or the best fight on a card, they may be Olympic gold medallists but they are complete novices in the Pro game and history tell's you that, that gold medal does not mean you will be a top class Pro. Let them learn their trade with as least pressure as possible, the bonus is that they can be moved a bit quicker when they show they are ready.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Bill said:


> Oh if it's a one off then I can understand but they shouldn't be headlining any fight after until it's a fight worthy of it or the best fight on a card, they may be Olympic gold medallists but they are complete novices in the Pro game and history tell's you that, that gold medal does not mean you will be a top class Pro. Let them learn their trade with as least pressure as possible, the bonus is that they can be moved a bit quicker when they show they are ready.


I do think it'll be a one off for Joshua, like it has been for Campbell. Personally though, I think whichever fight has the most interest in it should be the main event. For Joshua's debut, it's his fight but beyond that, the interest will cool until he's in a title fight or against someone like Harrison.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2013)

Bill said:


> Being Olympic gold champion does not mean you automaticly will be a good pro fighter and I don't agree with him topping a bill on his debut, that's just my personal preference, it's giving him unrealistic expectations and not allowing him to work his way up a card and learn his trade, he is being fast tracked and it will end in disaster, also while there are a lot of competitive fights it's at lower level does Hearn think that's all the hardcore fans want to see, if Mitchell/Sykes happens it will add a lot to the card but having a higher level competitive fight involving a name isn't to much to ask for, especially now Hearn has brought PPV back and is ''Investing?'' money back into the sport.


Just because he is top of the bill doesn't mean he will be fast tracked. This is a one off.

You never respond when I pull you up on this. You don't think Hearn is investing in the sport?


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

I think Mitchell Sykes has the potential to be great,good clash of styles which will answer a lot of questions for both.if Mitchell has any ambitions at world level he has to win clearly whereas Sykes has to be competitive if he wants another crack at domestic level.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2013)

One to watch said:


> I think Mitchell Sykes has the potential to be great,good clash of styles which will answer a lot of questions for both.if Mitchell has any ambitions at world level he has to win clearly whereas Sykes has to be competitive if he wants another crack at domestic level.


A dominant win for Mitchell would tell us he beat a Super Featherweight and is above domestic level.
A win for Sykes would tell is Mitchell is shot.

Nothing about Mitchell being world level.


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Just because he is top of the bill doesn't mean he will be fast tracked. This is a one off.
> 
> You never respond when I pull you up on this. You don't think Hearn is investing in the sport?


No, he's not. Sky are the ones investing and he's just the promoter involved with Sky. Is he actually spending his own money because if he's not how can you say he's investing? If one his fighters is hyped up but fails to make to the cut it's not like it's any skin off his nose, he just moves onto someone else. Sky would be the ones out of pocket.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Just because he is top of the bill doesn't mean he will be fast tracked. This is a one off.
> 
> You never respond when I pull you up on this. You don't think Hearn is investing in the sport?


No I don't, It's certainly not in bringing decent opponents over here and giving his fighters the best possible advantage or giving back to the fans.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

PaulieMc said:


> No, he's not. Sky are the ones investing and he's just the promoter involved with Sky. Is he actually spending his own money because if he's not how can you say he's investing? If one his fighters is hyped up but fails to make to the cut it's not like it's any skin off his nose, he just moves onto someone else. Sky would be the ones out of pocket.


Hearn isn't making money off 90% of his prospects, he's investing in them.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> No, he's not. Sky are the ones investing and he's just the promoter involved with Sky. Is he actually spending his own money because if he's not how can you say he's investing? If one his fighters is hyped up but fails to make to the cut it's not like it's any skin off his nose, he just moves onto someone else. Sky would be the ones out of pocket.


Sorry thats a ridiculous thing to say. Its like saying I don't pay my mortgage, my employer does.

Sky are paying Matchroom a fee to produce boxing shows. Matchroom use that money to sign fighters and fights. If his hyped up fighters don't make the grade, he loses his deal with Sky.


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Sorry thats a ridiculous thing to say. Its like saying I don't pay my mortgage, my employer does.
> 
> Sky are paying Matchroom a fee to produce boxing shows. Matchroom use that money to sign fighters and fights. If his hyped up fighters don't make the grade, he loses his deal with Sky.


Spending money and investing can be two slightly different things. Hennessy with Fury, Burns originally with Allegedly, Maloney with Price (though he did a bit of shit job), that's investing in a fighter. Sticking your neck out on the line for them, giving them deals and paying for them out your own kitty, not your broadcasters.

Hearn likely goes to Sky, tells them about the fighter he wants or the fighter that's called up wanting a deal and Sky decide whether or not to give him the money to make the deal based on whether the fighter is worth getting on their screens. It's one of the very few subjects Allegedly can use to legitimately hit the Hearns with, they won't spend their own money on a fighter they truly believe in. The only example I can think of where they have is probably with Froch. They won't for anyone else though. Hence why it was "too expensive" to take Frampton back to Ireland or Stevenson over to Liverpool.


----------



## The Chemist (Jun 14, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> Spending money and investing can be two slightly different things. Hennessy with Fury, Burns originally with Allegedly, Maloney with Price (though he did a bit of shit job), that's investing in a fighter. Sticking your neck out on the line for them, giving them deals and paying for them out your own kitty, not your broadcasters.
> 
> Hearn likely goes to Sky, tells them about the fighter he wants or the fighter that's called up wanting a deal and Sky decide whether or not to give him the money to make the deal based on whether the fighter is worth getting on their screens. It's one of the very few subjects Allegedly can use to legitimately hit the Hearns with, they won't spend their own money on a fighter they truly believe in. The only example I can think of where they have is probably with Froch. They won't for anyone else though. Hence why it was "too expensive" to take Frampton back to Ireland or Stevenson over to Liverpool.


Quick question how come one of those fighters is owed over £150k by a promoter? I suppose that's investing in the fighter!


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2013)

Bill said:


> No I don't, It's certainly not in bringing decent opponents over here and giving his fighters the best possible advantage or giving back to the fans.


When has that ever happened? 95% of Matchroom fights take place in the UK. He has never sent a Champion abroad and its very difficult to get Champions over to the UK. Most world title fights where Frank brags about home advantage, have been vacant title fights.

In the past 10 years only 9 fighters have come to the UK to defend there world titles against British fighters. Only 4 of those fights were not unification's or Sky Box Office fights.

Mikkell Kessler v Carl Froch*
Lucian Bute v Carl Froch
Steve Molitor v Jason Booth
Roman Martinez v Ricky Burns
Andreas Kotelnik v Amir Khan**
Mikkell Kessler v Joe Calzaghe*
Souleyeme M'Baye v Gavin Rees
Jeff Lacy v Joe Calzaghe*
Kostya Tysuzu v Ricky Hatton**

So what your asking for, which is world title fights with the British challenger at home on regular Sky Sports or free TV has only happened 4 times in 10 years.


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

The Chemist said:


> Quick question how come one of those fighters is owed over £150k by a promoter? I suppose that's investing in the fighter!


I did say ORIGINALLY like, don't blame Burns at all for fucking Frank off.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> Spending money and investing can be two slightly different things. Hennessy with Fury, Burns originally with Allegedly, Maloney with Price (though he did a bit of shit job), that's investing in a fighter. Sticking your neck out on the line for them, giving them deals and paying for them out your own kitty, not your broadcasters.
> 
> Hearn likely goes to Sky, tells them about the fighter he wants or the fighter that's called up wanting a deal and Sky decide whether or not to give him the money to make the deal based on whether the fighter is worth getting on their screens. It's one of the very few subjects Allegedly can use to legitimately hit the Hearns with, they won't spend their own money on a fighter they truly believe in. The only example I can think of where they have is probably with Froch. They won't for anyone else though. Hence why it was "too expensive" to take Frampton back to Ireland or Stevenson over to Liverpool.


Warren investing in Burns is a bit of a myth. He got the Martinez fight to the UK by default. He lost the purse bid after offering only 60k and got the rights to the fight after the Puerto Rican promoter couldn't stump up the cash. If it cost 60k to get Devon Alexander, Daniel Geale & Adonis Stevenson over to the UK trust me it would be happening.

Also you don't think Hearn invested in Brook, Bellew, Barker etc? You think he is making money off Yafai, Smith, Cardle, Ward and the other fighters that he has fighting 8x a year? Sorry mate you are talking shit here.

In the past 10 years only 9 fighters have come to the UK to defend there world titles against British fighters. Only 4 of those fights were not unification's or Sky Box Office fights.

Mikkell Kessler v Carl Froch*
Lucian Bute v Carl Froch
Steve Molitor v Jason Booth
Roman Martinez v Ricky Burns
Andreas Kotelnik v Amir Khan**
Mikkell Kessler v Joe Calzaghe*
Souleyeme M'Baye v Gavin Rees
Jeff Lacy v Joe Calzaghe*
Kostya Tysuzu v Ricky Hatton**

So what your asking for, which is world title fights with the British challenger at home on regular Sky Sports or free TV has only happened 4 times in 10 years.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> When has that ever happened? 95% of Matchroom fights take place in the UK. He has never sent a Champion abroad and its very difficult to get Champions over to the UK. Most world title fights where Frank brags about home advantage, have been vacant title fights.
> 
> In the past 10 years only 9 fighters have come to the UK to defend there world titles against British fighters. Only 4 of those fights were not unification's or Sky Box Office fights.
> 
> ...


I'm not on about just in world title fight's I'm on about across the board except at lower level, which don't involve as much money, which he will soon make up for with a PPV or 2, If he was giving back he would make better fights all round but no, he only does at domestic level and below, he then go's and makes Froch/Groves PPV when it has no right to be, is that investing in the sport? Bringing the fans the best possible fights at the best possible prices or is he thinking of the profit margin and how much is in his back pocket?


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> I did say ORIGINALLY like, don't blame Burns at all for fucking Frank off.


How did Frank ever invest in Burns?

Burns was fighting on club shows, got offered a shot at Graham Earl in what was supposed to be a tune up for Earl and won. Then he got fed to Alex Arthur and Maloney made the Carl Johannesson fight.

After that Alex Morrison got Ricky back in the mix with 8 fights in 8 months on small hall shows. Then they got the Commonwealth title fight, which won't have cost Warren fuck all and was on Sky (So thats Sky investing now according to your logic) and he had 5 Commonwealth title fights against cheap opponents in Scotland.

Burns was being lined up as an easy eliminator or vacant title fight for Kevin Mitchell. When Mitchell moved up, Burns somehow got the WBO mandatory spot after beating literally nobody. Warren made a shit bid for $60,000 for the fight and lost the purse bid and only got the fight because the Puerto Rican promoter couldnt back up there bid. The Ricky has world title fights on Sky...so again according to your logic thats Sky money.

Alex Morrison invested in Ricky Burns. Ricky Burns invested in himself by taking short money to fight regularly and to get title shots.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2013)

Bill said:


> I'm not on about just in world title fight's I'm on about across the board except at lower level, which don't involve as much money, which he will soon make up for with a PPV or 2, If he was giving back he would make better fights all round but no, he only does at domestic level and below, he then go's and makes Froch/Groves PPV when it has no right to be, is that investing in the sport? Bringing the fans the best possible fights at the best possible prices or is he thinking of the profit margin and how much is in his back pocket?


You are making absolutely no sense now.

All the Barker, Brook, Bellew, Rose, Rees, McCloskey, Frampton, Groves & Selby (his fighters in between domestic and world level) have taken place in the UK. The only fighter that ever traveled for a non world title fight from the Matchroom camp was Gavin Rees to fight Mezzache in France.

Of course Hearn is thinking about profit margain. Do you want all promoters to be in the red? Because thats whats happened to the rest of them without even making good fights and you end up with a situation where fighters don't get paid.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> You are making absolutely no sense now.
> 
> All the Barker, Brook, Bellew, Rose, Rees, McCloskey, Frampton, Groves & Selby (his fighters in between domestic and world level) have taken place in the UK. The only fighter that ever traveled for a non world title fight from the Matchroom camp was Gavin Rees to fight Mezzache in France.
> 
> Of course Hearn is thinking about profit margain. Do you want all promoters to be in the red? Because thats whats happened to the rest of them without even making good fights and you end up with a situation where fighters don't get paid.


I done talking about this now, it's pointless and it's starting to affect my mood, which has been a good one today.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2013)

Bill said:


> You are right Robert


Fixed it for you.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Fixed it for you.


Believe whatever you want if it makes you feel happy, now I'm being straight with you, I am done talking and discussing Hearn.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2013)

Bill said:


> Believe whatever you want if it makes you feel happy, now I'm being straight with you, I am done talking and discussing Hearn.


Forever? Because you have been proven wrong?


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Forever? Because you have been proven wrong?


You haven't proved shit mate and this subject is boring and its affecting my mood, which is not the reason I go on forum's, now I have asked you to leave it, please do.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2013)

Worth noting you started the conversation.

I will take that as a yes to both.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Worth noting you started the conversation.
> 
> I will take that as a yes to both.


I already said think what you like.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill said:


> I done talking about this now, it's pointless and it's starting to affect my mood, which has been a good one today.


You should just avoid it altogether, mate. Forums are much more enjoyable when you avoid all the political stuff and promotional bollocks when you can.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Batkilt said:


> You should just avoid it altogether, mate. Forums are much more enjoyable when you avoid all the political stuff and promotional bollocks when you can.


It's what I'm going to do in future, I was in a really mood yesterday, come on here for half hour and lest wanting to kill someone, its not good for my blood pressure mate.


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2013)

Bill said:


> It's what I'm going to do in future, I was in a really mood yesterday, come on here for half hour and lest wanting to kill someone, its not good for my blood pressure mate.


In fairness Bill, if you don't start the debate, you take it to the next level. I don't remember seeing you take part in a thread that wasnt about Hearn or PPV.

I felt my points were valid and you were not able to come back.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> In fairness Bill, if you don't start the debate, you take it to the next level. I don't remember seeing you take part in a thread that wasnt about Hearn or PPV.
> 
> I felt my points were valid and you were not able to come back.


Why are you trying to carry on this debate, I'm done with it, from now on I'm going to stick to the sport side of boxing because the politic's are depressing.


----------



## widdy (Jun 14, 2012)

I like McDonnell ,good little fighter and he should have more tv coverage as well,comes across a nice and knowledgable lad.

See now I've calmed the thread down( for a fucking change)


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2013)

Bill said:


> Why are you trying to carry on this debate, I'm done with it, from now on I'm going to stick to the sport side of boxing because the politic's are depressing.


Will beleive it when I see it.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Will beleive it when I see it.


:lol: I'm pissing in the wind ain't I?


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2013)

Bill said:


> :lol: I'm pissing in the wind ain't I?


There is absolutely no way you can go the rest of the year without slagging of Hearn. Its what you live for!


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

You two should fight, "Wind pisser" Bill vs "Windbag" Palmer

Would we need ppv to make it happen lads?


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> There is absolutely no way you can go the rest of the year without slagging of Hearn. Its what you live for!


I'm going to try, it's the best people can hope for.


----------



## tdw (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill said:


> I'm going to try, it's the best people can hope for.


Cue Matchroom announcing monthly PPVs


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2013)

tdw said:


> Cue Matchroom announcing monthly PPVs


Yeh I want Matchroom to do Brook v Diaz PPV with Cardle v Woodhouse as the undercard just so bill can't say anything.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

If you fuckers agree with me more, see the light and embrace it, I wouldn't get stressed, but still people defend him, Why? he is as shady as any other promoter and just much as a greedy prick, maybe even worse in this current climate.


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

Bill said:


> If you fuckers agree with me more, see the light and embrace it, I wouldn't get stressed, but still people defend him, Why? he is as shady as any other promoter and just much as a greedy prick, maybe even worse in this current climate.


Well that lasted long.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2013)

Bill said:


> If you fuckers agree with me more, see the light and embrace it, I wouldn't get stressed, but still people defend him, Why? he is as shady as any other promoter and just much as a greedy prick, maybe even worse in this current climate.


You made it about 30 hours!


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2013)

http://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk...-be-realistic-about-jamie-mcdonnell-1-5935817

Hearns response.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

For once, I see Hearn's issue. Just because McDonnell has won a title, it doesn't make him a star or an automatic main event fighter. It would be daft for Hearn to give up one of his main event slots for a guy that isn't a major draw.


----------



## Danny (May 31, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> http://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk...-be-realistic-about-jamie-mcdonnell-1-5935817
> 
> Hearns response.


Fair response. Chief support on a big Matchroom bill on Sky would still be better than headlining at an empty Keepmoat with no cameras rolling.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> For once, I see Hearn's issue. Just because McDonnell has won a title, it doesn't make him a star or an automatic main event fighter. It would be daft for Hearn to give up one of his main event slots for a guy that isn't a major draw.


Especially a fighter thats not even signed with him.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Hearn is spot on in his response. Don't understand why McDonnell doesn't just sign with him, Hobson clearly wants a bigger piece of the pie.


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Hearn is spot on in his response. Don't understand why McDonnell doesn't just sign with him, Hobson clearly wants a bigger piece of the pie.


Hobson is McDonnells manager, not his promoter per se


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

icemax said:


> Hobson is McDonnells manager, not his promoter per se


Someone said he promotes him on a fight by fight deal, he will hurt Mcdonnells career in the long run.


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Someone said he promotes him on a fight by fight deal, he will hurt Mcdonnells career in the long run.


He does promote him as and when......Dennis Hobson has developed and produced more world champions than Eddie Hearn


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

icemax said:


> He does promote him as and when......Dennis Hobson has developed and produced more world champions than Eddie Hearn


Nobody is disputing that, but he'll have him fighting on Primetime for peanuts infrnt of 2 thousand fans and 5000 viewers. when he could be on Sky building a following.


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Nobody is disputing that, but he'll have him fighting on Primetime for peanuts, when he could be on Sky building a following.


Eddie would have had him challenging in Mexico and he wouldn't now be in a position to build that following. McDonnell isn't an easy touch and he knows what he wants....Hobson, as his manager will try his very best to deliver that


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

icemax said:


> Eddie would have had him challenging in Mexico and he wouldn't now be in a position to build that following. McDonnell isn't an easy touch and he knows what he wants....Hobson, as his manager will try his very best to deliver that


You do realise that Hobson won with a low bid for the Ceja fight? Hearn would have got it over here as well, but it wouldn't have been in an empty arena.


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> You do realise that Hobson won with a low bid for the Ceja fight?


Depends what you mean by low bid



> Hearn would have got it over here as well,


History suggests that this would not be the case


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

icemax said:


> Depends what you mean by low bid
> 
> History suggests that this would not be the case


First off, it was around 100k, according to the scene. Hearn bid that for Ryder/Saunders. It's only big money fights that Hearn won't stump up for.

History suggests that's not the case? When has Hearn ever sent one of his fighters abroad to fight for a vacant title, the only purse bid for a vacant title I can think of he won withQuigg-Solinas.


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> First off, it was around 100k, according to the scene. Hearn bid that for Ryder/Saunders. It's only big money fights that Hearn won't stump up for.


I think that it was significantly more than that, but we would need Hobson to confirm that



> History suggests that's not the case? When has Hearn ever sent one of his fighters abroad to fight for a vacant title, the only purse bid for a vacant title I can think of he won withQuigg-Solinas.


Quigg - Solinas is for an interim belt, nothing more.

Other than Froch and Burns who both sell themselves and who he inherited, Im struggling to see where Hearn has stuck his neck out and brought any title fight to the UK for any of his fighters, Eddie just waives them off at passport control. Thats not necessarily a bad thing, just saying.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2013)

icemax said:


> He does promote him as and when......Dennis Hobson has developed and produced more world champions than Eddie Hearn


Thats a bit like saying Kevin Phillips has scored more goals than Daniel Struggidge!


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2013)

icemax said:


> Eddie would have had him challenging in Mexico and he wouldn't now be in a position to build that following. McDonnell isn't an easy touch and he knows what he wants....Hobson, as his manager will try his very best to deliver that





icemax said:


> History suggests that this would not be the case


What are you basing this on? How does history suggest it to be the case?


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2013)

icemax said:


> I think that it was significantly more than that, but we would need Hobson to confirm that
> 
> Quigg - Solinas is for an interim belt, nothing more.
> 
> Other than Froch and Burns who both sell themselves and who he inherited, Im struggling to see where Hearn has stuck his neck out and brought any title fight to the UK for any of his fighters, Eddie just waives them off at passport control. Thats not necessarily a bad thing, just saying.


In the past decade only 10 fighters have come to the UK to defend there world title. The last 2 were on Hearn shows. Bute & Kessler for Froch. Dennis Hobson Hobson has only ever brought one world champion to the UK. Carlos Mausa when he defended against Hatton.

The "Hearn sends fighters aboard argument" is stupid. He should actually be praised for putting his fighters in big fights where they get paid.


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Thats a bit like saying Kevin Phillips has scored more goals than Daniel Struggidge!


And you criticise me for my analogies :-(


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> The "Hearn sends fighters aboard argument" is stupid. He should actually be praised for putting his fighters in big fights where they get paid.


Read my post fully.....thats why I said



icemax said:


> Thats not necessarily a bad thing, just saying.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2013)

icemax said:


> Read my post fully.....thats why I said


I saw it.

In the past decade only 10 fighters have come to the UK to defend there world title. The last 2 were on Hearn shows. Bute & Kessler for Froch. Dennis Hobson Hobson has only ever brought one world champion to the UK. Carlos Mausa when he defended against Hatton.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Far too much is made of Hearn 'sending fighters abroad', as people continuously mention. Frank mentioned that because he knows that when he was at Sky, they didn't have the Formula 1 channel sucking money away from boxing so Sky gave him far more to attract world champions over here with. Hearn may have the contract on Sky but he hasn't been given anything like the resources that Frank had or the dates. I, and some others, know that this is just Warren being Warren but others seems to take it as plain fact without taking into consideration other things.

Secondly, when people mention this, they bring up fights like Purdy vs. Alexander, Rees vs. Broner or Barker vs. Martinez. In these bouts, there is no way they could have been staged over here. How is Hearn going to pay to bring over Alexander to fight Purdy? And how could Hearn ever consider matching what HBO will pay for Broner and Martinez? It's just ridiculous. Hearn would have lost literally millions and millions if he'd thrown enough money at those fights to have them in the UK. Are we meant to think it'd be a good idea for a boxing promoter with so many fighters to throw away millions needlessly?

Boxers going over to foreign countries makes a small amount of difference anyway. It's not like you could put Brook in with Mayweather and he'd win by knockout, as long as the fight happened in Sheffield. He'd get schooled as easily in America as he would in Britain. There is a difference but it's a very marginal one and even then, it depends on the characters of the boxers. In some cases, it just wouldn't make any difference. Bernard Hopkins could come over here and fight Froch in front of a packed Forest ground and he'd still shut Froch out. If anything, he'd thrive on the hostility and use it to his benefit.

It's just a really ignorant point, yet it keeps on being regurgitated by the same old posters.


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> I saw it.
> 
> In the past decade only 10 fighters have come to the UK to defend there world title. The last 2 were on Hearn shows. Bute & Kessler for Froch. Dennis Hobson Hobson has only ever brought one world champion to the UK. Carlos Mausa when he defended against Hatton.


You really do have a comprehension problem sometimes



icemax said:


> Other than Froch and Burns who both sell themselves and who he inherited, Im struggling to see where Hearn has stuck his neck out and brought any title fight to the UK for any of his fighters,


Is basically what you've just said but you spin it differently.

Back to the core debate....The fact of the matter is that if Jamie McDonnell is happy with his managerial/promotional set-up why do we have a problem with that? If he isn't happy then I know that he'll make changes.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

icemax said:


> I think that it was significantly more than that, but we would need Hobson to confirm that
> 
> Quigg - Solinas is for an interim belt, nothing more.
> 
> Other than Froch and Burns who both sell themselves and who he inherited, Im struggling to see where Hearn has stuck his neck out and brought any title fight to the UK for any of his fighters, Eddie just waives them off at passport control. Thats not necessarily a bad thing, just saying.


The IBF Mcdonell fought for was a paper title, same as the Quigg belt.

The winning bid for McDonnell-Ceja was on boxingscene, I recall it being just over 100k. Why would it be more? Two relatively unknown fighters fighting for a paper belt.

The only time Hearn has been in a vacant title bid he won it so the whole historically that's not he case thing doesn't fly here.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

icemax said:


> You really do have a comprehension problem sometimes
> 
> Is basically what you've just said but you spin it differently.
> 
> Back to the core debate....The fact of the matter is that if Jamie McDonnell is happy with his managerial/promotional set-up why do we have a problem with that? If he isn't happy then I know that he'll make changes.


So you'd rather see Jamie on Crimetime viewed by about 5 thousand people on PPV? Hmmmm


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> The IBF Mcdonell fought for was a paper title, same as the Quigg belt.


:lol: Sure



> The winning bid for McDonnell-Ceja was on boxingscene,


If its on the Scene then it must be true......it isn't.



> The only time Hearn has been in a vacant title bid he won it so the whole historically that's not he case thing doesn't fly here.


Which one was that?

The fact of the matter is that if Jamie McDonnell is happy with his managerial/promotional set-up why do we have a problem with that? If he isn't happy then I know that he'll make changes.


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> So you'd rather see Jamie on Crimetime viewed by about 5 thousand people on PPV? Hmmmm


I don't actually give a fuck where I watch McDonnell, and I find it slightly weird that you or anyone else gives a fuck either....so long as we can see him. Its up to McDonnell how he progresses his career, not us...if he's happy with what he is doing who are you or me to argue?


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

icemax said:


> I don't actually give a fuck where I watch McDonnell, and I find it slightly weird that you or anyone else gives a fuck either....so long as we can see him. Its up to McDonnell how he progresses his career, not us...if he's happy with what he is doing who are you or me to argue?


Because I don't want to pay £15 to watch him, so you bought his last fight did you?


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Because I don't want to pay £15 to watch him, so you bought his last fight did you?


I live 9 miles away, I went to watch it live.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

icemax said:


> :lol: Sure
> 
> If its on the Scene then it must be true......it isn't.
> 
> ...


Well it's a belt that was vacated, meaning it holds little merit, just like the regular belt Quigg is fighting for. The fact remains you said it's historically not he case referring to Hearn winning a purse bid vacant title fight, the only one he bid for he won.


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Well it's a belt that was vacated, meaning it holds little merit, just like the regular belt Quigg is fighting for. The fact remains you said it's historically not he case referring to Hearn winning a purse bid vacant title fight, the only one he bid for he won.


You are now being obtuse, but nice try :clap:


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Well it's a belt that was vacated, meaning it holds little merit, just like the regular belt Quigg is fighting for.


The IBF recognise McDonnell as their champ. The WBA wont recognise Quigg.

They aren't the same.


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

Grant said:


> The IBF recognise McDonnell as their champ. The WBA wont recognise Quigg.
> 
> They aren't the same.


But Hearn won the bid, so they are


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

icemax said:


> You are now being obtuse, but nice try :clap:


Not really a nice try considering its a fact that Hearn has won the only vacant title purse bid he's been involved in but yeah, soon it how you want.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Grant said:


> The IBF recognise McDonnell as their champ. The WBA wont recognise Quigg.
> 
> They aren't the same.


What do you mean they won't recognise Quigg?


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> What do you mean they won't recognise Quigg?


As their no1.

It's a junior belt.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

icemax said:


> But Hearn won the bid, so they are


Nothing to do with who won the bid, they're both vacant titles so they don't mean much at all.


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Not really a nice try considering its a fact that Hearn has won the only vacant title purse bid he's been involved in but yeah, soon it how you want.


You will be the only person on here who actually considers Quigg a proper bona fide belt holder if he wins :-(


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Nothing to do with who won the bid, they're both vacant titles so they don't mean much at all.


One means a whole lot more than the other


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

icemax said:


> You will be the only person on here who actually considers Quigg a proper bona fide belt holder if he wins :-(


I don't recognise any of the belts that are won in vacant situations like these. They're all shite.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

icemax said:


> One means a whole lot more than the other


I don't see it that way, both paper titles.


----------

