# Eddie Hearn Answers fans Questions with Kugie



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)




----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

Allot of people don't like iFilm interviews with Hearn, or like Hearn all together. But this is the kind of thing we could have only dreamed of a few years back. Gonna watch now. Had 2 question hope they get answered but they had over 1000 apparently.


----------



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Allot of people don't like iFilm interviews with Hearn, or like Hearn all together. But this is the kind of thing we could have only dreamed of a few years back. Gonna watch now. Had 2 question hope they get answered but they had over 1000 apparently.


When is Warren doing his that he promised:rolleyes


----------



## One Inferno (Jun 12, 2013)

People may not like Ifilm but with this they are giving much more insight than any other interviewer


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

Seems like Froch v Groves is not nailed on for PPV - _"Would have to be a monster card for it to be PPV"_


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

lol at the response to the Khan guy in Bolton.


----------



## BoltonTerrier (Jun 12, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> lol at the response to the Khan guy in Bolton.


Its NOT me btw


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

Calls out Bunce for grassing them up over Lee Purdy.


----------



## ero-sennin (May 25, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Calls out Bunce for grassing them up over Lee Purdy.


Supreme typing skills from rob, considering that he's most likely typing with his left hand


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

ero-sennin said:


> Supreme typing skills from rob, considering that he's most likely typing with his left hand


I'm a southpaw mate.


----------



## Lazarus (Jun 2, 2012)

If there's anything relevant, please write it here.


----------



## ero-sennin (May 25, 2013)

so am I when I'm boxing (trying to anyway) or eating. Everything else is right hand.


----------



## BoltonTerrier (Jun 12, 2013)

Just finishing it up. Good interview so far. Theres a couple of bits that have been edited out. When hes asked if he chuckled when he heard about Frampton pulling out. Also when hes asked if hes ever been approached by another tv station.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

@JamieC

When asked why didn't you take the Bradley fight for Kell Brook

_"Because the money was shit, they wanted about 5 options on him, and we were one fight away agaisnt Saldivia to become mandatory for the IBF. If you don't understand that, you might as well pack the game up"_


----------



## Ari Gold Bawse (Jun 4, 2013)

love these long vids with fast car.


----------



## El Greeno (Jun 6, 2012)

32.05 - This question is from the Wallet Inspector:happy @Wallet


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

@Wallet EVT Eddie


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

don't think he is a big fan of you @Wallet


----------



## Wallet (May 31, 2012)

*On Kell Brook opponent:* Hopes to announce this week still but may not be possible.

*On a show in Wales:* Says the demand is lacking at the moment.

*On Froch-Groves:* Fight is likely but needs to be a monster card to be PPV. Is wary of doing too many PPVs.

*On signing Tyson Fury:* Not on the agenda, and never been discussed.

*On Steve Bunce:* Says that he's not an impartial journalist and that he has texted people telling them to report Eddie to the board for comments made on Twitter.

*On Lee Selby's Plans:* Fights October 5th against Ryan Walsh and will fight again before the end of the year. Will fight for a world title in Spring/Summer next year.

*On Haye-Fury:* Will do bigger numbers than Froch-Kessler but wont be promoted as well.

*Favourite non-Matchroom fighter:* In world, Golovkin. In UK, Frankie Gavin. :yep

*On expanding outside of UK:* Matchroom Sport opening offices in US soon.

*On signing Anthony Crolla:* Really likes him but hasn't been discussed. If he's a free agent definitely something that he will consider.

*On signing female fighters:* No. No appeal.

*On Frank Warren joint Q&A:* Open to it but wont happen. Warren was going to go on Ringside but demanded it be shown live.

*On Rigo-Quigg:* No money in the fight.

*On Brook-Bradley:* Money was shit. Wanted loads of options. Were 1 fight away from being IBF mandatory.

*On Kell Brook's lifestyle:* Likes his food and likes a night out. But is maturing.

*On Raymundo Beltran:* Serious fighter. Best fighter outside of the belt holders.

*On Anthony Joshua:* Hasn't signed him, but are in talks and favourites to get him.

*On Brook-Lopez:* Will not confirm or deny but thinks it's a great fight.

*On Brook-Van Heerden:* Decent fight. Can't recognise IBO as a main title and couldn't sell it as such. (Really ironic...).

*On Quigg's "world title fight":* Spouts a load of nonsense about the regular belt being a real title.

*On Barker's fight defence:* Would be Sturm due to mandatory.

*On fighters being on US undercards:* Will happen but not on Geale-Barker.

*On lightweight super 6:* Could happen spring-summer next year but is looking at making fights like Mathews-Coyle II, Mitchell-Rees/Mathews first.

*On Froch's next fight location:* Won't be in Nottingham.

*On Sky deal:* One year remaining on deal with big news coming.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Wallet said:


> *On Kell Brook opponent:* Hopes to announce this week still but may not be possible.
> 
> *On a show in Wales:* Says the demand is lacking at the moment.
> 
> ...


Brilliant as I didn't want to sit through that really
The frankie Gavin call out is telling

I'm not one of these that fawn over Hearn as he is a promoter and they aren't why I love boxing.but the man is a near miracle worker for getting lee purdy a title shot in America in a seriously stacked division


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

ero-sennin said:


> Supreme typing skills from rob, considering that he's most likely typing with his left hand


:rofl


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Frankie Gavin to Matchroom then. RIP Frank

:eddie


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

Bill said:


> :rofl


If Froch v Groves is on regular Sky you can spend 15quid on tissues for that.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Froch-Groves on PPV :lol: Eddie loves a pound note.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Edward did say a few things that I liked and showed he does listen, if them things pan out or not? we shall see?


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> If Froch v Groves is on regular Sky you can spend 15quid on tissues for that.


No I'd just go and buy a new pair of pants, its cheaper mate.


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

Quality breakdown, Wallet. Cheers for that. What did you ask?


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

El Greeno said:


> 32.05 - This question is from the Wallet Inspector:happy @Wallet


His answer to Wallet's question was boooshit.

He basically explained how it's a made up belt as the WBA already has a champ. Then said it was a real world title. It's clearly not.

It's one thing having different sanctioning bodies have different champions. It's a different ball game if you accept that a sanctioning body can have more than one champ at a time.

I really don't like the way this is going. First it was Kessler who was a supposed 'champ' even though Ward had the real belt. Now they're doing it again with Quigg.

I'm all for calling him Super Duper Diamond International Emerald Champ or something but lets not call him a World Champ if he wins.


----------



## Danny (May 31, 2012)

Good video as always, these are always a pleasure to watch. Well answered in general, obviously going to give some dribble about Quigg's belt being proper, and to an extent it is. We don't live in a day and age where we have one champ per weightclass, get over it. He's a promoter, it's his job to hype it as a world title fight and sell the contest, I didn't expect anything less.

Van Heerden would be a shit fight for Brook though after all the hype he gave it post-Hull.


----------



## Wallet (May 31, 2012)

Roe said:


> Quality breakdown, Wallet. Cheers for that. What did you ask?


It's a 32:05.

I asked does he think he's misleading the casual fans by selling Quigg-Salinas as a world title fight when not even the WBA considers the winner to be the best super bantamweight in the world.

He came out with a load of nonsense straight out of the WBA rule book.

The timing of it was brilliant though as on the previous question he had just said that the IBO isn't one of the major titles and he wouldn't be able to sell it as a world title fight because of that.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

yeh that was BS from Hearn. Seems he has an issue with you from elsewhere Wallet?


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

Bill said:


> No I'd just go and buy a new pair of pants, its cheaper mate.


that how you wank?


----------



## Wallet (May 31, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> yeh that was BS from Hearn. Seems he has an issue with you from elsewhere Wallet?


Dunno why he would.

I mentioned it when he was selling Froch-Kessler as a unification too. I think it's just about that.


----------



## Wallet (May 31, 2012)

He's wrong about Magee too. 

He was 'upgraded' to WBA regular champion before the Kessler fight after Balzsay pulled out of their proposed fight injured.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> that how you wank?


I'll wank in the airing cupboard in spandex if that's how the mood takes me, really couldn't give a fuck mate.


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

Wallet said:


> It's a 32:05.
> 
> I asked does he think he's misleading the casual fans by selling Quigg-Salinas as a world title fight when not even the WBA considers the winner to be the best super bantamweight in the world.
> 
> ...


Yeah I just watched it :good

The way he tries to justify it is very poor. Same as the other day when I read the sky sports article about Quigg getting a "world title shot" without even one mention of Rigo the whole article.

Even worse was on Ringside tonight when they talked of Quigg fighting "a highly rated, unbeaten Cuban, for the WBA super bantamweight world title." :-(

"I know 'the _Wallet_ Inspector'. I've seen that a few times on twitter." :lol:


----------



## dennison (Nov 15, 2012)

Wallet said:


> He's wrong about Magee too.
> 
> He was 'upgraded' to WBA regular champion before the Kessler fight after Balzsay pulled out of their proposed fight injured.


That was my question, quite disappointing really as Magee was the regular champion just like quigg will be if he wins, ironic he said Kessler was WBA champ and magee was interim, well who did Kessler beat to be the WBA champ I wonder


----------



## El Greeno (Jun 6, 2012)

Lunny said:


> His answer to Wallet's question was boooshit.
> 
> He basically explained how it's a made up belt as the WBA already has a champ. Then said it was a real world title. It's clearly not.
> 
> ...


Do you know if the WBA treat the regular belt holder as mandatory for the super belt?:think

They would be majorly taking the piss if not.


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

El Greeno said:


> Do you know if the WBA treat the regular belt holder as mandatory for the super belt?:think
> 
> They would be majorly taking the piss if not.


I don't think so. Kessler and now Froch have had the fake WBA belt whilst Ward has the real one and I haven't heard the WBA ordering a mandatory on it.,


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

El Greeno said:


> Do you know if the WBA treat the regular belt holder as mandatory for the super belt?:think
> 
> They would be majorly taking the piss if not.


why would that be taking the piss?


----------



## Lunny (May 31, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> why would that be taking the piss?


Because they have 2 separate world champions with no intention to unify their own fucking belts???


----------



## El Greeno (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> why would that be taking the piss?


You don't think as well as having two belts, having two mandatories is taking the mick? I would have thought they would at least try and unify their _own_ belt and pretend they give a shit:conf


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

Lunny said:


> Because they have 2 separate world champions with no intention to unify their own fucking belts???





El Greeno said:


> You don't think as well as having two belts, having two mandatories is taking the mick? I would have thought they would at least try and unify their _own_ belt and pretend they give a shit:conf


But you said it would be taking the piss if the regular champ was mandatory for the super champ.


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> But you said it would be taking the piss if the regular champ was mandatory for the super champ.


:lol: No they didn't.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

You rattled his cage there Wallet!!:lol::deal


----------



## El Greeno (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> But you said it would be taking the piss if the regular champ was mandatory for the super champ.





El Greeno said:


> Do you know if the WBA treat the regular belt holder as mandatory for the super belt?:think
> 
> They would be majorly taking the piss if not.


----------



## Bajingo (May 31, 2012)

They do. I think it's within 2 years of becoming Super champion, might be wrong.

Povetkin is Wlad's only WBA mandatory.


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

Interesting that he said Kell Brook isn't the model professional and there's no smoke without fire. Pretty much admitted all that stuff about Brook is at least partly true. I thought he'd flat out deny it. Very honest of him.

Fucking laughable that he's defending the WBA regular belt though and calling Froch a super champion. Don't insult fan's intelligence.


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

Nice one @Wallet.


----------



## Scorpio78 (Jun 10, 2012)

eddie a sneaky fucker for mentioning Frankie gavin

he is desperate to get him so he can start doing some midlands shows

I have said before , gavin has already been tapped up but has to lower his $$$ as frank pays/paid him big money


----------



## JamieC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> @JamieC
> 
> When asked why didn't you take the Bradley fight for Kell Brook
> 
> _"Because the money was shit, they wanted about 5 options on him, and we were one fight away agaisnt Saldivia to become mandatory for the IBF. If you don't understand that, you might as well pack the game up"_


Wow if Eddie Hearn says it then it must be true @dftaylor @icemax you heard what Eddie said guys? Lets pack up this boxing lark


----------



## kingkodi (Jun 20, 2012)

To be fair you can hardly blame Eddie for being diplomatic about the belt situation, he has to work with these organisations. He's hardly going to say they're a bunch of corrupt cunts and the belt is worth fuck all....is he?


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

Scorpio78 said:


> eddie a sneaky fucker for mentioning Frankie gavin
> 
> he is desperate to get him so he can start doing some midlands shows
> 
> I have said before , gavin has already been tapped up but has to lower his $$$ as frank pays/paid him big money


this.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

JamieC said:


> Wow if Eddie Hearn says it then it must be true @dftaylor @icemax you heard what Eddie said guys? Lets pack up this boxing lark


sounds good to me.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

JamieC said:


> Wow if Eddie Hearn says it then it must be true @dftaylor @icemax you heard what Eddie said guys? Lets pack up this boxing lark


Yes, Eddie's right. Absolutely right. Business is business and fans shouldn't be disappointed and criticise a fighter for taking the easier route to the top. Facts are facts, Bradley had beaten Pacquiao (regardless of whether you agree with the decision) and Alexander, and Brook was going to fight a lesser opponent.

Fine for Eddie to take it as a business decision, but considering how it backfired on him and Brook...


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

Almost every time a fight dont happens somebody says the money was shit.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> Yes, Eddie's right. Absolutely right. Business is business and fans shouldn't be disappointed and criticise a fighter for taking the easier route to the top. Facts are facts, Bradley had beaten Pacquiao (regardless of whether you agree with the decision) and Alexander, and Brook was going to fight a lesser opponent.
> 
> Fine for Eddie to take it as a business decision, but considering how it backfired on him and Brook...


But it backfired due to an injury....which could happen at any time and is completely unpredictable.


----------



## The Chemist (Jun 14, 2013)

Scorpio78 said:


> eddie a sneaky fucker for mentioning Frankie gavin
> 
> he is desperate to get him so he can start doing some midlands shows
> 
> I have said before , gavin has already been tapped up but has to lower his $$$ as frank pays/paid him big money


all very well getting promised more money if it don't come on time!


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> But it backfired due to an injury....which could happen at any time and is completely unpredictable.


Rob, you can understand and criticise the decision at the same time. Constantly shouting "business sense" doesn't somehow excuse Eddie from cynically targeting a weaker belt-holder.


----------



## Bajingo (May 31, 2012)

Not only did they turn it down for the reasons Eddie mentioned but also because Brook would almost certainly have lost :lol:

He's talented but he wasn't, and still isn't obviously, ready for a fighter on Bradley's level. Alexander was a much more winnable fight and he would have earned more as mandatory, and no options etc. if he won. It was the right call at the time clearly. Looking back it's easy to say it was a missed opportunity but he still would have lost and needed to rebuild without his unbeaten record and losing his mandatory shot (and even if he kept it US TV would have blocked the fight).


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> Rob, you can understand and criticise the decision at the same time. Constantly shouting "business sense" doesn't somehow excuse Eddie from cynically targeting a weaker belt-holder.


Theirs choosing a weaker belt holder and theirs choosing not to take a fight you cannot win.

Brook has a shot v Alexander. He doesn't have a shot v Bradley.


----------



## Bajingo (May 31, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> Rob, you can understand and criticise the decision at the same time. Constantly shouting "business sense" doesn't somehow excuse Eddie from cynically targeting a weaker belt-holder.


Wouldn't any good promoter have done the same thing? Brook wasn't Lee Purdy or Gavin Rees where it was basically "why the fuck not" when they got those offers. Hearn had a plan and stuck with it. It's good business sense and also for his career, the experience he would pick up against Alexander and the opportunities that would bring in the US or a massive fight with Khan over here, vs an all but guaranteed loss to Bradley?


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

This is not complicated, FFS. I UNDERSTAND WHY EDDIE AND BROOK MADE THAT CHOICE, IT'S JUST THAT I FIND IT DISAPPOINTING AS A FAN. It's the EXACT same thing Warren does and gets pelters for.


----------



## gasman (Jun 5, 2012)

Eddie had to compose himself before he answered the question 'did he have a chuckle when he heard Frampton's fight was off etc'. He was being professional with his answer, but for my money he laughed his hole off when he heard about it.

Also, Kugie asked himself a couple of questions - a tad self-indulgent, I like iFilm and all but I am only interested in the opinions of the subjects not the interviewers and also he should just hand the sheet of questions to Hearn who would just rattle through them, would save all this fucking about delayed interludes between questions.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> This is not complicated, FFS. I UNDERSTAND WHY EDDIE AND BROOK MADE THAT CHOICE, IT'S JUST THAT I FIND IT DISAPPOINTING AS A FAN. It's the EXACT same thing Warren does and gets pelters for.


I don't think you can give me an example of Warren every doing this. Warren fighters don't have final eliminators.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

the Bunce stuff was interesting. The real Steve Bunce being shown up.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

The funny thing for me watching Eddie answering Wallets question was that, even as he was trying to explain the WBA rules on super champs, you could see in his face he was thinking "Fuck me, the WBA have a stupid way of doing things".:lol:


----------



## cheekyvid (Jun 9, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> the Bunce stuff was interesting. The real Steve Bunce being shown up.


eh? They didn't say anything new, other than what we already know


----------



## cheekyvid (Jun 9, 2012)

GazOC said:


> The funny thing for me watching Eddie answering Wallets question was that, even as he was trying to explain the WBA rules on super champs, you could see in his face he was thinking "Fuck me, the WBA have a stupid way of doing things".:lol:


Yeah he couldn't make it sound legit at all


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

cheekyvid said:


> eh? They didn't say anything new, other than what we already know


the stuff about Bunce being the one that grassed them up has never been discussed openly but those involved. just rumors on here.


----------



## Trippy (Jun 18, 2013)

"Might sign a world champion"

Who's he got his eye on?


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

cheekyvid said:


> Yeah he couldn't make it sound legit at all


He knew it as well, repeating himself, waving his arms about and saying "you know what I mean?". I don't blame Hearn for the WBAs rules but he knows, from a boxing fans point of view, he's defending something thats pretty shitty.


----------



## cheekyvid (Jun 9, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> the stuff about Bunce being the one that grassed them up has never been discussed openly but those involved. just rumors on here.


dear oh dear robert. you're not as "in the know" as you think you are then


----------



## cheekyvid (Jun 9, 2012)

Trippy said:


> "Might sign a world champion"
> 
> Who's he got his eye on?


Well he also said that he wasn't planning on signing any european or foreign boxers...so who's left...?


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

cheekyvid said:


> dear oh dear robert. you're not as "in the know" as you think you are then


whys that? I new it was Bunce months ago. I was saying its never been discussed openly by Hearn or anyone involved.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

I knew it was Bunce before Rob did.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

cheekyvid said:


> Well he also said that he wasn't planning on signing any european or foreign boxers...so who's left...?


Cleverly, McDonell at world level. Martin Murray & James DeGale just below. Frankie Gavin & Anothony Crolla is top tier domestic as will be Billy Joe Saunders if he beats Ryder (I am picking Ryder). Top prospects would be Buglioni & Michell Smith.


----------



## cheekyvid (Jun 9, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> whys that? I new it was Bunce months ago. I was saying its never been discussed openly by Hearn or anyone involved.


Right ok, you never stated that before, the fact you said it was "interesting" suggested they had revealed information you did no know previously, despite the fact it was known by many.

Sorted.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

GazOC said:


> I knew it was Bunce before Rob did.


lol


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

cheekyvid said:


> Right ok, you never stated that before, the fact you said it was "interesting" suggested they had revealed information you did no know previously, despite the fact it was known by many.
> 
> Sorted.


I have discussed it before on this forum or ESB. 1005


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

What has Bunce supposedly grassed Hearn up for?


----------



## cheekyvid (Jun 9, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Cleverly, McDonell at world level. Martin Murray & James DeGale just below. Frankie Gavin & Anothony Crolla is top tier domestic as will be Billy Joe Saunders if he beats Ryder (I am picking Ryder). Top prospects would be Buglioni & Michell Smith.


Yeah, but he said signing a World Champ. To be fair, I forgot about McDonnell(my fault) and i guess it's him they mean as Clev will be tied down tight in his contract. And noway Warren is going to move any of his fighters into a World title fight only to let them go soon after, hes learnt better than that. Anyone below that signed goes the Eddie Hearm route to success: Tune-up, Homecoming, Eliminator, Final Eliminator, World title shot on away soil.


----------



## cheekyvid (Jun 9, 2012)

Grant said:


> What has Bunce supposedly grassed Hearn up for?


Being too god damn smooth for his own good.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Looks like fast car will sign Jmie McDonnell.


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

cheekyvid said:


> Anyone below that signed goes the Eddie Hearm route to success: Tune-up, Homecoming, Eliminator, Final Eliminator, World title shot on away soil.


You forgot the all important "easing himself into his new contract" fight


----------



## kingkodi (Jun 20, 2012)

I hope Hearn does sign McDonnell


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Looks like fast car will sign Jmie McDonnell.


I'd be very surprised if its anything other than on a fight by fight basis


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

cheekyvid said:


> Yeah, but he said signing a World Champ. To be fair, I forgot about McDonnell(my fault) and i guess it's him they mean as Clev will be tied down tight in his contract. And noway Warren is going to move any of his fighters into a World title fight only to let them go soon after, hes learnt better than that. Anyone below that signed goes the Eddie Hearm route to success: Tune-up, Homecoming, Eliminator, Final Eliminator, World title shot on away soil.


Ricky Burns, George Groves, Tony Bellew & James DeGale all had contracts.


----------



## cheekyvid (Jun 9, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Ricky Burns, George Groves, Tony Bellew & James DeGale all had contracts.


Agreed. But I think Wazzla has wised up by now. Groves a different situation I think.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

icemax said:


> You forgot the all important "easing himself into his new contract" fight


Couldn't make it up!:lol:


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

icemax said:


> I'd be very surprised if its anything other than on a fight by fight basis


Don't think Hearn would do a one fight deal. He didn't do that with David Haye so its unlikely they would do it with McDonnell.

You can laugh again....but he is the one with the power. Hobson either goes with BoxNation or with Sky via co-promotion with Eddie Hearn.

Apparently McDonnell is close to being on the same card as Brook.


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

GazOC said:


> Couldn't make it up!:lol:


Its a whole new blueprint :deal


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

cheekyvid said:


> Agreed. But I think Wazzla has wised up by now. Groves a different situation I think.


What are you basing this on?


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Apparently McDonnell is close to being on the same card as Brook.


He's boxed on Hearn card(s) before


----------



## cheekyvid (Jun 9, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> What are you basing this on?


Foundations of knowledge.


----------



## cheekyvid (Jun 9, 2012)

icemax said:


> He's boxed on Hearn card(s) before


Is Hobson his manager and promoter?


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

cheekyvid said:


> Is Hobson his manager and promoter?


Yes.


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

cheekyvid said:


> Is Hobson his manager and promoter?





robpalmer135 said:


> Yes.


No


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

icemax said:


> No


No reason to be obtuse. Who is?


----------



## cheekyvid (Jun 9, 2012)

I think he is, icemax just being awkward


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> No reason to be obtuse. Who is?


As far as Im aware Hobson works on a fight by fight basis


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

icemax said:


> As far as Im aware Hobson works on a fight by fight basis


But Hobson is his manager right?


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> But Hobson is his manager right?


Hobson is his manager


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

icemax said:


> Hobson is his manager


Is there a contract there or is it a fight by fight basis?

Could sign a 3 fight deal with Hearn, with the option being being allowed to fight in the US if an offer comes in.

What would you do with McDonnell if you were his manager Ice?


----------



## Danny (May 31, 2012)

Think you all might be reading a bit too much in to that.

I think it was a case of 'we might, nothing's in the pipeline but you never know' rather than 'we are'.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Is there a contract there or is it a fight by fight basis?
> 
> Could sign a 3 fight deal with Hearn, with the option being being allowed to fight in the US if an offer comes in.
> 
> What would you do with McDonnell if you were his manager Ice?


Get him on Sky while he's still got his title. Even Boxnation would do.


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Is there a contract there or is it a fight by fight basis?
> 
> Could sign a 3 fight deal with Hearn, with the option being being allowed to fight in the US if an offer comes in.
> 
> What would you do with McDonnell if you were his manager Ice?


I think that he's managerially contracted to Hobson, I don't know what the duration of that contract is but they seem to have a very good working relationship. If I was his manager I would certainly be pushing him to sign a limited contract with one of the big promotional outfits, Hearn ideally...... BUT its all about what the fighter wants and I think that McDonnell enjoys the flexibility of being able to pick and choose fight by fight and Hobson is happy to oblige


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

Danny said:


> Think you all might be reading a bit too much in to that.
> 
> I think it was a case of 'we might, nothing's in the pipeline but you never know' rather than 'we are'.


If McDonnell does fight on the Brook card then he technically has signed a world titlist


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

icemax said:


> I think that he's managerially contracted to Hobson, I don't know what the duration of that contract is but they seem to have a very good working relationship. If I was his manager I would certainly be pushing him to sign a limited contract with one of the big promotional outfits, Hearn ideally...... BUT its all about what the fighter wants and I think that McDonnell enjoys the flexibility of being able to pick and choose fight by fight and Hobson is happy to oblige


Problem with that is your not going to get Hearn putting the promotional machine behind McDonnell. You want to get him to the point where he can go back to Doncaster stadium next year and bang the place out with 20,000 rather than the 3,000 that were there for Ceja.

Do a 4 fight deal with Hearn with the option of being able to fight in the US if a good offer comes along.....but theres no real stars coming through at that weight in the US. Hearn is looking to build Luke Campbell in Yorkshire and he needs main events for those cards, plus there is the new 14,000 seater First Direct Arena in Leeds.

October v Malinga (mandatory) in Sheffield with Brook & Campbell.
December v world ranked contender in the First Direct Arena with Brook & Campbell.
March v world ranked contender in Leeds or Sheffield.
July unification at the Hull/Doncaster stadiums.


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Problem with that is your not going to get Hearn putting the promotional machine behind McDonnell. You want to get him to the point where he can go back to Doncaster stadium next year and bang the place out with 20,000 rather than the 3,000 that were there for Ceja.
> 
> Do a 4 fight deal with Hearn with the option of being able to fight in the US if a good offer comes along.....but theres no real stars coming through at that weight in the US. Hearn is looking to build Luke Campbell in Yorkshire and he needs main events for those cards, plus there is the new 14,000 seater First Direct Arena in Leeds.
> 
> ...


I'm not going to argue with any of that......Its just that McDonnell comes across as a lad who likes to keep it personal. Hobson would have your arm off Im sure


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

icemax said:


> I'm not going to argue with any of that......Its just that McDonnell comes across as a lad who likes to keep it personal. Hobson would have your arm off Im sure


When they did the eliminator on the Brook card he seemed quite pally with Hearn. They were tweeting one another and McDonnel was very active in promoting the card and thanking Matchroom & Eddie Hearn


----------



## BoltonTerrier (Jun 12, 2013)

I went to that Kell show in sheff and there were a lot of fans there supporting/interested in McDonnell. If hes promoted correctly he could be big in Yorkshire..


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Can we ask Eddie how he first felt when he realised that by The Power of Greyskull he transformed into He-Man? And what are his memories on his first encounter with Skeletor?



robpalmer135 said:


> Problem with that is your not going to get Hearn putting the promotional machine behind McDonnell. *You want to get him to the point where he can go back to Doncaster stadium next year and bang the place out with 20,000* rather than the 3,000 that were there for Ceja.
> 
> Do a 4 fight deal with Hearn with the option of being able to fight in the US if a good offer comes along.....but theres no real stars coming through at that weight in the US. Hearn is looking to build Luke Campbell in Yorkshire and he needs main events for those cards, plus there is the new 14,000 seater First Direct Arena in Leeds.
> 
> ...


You can wish and one hand and shit in the other and see which fills up first.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

icemax said:


> If McDonnell does fight on the Brook card then he technically has signed a world titlist


After the Quigg announcement at least we know where Hearn sets the bar in that regard now!:hey


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> Can we ask Eddie how he first felt when he realised that by The Power of Greyskull he transformed into He-Man? And what are his memories on his first encounter with Skeletor?
> 
> You can wish and one hand and shit in the other and see which fills up first.


What don't you understand about "YOU WANT HIM TO"

Stick to photo bucket. Banter is shit.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> What don't you understand about "YOU WANT HIM TO"
> 
> Stick to photo bucket. Banter is shit.


Stick to posting shit ratings threads on everything from "rate these fighters chins on my shit criteria" to forum banter, as you're otherwise an awful, awful poster.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> Stick to posting shit ratings threads on everything from "rate these fighters chins on my shit criteria" to forum banter, as you're otherwise an awful, awful poster.


I have never made a list of posters banter.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

Surprised Eddie doesn't wanna do a show at the Premier League City of Cardiff.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> I have never made a list of posters banter.


No but you comment on it all the time, as if anyone gives a fuck what you think of their patter.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Surprised Eddie doesn't wanna do a show at the Premier League City of Cardiff.


We had boxing last week from the <ahem!> "Beautiful City of Hull" so anything is possible.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> No but you comment on it all the time, as if anyone gives a fuck what you think of their patter.


Its just your I comment on.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Its just your I comment on.


Can you stick me on ignore again, please? I'd stick you on ignore myself but you'd still comment on my posts and I'd still get the notification e-mails, so it'd be pointless in the end.

Cheers, lad. :good


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> Can you stick me on ignore again, please? I'd stick you on ignore myself but you'd still comment on my posts and I'd still get the notification e-mails, so it'd be pointless in the end.
> 
> Cheers, lad. :good


No (tried to find a photo to outline this but I am not a fucking loser)

+ if you are going to try and set up a signature to make fun of me....at least formulate an actual sentence.

this is why you have shit banter.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> No (tried to find a photo to outline this *but I am not a fucking loser*)
> 
> + if you are going to try and set up a signature to make fun of me....at least formulate an actual sentence.
> 
> this is why you have shit banter.


That's highly debatable. Do you PM every cunt that calls you a dick on here, or is it just me?










I have shit banter when your best insult is "I wank over photo bucket"? Your girlfriend's grotesquely pointy elbows must be doing your head in, lad.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> That's highly debatable. Do you PM every cunt that calls you a dick on here, or is it just me?


Just you. I tired to call a truce and you basically spat in my face.


----------



## Canastota (Jul 12, 2013)

Wallet said:


> * On a show in Wales:* Says the demand is lacking at the moment.


That's not true from Hearn; the August 17th show is brilliant showcase for Welsh talent coming through the ranks. The demand is there but Matchroom do not have a Welsh contingent of fighters to be able to make a show. Selby would really need Gavin Rees to be in a decent fight as well to even have a sniff of a show. However, Adam Smith's commentary on Rees-Crolla told you how he sees Rees's future panning out as he was writing his obituary from the opening round.

Sky also favour English shows if at all possible unless they have a a fighter with a ready-made home support like Burns who they also now suddenly have confidence issues with.

And more importantly, in terms of collaborations Sky are somewhat isolated promotionally right now. The Cleverly bill shows how useful the link up of the Boxnation promoters is in terms of putting on an undercard in a given location. Thus, Buckland gets a chance to fight in his hometown for the first time in his career as a result of the Warren-Hatton link up, whilst Selby has no chance of fighting at home and generating some support there.

A few weeks ago nobody would've believed Buckland would be fighting in Cardiff before Selby! Now Selby will be shunted along underneath the likes of debutant Olympians before being thrown across the pond having never fought at 'home'.


----------



## Scorpio78 (Jun 10, 2012)

kugan comes across a right dumb fucker sometimes

why even bother witht that bs question from that dick in Bolton ? my guess is to make it look like nothing is edited out etc


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

Batkilt said:


> Stick to posting shit ratings threads on everything from "rate these fighters chins on my shit criteria" to forum banter, as you're otherwise an awful, awful poster.





robpalmer135 said:


> What don't you understand about "YOU WANT HIM TO"
> 
> Stick to photo bucket. Banter is shit.


Can you two play nice please? If you don't agree with each other then fine, put your opinions across and move on. But there's no point just going back and forth if you're not gonna get on at all.

Honestly, aside from all this petty playground stuff, you are probably two of my favourite posters and it'd be good if it stayed that way :good

Same with al that "Craney" shit, Rob. Probably best to just leave it now. Yeah, he's a twat but try not to let it bring the forum down because of it. If you don't like one of his threads, posts or whatever then just ignore it.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Roe said:


> Can you two play nice please? If you don't agree with each other then fine, put your opinions across and move on. But there's no point just going back and forth if you're not gonna get on at all.


It's just banter on my end, honestly. I left it last night as I gathered that Rob was taking it all seriously, and that it might have been coming across as more spiteful than I intended it. I have a dry sense of humour that's out of place on forums - or in society in general at times - but I don't mind Rob.

So aye. Sorry, lads.



> Honestly, aside from all this petty playground stuff, you are probably two of my favourite posters and it'd be good if it stayed that way :good


bama


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Rob's up his own arsehole, that is all.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Hearn came across very badly when answering sir Wilfred Wallet's question, personally I think he should ring him up and apologise.

What Hearn needs to understand is that not everybody is his beloved casual fan, some people are more clued up than he is, so show some fucking respect to them.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Bill said:


> Hearn came across very badly when answering sir Wilfred Wallet's question, personally I think he should ring him up and apologise.
> 
> What Hearn needs to understand is that not everybody is his beloved casual fan, some people are more clued up than he is, so show some fucking respect to them.


Yeah, Hearn doesn't come across as the most knowledgeable boxing fan. Still though, he ha to protect and justify his investments.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Yeah, Hearn doesn't come across as the most knowledgeable boxing fan. Still though, he ha to protect and justify his investments.


I know mate, I don't expect any different from a boxing promoter but it just shows him up for being a liar and full of shit, considering some people hold him in such high esteem it must of been heartbreaking for them, poor Jack lost his boner when Eddie answered that question.


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

Bill said:


> I know mate, I don't expect any different from a boxing promoter but it just shows him up for being a liar and full of shit, considering some people hold him in such high esteem it must of been heartbreaking for them, poor Jack lost his boner when Eddie answered that question.


Hearn is a promoter like every other promoter. He isnt anything Special. Who invented this new Age Promotion anyway?


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Berliner said:


> Hearn is a promoter like every other promoter. He isnt anything Special. Who invented this new Age Promotion anyway?


I think it was @Marlow :lol: It's ok though, I'll let him off seeing as he's a funny fucker.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

I have far more issue with Quigg's opponent for the WBA title than the WBA having two 'world' titles. If Quigg was fighting Terrazas, Montiel or Mijares, nobody would care that it's not for the proper WBA title at the weight. The issue is with who he's fighting because it's a world title fight against an opponent who clearly isn't world level.

The problem with this clearly lies with the WBA and their rankings though. I don't think they should have two champions, full stop, but if they are going to do that, the rankings need to be a lot better. I don't think Quigg should be near a 'world title' and his opponent has beaten nobodies. Assuming Rigo vacates though, the winner of Quigg/Salinas will be the WBA world champion outright. It's for a world title, so it has to be promoted as a world title fight, but I disagree strongly with the WBA system and their rankings.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Jack said:


> I have far more issue with Quigg's opponent for the WBA title than the WBA having two 'world' titles. If Quigg was fighting Terrazas, Montiel or Mijares, nobody would care that it's not for the proper WBA title at the weight. The issue is with who he's fighting because it's a world title fight against an opponent who clearly isn't world level.
> 
> The problem with this clearly lies with the WBA and their rankings though. I don't think they should have two champions, full stop, but if they are going to do that, the rankings need to be a lot better. I don't think Quigg should be near a 'world title' and his opponent has beaten nobodies. Assuming Rigo vacates though, the winner of Quigg/Salinas will be the WBA world champion outright. It's for a world title, so it has to be promoted as a world title fight, but I disagree strongly with the WBA system and their rankings.


I do see your point but I think both cases are as bad as each other, its wrong full stop and Eddie defending it the way he did makes him no different than Frank Warren which I'm hoping people will now start to see


----------



## DynamiteDan (Jul 18, 2013)

Jack said:


> I have far more issue with Quigg's opponent for the WBA title than the WBA having two 'world' titles. If Quigg was fighting Terrazas, Montiel or Mijares, nobody would care that it's not for the proper WBA title at the weight. The issue is with who he's fighting because it's a world title fight against an opponent who clearly isn't world level.
> 
> The problem with this clearly lies with the WBA and their rankings though. I don't think they should have two champions, full stop, but if they are going to do that, the rankings need to be a lot better. I don't think Quigg should be near a 'world title' and his opponent has beaten nobodies. Assuming Rigo vacates though, the winner of Quigg/Salinas will be the WBA world champion outright. It's for a world title, so it has to be promoted as a world title fight, but I disagree strongly with the WBA system and their rankings.


Have you ever seen Salinas fight just wondering?


----------



## DynamiteDan (Jul 18, 2013)

Bill said:


> I do see your point but I think both cases are as bad as each other, its wrong full stop and Eddie defending it the way he did makes him no different than Frank Warren which I'm hoping people will now start to see


Hearn is a lot different to Warren


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

DynamiteDan said:


> Hearn is a lot different to Warren


Yeah, Hearn is a Special promoter.


----------



## DynamiteDan (Jul 18, 2013)

Berliner said:


> Yeah, Hearn is a Special promoter.


Wouldn't go that far


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

DynamiteDan said:


> Wouldn't go that far


It was a joke. I dont see anything Special in Hearn. He is like every other promoter. Doing his Job (he is good at it). Thats all.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

DynamiteDan said:


> Hearn is a lot different to Warren


Not in general terms though, they both have the same agenda and are proven lying sack of shits.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Bill said:


> I do see your point but I think both cases are as bad as each other, its wrong full stop and Eddie defending it the way he did makes him no different than Frank Warren which I'm hoping people will now start to see


Like I said though, nobody would have cared if the opponent was world class. That's the only reason people are bothered, because it devalues the achievement entirely. If Quigg was facing Montiel, nobody would care about the fact Rigo is the real WBA champion because Quigg/Montiel would be a legitimate fight. Though even if Rigo was out of the picture, I think people would still have an issue with Quigg and Salinas fighting for a world title because neither of them are world class yet.

I don't really care about it being hyped up as a world title fight because it is one. I care more about the opponent than anything else. Salinas shouldn't be anywhere near a world title fight as this stage.


DynamiteDan said:


> Have you ever seen Salinas fight just wondering?


Yeah, there's a couple of fights on YouTube I've had a look at. He looks pretty decent but I wouldn't call him world class, just because he hasn't proven it against anyone decent. God knows how he got such a high ranking.


----------



## DynamiteDan (Jul 18, 2013)

Bill said:


> Not in general terms though, they both have the same agenda and are proven lying sack of shits.


I'd say Hearn is more transparent IMO but yeah they both tell lies


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Jack said:


> Like I said though, nobody would have cared if the opponent was world class. That's the only reason people are bothered, because it devalues the achievement entirely. If Quigg was facing Montiel, nobody would care about the fact Rigo is the real WBA champion because Quigg/Montiel would be a legitimate fight. Though even if Rigo was out of the picture, I think people would still have an issue with Quigg and Salinas fighting for a world title because neither of them are world class yet.
> 
> I don't really care about it being hyped up as a world title fight because it is one. I care more about the opponent than anything else. Salinas shouldn't be anywhere near a world title fight as this stage.
> 
> Yeah, there's a couple of fights on YouTube I've had a look at. He looks pretty decent but I wouldn't call him world class, just because he hasn't proven it against anyone decent. God knows how he got such a high ranking.


Quigg/Montiel would be a good and better fight but it still wouldn't change the fact it's not for a world title, accepting theses meaningless trinkets devalues boxing far more than a shit fight imho.


----------



## Indigo Pab (May 31, 2012)

:rofl Wallet is on course to get battered. Wonderful scenes.

Shout out Eddie Hearn and Wallet.


----------



## DynamiteDan (Jul 18, 2013)

Jack said:


> Yeah, there's a couple of fights on YouTube I've had a look at. He looks pretty decent but I wouldn't call him world class, just because he hasn't proven it against anyone decent. God knows how he got such a high ranking.


Yeah I think Salinas will turn out to be a decent test for Quigg in all honesty, I don't really care about the fight because it is a good learning fight for him and will help him win an a world title in the future


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

DynamiteDan said:


> I'd say Hearn is more transparent IMO but yeah they both tell lies


So you're saying Hearn is a transparent liar?

Not sure how that's especially different...


----------



## DynamiteDan (Jul 18, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> So you're saying Hearn is a transparent liar?
> 
> Not sure how that's especially different...


No I'm saying he is more transparent and keeps fans more informed about goings on.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> So you're saying Hearn is a transparent liar?
> 
> Not sure how that's especially different...


It's a bit like those tee total alcoholics.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

DynamiteDan said:


> No I'm saying he is more transparent and keeps fans more informed about goings on.


Not always a good thing as yesterday proved, you just set yourself up for a fall, especially when lying on camera.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

People who say Warren and Hearn are the same must have an agenda.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> People who say Warren and Hearn are the same must have an agenda.


:yep


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Bill said:


> :yep


:lol: at least your honest about It mate.


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill said:


> It's a bit like those tee total alcoholics.


We was in a pub in Liverpool once and my mate said to a bird 'do you wanna pint' and she said 'no thanks i am a recovering alcoholic' so without thinking he said 'have a half then'.

I was fucking roaring.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> :lol: at least your honest about It mate.


:lol: I'm just sick of the abnormal amount of praise he gets for doing sod all different, he does deserve praise for some things and in a way he has made a serious impact in boxing these last few years but in the act of fairness he needs to be pulled up and told when he fucks up and doing things wrong, the fact he gets a free pass most of the time really riles me.


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

He doesn't get a "free pass". When he makes shit fights he gets stick for it just like anyone else.

What he gets praise for is generally being pretty open and doing things like hour long interviews answering fan questions.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Grant said:


> We was in a pub in Liverpool once and my mate said to a bird 'do you wanna pint' and she said 'no thanks i am a recovering alcoholic' so without thinking he said 'have a half then'.
> 
> I was fucking roaring.


:rofl


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Roe said:


> He doesn't get a "free pass". When he makes shit fights he gets stick for it just like anyone else.
> 
> What he gets praise for is generally being pretty open and doing things like hour long interviews answering fan questions.


Come off it Roe, you telling me people like Rob and Jack don't give him a free pass, they do as do others, It's not so much Hearn himself that pisses me off even though he does at times, its the way his fangirls act.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Bill said:


> :lol: I'm just sick of the abnormal amount of praise he gets for doing sod all different, he does deserve praise for some things and in a way he has made a serious impact in boxing these last few years but in the act of fairness he needs to be pulled up and told when he fucks up and doing things wrong, the fact he gets a free pass most of the time really riles me.


Hearn has been getting alot of grief of late. Even though he mainly delivers good cards. His only real faults are Prizefighter, one PPV fight and the odd shite card which is pretty rare.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Hearn has been getting alot of grief of late. Even though he mainly delivers good cards. His only real faults are Prizefighter, one PPV fight and the odd shite card which is pretty rare.


TBF B.A it has only been one PPV and it is wrong of me to give him shit on the basis there will be plenty more, (which we all know there will be) its not happened yet, Prizefighter? well Eddie should be brought in front of a judge and imprisoned for that shit, my mind will never change on that.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

I do think Hearn and I genuinely believe this, shows a total lack of respect to the hardcore fans and he is more interested in the casuals, the way he spoke about Wallet, who is a fair and decent hardcore boxing fan is alarming.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Bill said:


> TBF B.A it has only been one PPV and it is wrong of me to give him shit on the basis there will be plenty more, (which we all know there will be) its not happened yet, Prizefighter? well Eddie should be brought in front of a judge and imprisoned for that shit, my mind will never change on that.


Oh I agree on Prizefighter, even though the one the other week was top draw, that's probably a. Bad thing it was that good though. Now fast car can say 'see, prizefighter is amazing'


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

Bill said:


> I do think Hearn and I genuinely believe this, shows a total lack of respect to the hardcore fans and he is more interested in the casuals, the way he spoke about Wallet, who is a fair and decent hardcore boxing fan is alarming.


Of course he's more interested in casual fans. There's more of them and they make him more money.

The way he dismissed Wallet was out of order though.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Roe said:


> Of course he's more interested in casual fans. There's more of them and they make him more money.
> 
> The way he dismissed Wallet was out of order though.


I understand why he likes the casual's more, I'm not that daft but its of no benefit to me, I couldn't give a monkeys about some part time fan or how much wedge Hearn's got in his back pocket, I follow boxing everyday I love the sport and care about it, to know that me and others like me are not the target audience I find is quite insulting.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Prizefighter is good for British boxing. Casual fans are always interested, which is why ticket sales and TV ratings are much better than they would be for a card with the same fighters without the format, and it allows low level fighters to earn a massive payday compared to what they'd usually be earning. A fighter like Glenn Foot probably made 10x the amount he's ever made in boxing before, so I like it for that reason. It can be a really fun night when the type of boxers involved are right too.

However, I do think there are a few too many of these shows. I'd like Prizefighter to be more of a novelty but I'm not surprised that Sky are against reducing the numbers. It's a format that works for them so even if I'd like to see it less often, the more that Sky like it, the better it is for British boxing.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Bill said:


> I understand why he likes the casual's more, I'm not that daft but its of no benefit to me, I couldn't give a monkeys about some part time fan or how much wedge Hearn's got in his back pocket, I follow boxing everyday I love the sport and care about it, to know that me and others like me are not the target audience I find is quite insulting.


If there were more casual fans who watched boxing every week, we'd have shows every single week on Sky, so hardcore boxing fans should want Hearn to lure in more casual fans. If that means PPV or Prizefighter, so be it. The only way we'll see more boxing on Sky is if they target the casual market and bring TV ratings up.

As a hardcore boxing fan, I'm happy to accept things I don't like if it means that the market grows because that will then be better for me. I want to see a show every week on Sky and that can only happen if there are more casual fans than there currently is.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Jack said:


> Prizefighter is good for British boxing. Casual fans are always interested, which is why ticket sales and TV ratings are much better than they would be for a card with the same fighters without the format, and it allows low level fighters to earn a massive payday compared to what they'd usually be earning. A fighter like Glenn Foot probably made 10x the amount he's ever made in boxing before, so I like it for that reason. It can be a really fun night when the type of boxers involved are right too.
> 
> However, I do think there are a few too many of these shows. I'd like Prizefighter to be more of a novelty but I'm not surprised that Sky are against reducing the numbers. It's a format that works for them so even if I'd like to see it less often, the more that Sky like it, the better it is for British boxing.


See this post is a demonstration why me and you will never see eye to eye, you look at boxing as a business, I look at boxing as a sport.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Bill Eddie has been putting on a lot of domestic fights and shows where casual fans don't have a clue who they are. To say he just caters to the casuals is a bit daft mate.

We're all 'hardcore' boxing fans on here and sure wed like to see the end of prizefighter etc, but it is what it is.

As long as fast car keeps putting on good shows I'm happy.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Bill Eddie has been putting on a lot of domestic fights and shows where casual fans don't have a clue who they are. To say he just caters to the casuals is a bit daft mate.
> 
> We're all 'hardcore' boxing fans on here and sure wed like to see the end of prizefighter etc, but it is what it is.
> 
> As long as fast car keeps putting on good shows I'm happy.


No I agree to an extent but when's the last time he threw us a bone and gave us something really good on normal sky? Bute/Froch? that's a while ago now and any top fights we are going to see in future will cost us extra to what we already pay.


----------



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill said:


> No I agree to an extent but when's the last time he threw us a bone and gave us something really good on normal sky? Bute/Froch? that's a while ago now and any top fights we are going to see in future will cost us extra to what we already pay.


I've got a feeling Froch vs Groves will be on normal sky.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

CamR21 said:


> I've got a feeling Froch vs Groves will be on normal sky.


Mate I hope you are right and he will get the deserved praise for that and rightly so, I mean it is a normal sky fight by rights but he has the option of PPV and if he go's against that then fair play to him.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Bill said:


> No I agree to an extent but when's the last time he threw us a bone and gave us something really good on normal sky? Bute/Froch? that's a while ago now and any top fights we are going to see in future will cost us extra to what we already pay.


I get where you're coming from. Hopefully Froch-Groves will be on normal Sky. He definitely wants to make it PPV but is worried about the backlash from the fans.


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

if you want to buy a ppv fight... do you have to buy sky also?


----------



## Scorpio78 (Jun 10, 2012)

If Joshua ends up on froch groves it will almost certainly be ppv


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> I get where you're coming from. Hopefully Froch-Groves will be on normal Sky. He definitely wants to make it PPV but is worried about the backlash from the fans.


It will be interesting to see what he does with that fight, if he proves me wrong I'll be over the moon, could not be happier because I benefit and we all benefit but lets see if ''Casual'' Eddie lives up to his nickname. I got a feeling he will.


----------



## Bajingo (May 31, 2012)

Berliner said:


> if you want to buy a ppv fight... do you have to buy sky also?


You need a Sky box but not a subscription to either the main channels or the sport, I think.


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

Bajingo said:


> You need a Sky box but not a subscription to either the main channels or the sport, I think.


I just wonder... you have to buy the sky box and then buy the fight?


----------



## Bajingo (May 31, 2012)

Berliner said:


> I just wonder... you have to buy the sky box and then buy the fight?


You may be able to buy it online now like the rest of Sky, I honestly don't know.

Either way I'm not paying for the fight :lol:


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Bill said:


> It will be interesting to see what he does with that fight, if he proves me wrong I'll be over the moon, could not be happier because I benefit and we all benefit but lets see if ''Casual'' Eddie lives up to his nickname. I got a feeling he will.


Will Sky want to put on a third PPV in the space of 6 months is the big question and will it do good numbers? Lets be honest Groves doesn't have the profile of Kessler.

Sky and fast car will have to promote the shit out of this one if they want good PPV numbers.


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

Jack said:


> I don't really care about it being hyped up as a world title fight because it is one.


The big problem that I have is that it is being marketed as *THE* WBA world championship....a little clarification by those selling it wouldn't go amiss


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

I love how they keep talking and talking about making world champions. But so far Eddie aint made one!

Carl Froch already WAS world champion before he signed him, so dont come out with that shit.

I can appreciate him being behind his fighters in all the world title fights he gets them, but it doesnt mean they are going to do it.

Eddie Hearn signs world champions - he doesnt make them.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

- DC - said:


> I love how they keep talking and talking about making world champions. But so far Eddie aint made one!
> 
> Carl Froch already WAS world champion before he signed him, so dont come out with that shit.
> 
> ...


Wrong, Froch was a beltholder, never the world champion, just thought I'd clear that up.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

Bill said:


> Wrong, Froch was a beltholder, never the world champion, just thought I'd clear that up.


:happy :lol:

Eddie Hearn doesnt even make beltholders! :rofl


----------



## dkos (Jun 2, 2012)

- DC - said:


> Eddie Hearn signs world champions - he doesnt make them.


He's also been promoting for what, 2-3 years at the most?

You have to give Eddie more time before you start criticising him for not building any champions at this point.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

dkos said:


> He's also been promoting for what, 2-3 years at the most?
> 
> You have to give Eddie more time before you start criticising him for not building any champions at this point.


Nah, I aint criticizing him, I'm just pointing out the truth.

Eddie has gotten a few fighters world title shots. (some have been unbelievable fights to secure for his fighters, like Purdy and Rees) They've all failed so far. He keeps talking about it, but where is it?

I see him counting on his hands all the fighters he will have as world champions. He has a duty to support his fighters regardless, I get that. But just shut up talking about it until you actually make one.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Bill said:


> See this post is a demonstration why me and you will never see eye to eye, you look at boxing as a business, I look at boxing as a sport.


I think it has to be both. As hardcore boxing fans, we want the same thing but there has to be sacrifices in order to make them happen. As much as we'd both love for it to happen, Sky won't do 50 packed shows a year without Prizefighters and PPV because they'll lose money on it. There has to be a compromise somewhere, which is why as boxing fans, we have to live with things we might not like, such as the occasional weaker card and Prizefighter events. Sky funding is too low to have things the way we want them.

Personally, I don't mind accepting these compromises. I'd rather have 40 normal shows and 10 Prizefighters a year, than just 20 normal shows. I'd rather have PPV than not, if it means Sky invest more time and money into boxing.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

Lol @Bill saying casual Eddie is his nickname....only you call him that!


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> I get where you're coming from. Hopefully Froch-Groves will be on normal Sky. He definitely wants to make it PPV but is worried about the backlash from the fans.


A relative novice fighting the second best smw in the world is a "good" fight?

Jesus, maybe my standards are too high. It's no better than Burns fighting Crolla.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

Bill said:


> See this post is a demonstration why me and you will never see eye to eye, you look at boxing as a business, I look at boxing as a sport.


Yet you spend more time and energy talking about the business side?


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> A relative novice fighting the second best smw in the world is a "good" fight?
> 
> Jesus, maybe my standards are too high. *It's no better than Burns fighting Crolla*.


It is though isn't it.


----------



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> A relative novice fighting the second best smw in the world is a "good" fight?
> 
> Jesus, maybe my standards are too high. It's no better than Burns fighting Crolla.


It will be a closer fight than that but I think that Crolla deserves a shot more than Groves does


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Yet you spend more time and energy talking about the business side?


It's hard not to when Mr Numbers post's on the same forum, you are a bad influence on me Rob, hang your head in shame. :lol:


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Lol @Bill saying casual Eddie is his nickname....only you call him that!


Over time it will catch on mate don't worry about that.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> A relative novice fighting the second best smw in the world is a "good" fight?
> 
> Jesus, maybe my standards are too high. It's no better than Burns fighting Crolla.


I didn't say it was a good fight? And it's 10 times better then Burns-Crolla


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

CamR21 said:


> It will be a closer fight than that but I think that Crolla deserves a shot more than Groves does


Deserve has nothing to do with it - Froch/Groves will at least garner some interest. If it's about deserving the title shot then neither do.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> A relative novice fighting the second best smw in the world is a "good" fight?
> 
> Jesus, maybe my standards are too high. It's no better than Burns fighting Crolla.


Are you seriously calling Groves a relative novice?


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> Deserve has nothing to do with it - Froch/Groves will at least garner some interest. If it's about deserving the title shot then neither do.


I get confused on here. One minute Froch is not a world champion and the belts mean nothing, the next minute Groves doesn't deserve a shot at a world title?

(not saying your the one playing both sides Batklit)


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

Bill said:


> It's hard not to when Mr Numbers post's on the same forum, you are a bad influence on me Rob, hang your head in shame. :lol:


yeh that won't take on either.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

Bill said:


> Over time it will catch on mate don't worry about that.


except it won't.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> except it won't.


Of course it will if Eddie takes the route of acting the berk,which he's fast on his way now to becoming that.


----------



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)

Batkilt said:


> Deserve has nothing to do with it - Froch/Groves will at least garner some interest. If it's about deserving the title shot then neither do.


Neither does do but out of the two Crolla deserves one more


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

Bill said:


> Of course it will if Eddie takes the route of acting the berk,which he's fast on his way now to becoming that.


He already has a nickname. Fast Car.


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

Bill said:


> Of course it will if Eddie takes the route of acting the berk,which he's fast on his way now to becoming that.


I think at the minute the good far outweighs the bad with Hearn but I'm still baffled by the notion that he doesn't get stick and always gets a pass.


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

CamR21 said:


> Neither does do but out of the two Crolla deserves one more


Why?


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

CamR21 said:


> Neither does do but out of the two Crolla deserves one more


Whys that. Groves is undefeated. Cleaned up domestically, and has beaten 2 top 15 fighters.

Crolla has lost 2 and has a draw. Couldn't win Prizefighter. Has not cleaned up domestically. Has 1 win over a top 15 fighter.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

Marlow said:


> I think at the minute the good far outweighs the bad with Hearn but I'm still baffled by the notion that he doesn't get stick and always gets a pass.


He is held to a higher standard these days.


----------



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)

Marlow said:


> Why?


Crolla beat Rees who was a top 15 fighter at the time, Groves hasn't done anything past British level and hasn't got a win over any top 10 fighter to warrant a shot at Froch


----------



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Whys that. Groves is undefeated. Cleaned up domestically, and has beaten 2 top 15 fighters.
> 
> Crolla has lost 2 and has a draw. Couldn't win Prizefighter. Has not cleaned up domestically. Has 1 win over a top 15 fighter.


What top 15 fighters has Groves beaten?

Rees was ranked top 15 maybe just on the edges of top 10 that puts him in contention but neither fighter deserves a shot in all honesty but Groves certainly doesn't


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

CamR21 said:


> Crolla beat Rees who was a top 15 fighter at the time, Groves hasn't done anything past British level and hasn't got a win over any top 10 fighter to warrant a shot at Froch


James DeGale has proven himself to be a top 15 fighter. He has won the European title. Despite coming of a loss Glen Johnson was still above domestic level. Plus he cleaned up at domestic level beating Anderson & Smith.

Crolla lost to Matthews & Sykes who are the equivalent.

There is a reason why Groves is ranked No.1 by every governing body and Crolla is ranked 1.


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

CamR21 said:


> Crolla beat Rees who was a top 15 fighter at the time, Groves hasn't done anything past British level and hasn't got a win over any top 10 fighter to warrant a shot at Froch


Why do you refer to Rees as a top 15 fighter but then judge Groves on not beating a top 10 fighter?

Is it fair to ignore Crolla failing to beat Derry twice?


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

CamR21 said:


> What top 15 fighters has Groves beaten?
> 
> Rees was ranked top 15 maybe just on the edges of top 10 that puts him in contention but neither fighter deserves a shot in all honesty but Groves certainly doesn't


Its all relative. Johnson & DeGale are better wins.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

Marlow said:


> Why do you refer to Rees as a top 15 fighter but then judge Groves on not beating a top 10 fighter?
> 
> Is it fair to ignore Crolla filing to beat Derry twice?


That wouldn't suit his agenda.


----------



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> James DeGale has proven himself to be a top 15 fighter. He has won the European title. Despite coming of a loss Glen Johnson was still above domestic level. Plus he cleaned up at domestic level beating Anderson & Smith.
> 
> Crolla lost to Matthews & Sykes who are the equivalent.
> 
> There is a reason why Groves is ranked No.1 by every governing body and Crolla is ranked 1.


After when Groves beat him not at the time he wasn't. Johnson is completely shot to shit and I'm not even sure he is much above domestic level anymore.

IMO Crolla won the second fight and that added with Rees pushes him higher than Groves, who in the last year has fought noone even half decent


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Marlow said:


> I think at the minute the good far outweighs the bad with Hearn but I'm still baffled by the notion that he doesn't get stick and always gets a pass.


From a select few, you not included he gets a free pass, ask Jack to knock Hearn? It wont fucking happen, he's too busy trying to fit Eddies balls in his mouth, shouldn't be so much of a problem seeing as Eddie is a fake motherfucker and has tiny balls, if he had a pair he would take a risk and give the hardcore fans a fight they actually want.


----------



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)

Marlow said:


> Why do you refer to Rees as a top 15 fighter but then judge Groves on not beating a top 10 fighter?
> 
> Is it fair to ignore Crolla filing to beat Derry twice?


Because Rees is a higher quality that anyone which Groves has beaten at the point in time which he beat them.

I'm not ignoring that but he has moved on since then


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

Bill said:


> From a select few, you not included he gets a free pass, ask Jack to knock Hearn? It wont fucking happen, he's too busy trying to fit Eddies balls in his mouth, shouldn't be so much of a problem seeing as Eddie is a fake motherfucker and has tiny balls, if he had a pair he would take a risk and give the hardcore fans a fight they actually want.


Who are the select few? You KNOW I am not one of them!


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

After Rees failed to beat Crolla, there isn't a lightweight in Britian who deserves a shot at Burns.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

CamR21 said:


> Because Rees is a higher quality that anyone which Groves has beaten at the point in time which he beat them.
> 
> I'm not ignoring that but he has moved on since then


Moved on since.........it was 6 months ago!

*Groves*

WBC No.1
WBA No.2
IBF No.6
WBO No.1
Fightnews No.5
The Ring No.6
ESPN No.9
TBR No.8
CBH No.8

*Crolla*

Not ranked by any of the above

End of thread.


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> End of thread.


Can we talk about Eddie some more before you close it please, Rob?


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Who are the select few? You KNOW I am not one of them!


No to your credit you are a more senisble Hearn fan, you can see the difference from black and white, not everyone has that ability.


----------



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Moved on since.........it was 6 months ago!
> 
> *Groves*
> 
> ...


He achieved most of those rankings by beating nobodies like Alcoba. Crolla's win over Rees is better than Groves win over Degale and that came in his last fight so I'd say if either deserves a fight (which neither do) it is Crolla


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

Bill said:


> No to your credit you are a more senisble Hearn fan, you can see the difference from black and white, not everyone has that ability.


Thanks.....now for the sucker punch.

I would say theirs a select group of posters that give Hearn no credit and cannot see beyond there biased hatred. I include you on that list.

:rofl:rofl


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

Bill said:


> if he had a pair he would take a risk and give the hardcore fans a fight they actually want.


:huh

So the fans didn't want to see Froch in with Bute and Kessler then? Both in England.
They don't want to see Darren Barker challenging for titles to try and prove himself one of the best in the division.
They don't want to see Groves try to step up to world level.
They don't want to see Kell Brook on the verge of challenging for titles. Following an injury that's obviously got nothing to do with the promoter, Brook's rematched the hardest fight of his career and is now set to face his best opponent to date in either Senchenko or van Heerden.
They don't want to see Scott Quigg trying to make more of a name for himself. Rigo's having enough trouble getting a TV fight against any of the big names, let alone someone unknown like Scott Quinn. It's not a world title, but it is the best available belt that Quigg can fight for next. Maybe the fans don't want that either though.
They don't want to see Ricky Burns headline in his home country against another solid top 10 lightweight.

Just exactly what do all these hardcore boxing fans really want Casual Eddie to do?


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

Roe said:


> :huh
> 
> So the fans didn't want to see Froch in with Bute and Kessler then? Both in England.
> They don't want to see Darren Barker challenging for titles to try and prove himself one of the best in the division.
> ...


I will respond for Bill.

Kessler was PPV. Fans don't want that.
The Bute undercard was poor.
Kell Brook should have fought for a world title. Senchnko & Van Heerdan are not big names.
Quiggs fighting for a fony world title.
Burns is not fighting in a unification.


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> I will respond for Bill.
> 
> Kessler was PPV. Fans don't want that.
> The Bute undercard was poor.
> ...


Don't know if you're being disinginuous there, but all of those points are bang on the money.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Bill said:


> From a select few, you not included he gets a free pass, ask Jack to knock Hearn? It wont fucking happen, he's too busy trying to fit Eddies balls in his mouth, shouldn't be so much of a problem seeing as Eddie is a fake motherfucker and has tiny balls, if he had a pair he would take a risk and give the hardcore fans a fight they actually want.


I don't understand why you constantly mention my name. Whenever we've disagreed on something, I've happily given you reasons to justify my opinion and yet, like in this thread, you don't reply to it. If I'm biased then you should be able to point out why, yet you don't. You just constantly say I'm biased even though you refuse to debate any point.

It's not enough to just say someone is biased and be done with it. I've given you reasons to justify every opinion I have, which is something you don't do. You are on some obsessive crusade against Hearn, criticising him for everything.. You even make up something which hasn't happened and criticise him for things inside your own head! It's ridiculous.

For _you_ of all people to accuse anyone of bias is funny as fuck, but you refuse to even argue the points I'm supposedly biased about.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Grant said:


> Don't know if you're being disinginuous there, but all of those points are bang on the money.


Not really. You'd have to be some idealist clown with his head in the clouds to expect the absolute best at all times. Boxing fans need to accept that not every card can be free, with great undercards and a FOTC main event. It's just not realistic. Yeah, sometimes things aren't perfect but they aren't awful either.

The supposed 'Hearn fans' (I hate typing this childish shit) are far more realistic about the boxing industry than the 'Hearn haters'.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Jack said:


> The supposed 'Hearn fans' (I hate typing this childish shit) are far more realistic about the boxing industry than the 'Hearn haters'.


Thats only since their idol has shown himself to be just another boxing promoter like a lot of us were saying from the start. They moved the goalposts as to what is reasonable from a boxing promoter as soon as it became apparent that Hearn wasn't going to be the free spending White Knight they\d initially hoped for.

They shouldn't pat themselves on the back too much, they've merely just come around to the same way of thinking that a lot of us have held all along. Welcome to the real world.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

GazOC said:


> Thats only since their idol has shown himself to be just another boxing promoter like a lot of us were saying from the start. They moved the goalposts as to what is reasonable from a boxing promoter as soon as it became apparent that Hearn wasn't going to be the free spending White Knight they\d initially hoped for.
> 
> They shouldn't pat themselves on the back too much, they've merely just come around to the same way of thinking that a lot of us have held all along. Welcome to the real world.


Who was actually disagreeing with Hearn being just another promoter? Nobody actually called im the savior of Boxing and was being serious.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Who was actually disagreeing with Hearn being just another promoter? Nobody actually called im the savior of Boxing and was being serious.


Fucking hell Rob, on ESB when he got his Sky deal. Some of the cards he was going to put on, the fights we were going to see where ridiculous, they made no sense whatsoever but Hearn was going to put them on because he's a boxing fan. Less Sky dates but that was OK because they'd all be rammed with top fights, "quality, not quantity".

The people coming out with that bollocks are largely to blame for the backlash now. How Jack can say the pro Hearn posters are more realistic about boxing after some of the crap I've seen posted about what Hearn was going to do with his Sky TV, I'll never now.

Hearn has shown himself to be no worse than most other boxing promoters but hardly the White Knight some people thought he would become. Whick is EXACTLY what myself, Icemax, Bill and others were saying from the very start.

If a few people got off his cock maybe a few people would get off his back?


----------



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)




----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

GazOC said:


> Fucking hell Rob, on ESB when he got his Sky deal. Some of the cards he was going to put on, the fights we were going to see where ridiculous, they made no sense whatsoever but Hearn was going to put them on because he's a boxing fan. Less Sky dates but that was OK because they'd all be rammed with top fights, "quality, not quantity".
> 
> The people coming out with that bollocks are largely to blame for the backlash now. How Jack can say the pro Hearn posters are more realistic about boxing after some of the crap I've seen posted about what Hearn was going to do with his Sky TV, I'll never now.
> 
> ...


Fans have always had high expectations of promoters. This was not exclusive to Hearn. And the quality of the shows has improved from the Friday Fight Night days. Thats not open to debate.

Theirs far more extremely anti Hearn posters than extremely pro Hearn posters these days. and since when was the answer to dealing with anything like that to just have the opposite opinion for the sake of it?


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

GazOC said:


> Thats only since their idol has shown himself to be just another boxing promoter like a lot of us were saying from the start. They moved the goalposts as to what is reasonable from a boxing promoter as soon as it became apparent that Hearn wasn't going to be the free spending White Knight they\d initially hoped for.
> 
> They shouldn't pat themselves on the back too much, they've merely just come around to the same way of thinking that a lot of us have held all along. Welcome to the real world.


I can only speak for myself but I didn't expect Hearn to deliver anything more than he has done. His shows are a similar pattern to those from GBP, Top Rank etc., and he treats the fans and fighters well. That's all I expected of him and it's all I praise him for now. I didn't expect top to bottom fantastic shows or anything like that and I can't imagine anyone else did either. I do think he's a step above the likes of Hatton, Warren, Maloney and Hennessy though because there are no issues with him putting on dreadful shows full of mismatches, not paying fighters and so on. If people want to compare Hearn to those four, they're well off the mark. His shows are much better and he treats the fans and fighters better too. That isn't up for debate, so people can't just regurtitate this line about Hearn 'being the same' just because he's a promoter. Dave Coldwell isn't near as shady as Frank Warren but should we just ignore all the good and bad they've done, just because they're both promoters? Of course not.

Honestly, I think a lot of people got sick about the tongue in cheek jokes about Hearn being the saviour or whatever, so they developed an agenda against him. It's absurdly childish. I see lots of negative, bitchy comments about Hearn but I don't see anyone making strong arguments behind their pettiness.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Fans have always had high expectations of promoters. This was not exclusive to Hearn. And the quality of the shows has improved from the Friday Fight Night days. Thats not open to debate.


Then fans should know better. Its a simple as that.



> Theirs far more extremely anti Hearn posters than extremely pro Hearn posters these days. and since when was the answer to dealing with anything like that to just have the opposite opinion for the sake of it?


He's top dog now. He's just getting the same shit that Warren got for years. Why should that change? Because its Hearn?


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

Going by the video there is a good chance that the Froch-Groves fight won`t be ppv,if it is on normal Sky then that is good news and it will get great ratings.However with just the ticket money on offer for the fighters and the usual fee that Sky pay expect a weak undercard so don`t moan if it is a weak undercard because the other way to make it work with a stacked undercard is ppv.Senchenko fo Brook is underwhealming but a slight step up but not a fight to get over excited about but not the end of the world either and is a perfectly exceptable fight for Kell at the moment.If Joshua is signing next week then that is more good news for matchroom,I know some people don`t rate him but I do and I think he can go far also if Hearn can get more dates then that is good news for the sport and no one can say it isn`t.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Theirs far more extremely anti Hearn posters than extremely pro Hearn posters these days. and since when was the answer to dealing with anything like that to just have the opposite opinion for the sake of it?


It depends how old you are. If you're 5, it's the perfect answer.

I keep on reading this nonsense about Hearn being no different. If Hearn is no different, when was the last time he put on an abysmal show with mismatches like Hennessy routinely puts on? If he's no different, when did he last sell tickets to a card without a main event and refuse to give refunds, costing some fans thousands? If he's no different, how many fighters or their families have got bad things to say about him like Darren Sutherland's family would say about the bullying scumbag Maloney? "Hearn is just like every other promoter" is a bullshit empty statement without any evidence to back it up.

All promoters can't be grouped together just because of their profession. Lou DiBella wouldn't rob the widow of a man who made him massive money, just like Gary Shaw did. Should they be seen as morally the same, just because they both want to profit from boxing? Of course not. It's about as idiotic and ignorant a point as a person could make.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Jack said:


> I can only speak for myself but I didn't expect Hearn to deliver anything more than he has done. His shows are a similar pattern to those from GBP, Top Rank etc., and he treats the fans and fighters well. That's all I expected of him and it's all I praise him for now. I didn't expect top to bottom fantastic shows or anything like that and I can't imagine anyone else did either. I do think he's a step above the likes of Hatton, Warren, Maloney and Hennessy though because there are no issues with him putting on dreadful shows full of mismatches, not paying fighters and so on. If people want to compare Hearn to those four, they're well off the mark. His shows are much better and he treats the fans and fighters better too. That isn't up for debate, so people can't just regurtitate this line about Hearn 'being the same' just because he's a promoter. Dave Coldwell isn't near as shady as Frank Warren but should we just ignore all the good and bad they've done, just because they're both promoters? Of course not.
> 
> Honestly, I think a lot of people got sick about the tongue in cheek jokes about Hearn being the saviour or whatever, so they developed an agenda against him. It's absurdly childish. I see lots of negative, bitchy comments about Hearn but I don't see anyone making strong arguments behind their pettiness.


Like I said to Rob. He's the main man now and he's getting the same shit as Warren got in that position. The main inconsistancy that I can see is from people who thought it was OK for Warren to get slated at every opportunity but think its unfair that Hearn is being treated in a similar way.

He puts on a poor undercard for Kessler-Froch that Warren would have been rightly slated for but all of a sudden Bellew-Chimeba II is a good fight in some peoples eyes and anyway, its not Eddies fault the Champions League final is on the same night so its OK to short change the boxing fans. Do you think they'd have cut Warren the same slack? No chance. Same with the Quigg "world title" bollocks.

I'm totally ambivilent to Hearn and Warren but I am enjoying the irony of the role reversal and how its pissing some people with short memories off and how they have had to move the goalposts for Hearn over the last few months.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Have a go at me as much as you want lads, fine but there is an element of truth in what I say and if you can't see that then you are the one with the fucking problem, If you don't like it? Tough shit.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

GazOC said:


> Like I said to Rob. He's the main man now and he's getting the same shit as Warren got in that position. The main inconsistancy that I can see is from people who thought it was OK for Warren to get slated at every opportunity but think its unfair that Hearn is being treated in a similar way.
> 
> He puts on a poor undercard for Kessler-Froch that Warren would have been rightly slated for but all of a sudden Bellew-Chimeba II is a good fight in some peoples eyes and anyway, its not Eddies fault the Champions League final is on the same night so its OK to short change the boxing fans. Do you think they'd have cut Warren the same slack? No chance. Same with the Quigg "world title" bollocks.
> 
> I'm totally ambivilent to Hearn and Warren but I am enjoying the irony of the role reversal and how its pissing some people with short memories off and how they have had to move the goalposts for Hearn over the last few months.


Like I said before, I can't speak for anyone else but as far as PPV goes, I don't care what the main event or undercard is. If people want to buy it, they will, and if they don't, they won't. It doesn't bother me whether a card is worth the money or not. Hatton/Tszyu was a poor card but who cares? PPV is a choice. If fans were being forced to pay to watch it, fair enough, be pissed off but isn't a case. Nobody goes into a shop and cries because they think a t-shirt is too expensive. My attitude towards that is the same regardless of who the promoter is. If Frank Warren wants to put on Junior Witter vs. Jason Welborn in a PPV fight, good luck to him, I couldn't care less.

I will praise Frank Warren for putting on good cards and criticise him when he doesn't. The same goes for Hearn but right now, Hearn is putting on very few shows that I don't enjoy watching, so for that reason, I don't moan about them.

The Quigg nonsense is being exaggerated. So it's for a bullshit title? Who cares? These titles aren't new to boxing and most people, like myself, couldn't care less which alphabet title people are carrying. I'd say Hearn is getting a lot more stick than other promoters have done for similar things in the past.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

GazOC said:


> Like I said to Rob. He's the main man now and he's getting the same shit as Warren got in that position. The main inconsistancy that I can see is from people who thought it was OK for Warren to get slated at every opportunity but think its unfair that Hearn is being treated in a similar way.
> 
> He puts on a poor undercard for Kessler-Froch that Warren would have been rightly slated for but all of a sudden Bellew-Chimeba II is a good fight in some peoples eyes and anyway, its not Eddies fault the Champions League final is on the same night so its OK to short change the boxing fans. Do you think they'd have cut Warren the same slack? No chance. Same with the Quigg "world title" bollocks.
> 
> I'm totally ambivilent to Hearn and Warren but I am enjoying the irony of the role reversal and how its pissing some people with short memories off and how they have had to move the goalposts for Hearn over the last few months.


Sorry but who are these mythical fans they were saying Bellew v Chilemba II is a good fight. Or saying that its ok to put on a bad undercard? Nobody was cutting him slack!!


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Roe said:


> :huh
> 
> So the fans didn't want to see Froch in with Bute and Kessler then? Both in England.
> They don't want to see Darren Barker challenging for titles to try and prove himself one of the best in the division.
> ...


Fair enough Roe I expected better of you, you and me both know there is an answer to all of them points but if your minds made up, its made up.


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

Bellew vs Chilemba II was a good fight. The first fight wasn't good to watch and the 2nd wasn't anything special either but they were two top 15 fighters in the division and the win for Bellew has got him in line to fight the main man in the division.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Roe said:


> Bellew vs Chilemba II was a good fight. The first fight wasn't good to watch and the 2nd wasn't anything special either but they were two top 15 fighters in the division and the win for Bellew has got him in line to fight the main man in the division.


I agree, I think it was a good fight to put on. The first one ended up being a bad fight but boxing fans want competitive bouts and the rematch was. Even though the first fight was poor, I think it was still a good rematch to put on, if that makes sense?

I remember saying before the bout that I thought the rematch would be a lot better than the first, and it certainly was. I quite enjoyed the rematch, actually. It wasn't the dire fight most were expecting it to be.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

just so you know....I think Bellew v Chileba II was shit and the PPV was UC was shit.


----------



## Gary Barlow (Jun 6, 2012)

Can't believe Kugie read my Q wrong :-(

I asked what future stars in current matchroom camp would be Box Office fighters in future, not what current ones which a cop out question.:verysad


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Gary Barlow said:


> Can't believe Kugie read my Q wrong :-(
> 
> I asked what future stars in current matchroom camp would be Box Office fighters in future, not what current ones which a cop out question.:verysad


:lol:

I thought to myself when I heard it that you wouldn't be happy.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Gary Barlow said:


> Can't believe Kugie read my Q wrong :-(
> 
> I asked what future stars in current matchroom camp would be Box Office fighters in future, not what current ones which a cop out question.:verysad


How dare he ignore the Barlow, as strange as it is, your one of the only cunts that speak the truth and have something interesting to say god help us all.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

Bill said:


> How dare he ignore the Barlow, as strange as it is, your one of the only cunts that speak the truth and have something interesting to say god help us all.


Really....


----------



## Gary Barlow (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill said:


> How dare he ignore the Barlow, as strange as it is, your one of the only cunts that speak the truth and have something interesting to say god help us all.


Im firm but fair Bill:hey:hey:deal


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Sorry but who are these mythical fans they were saying Bellew v Chilemba II is a good fight. Or saying that its ok to put on a bad undercard? Nobody was cutting him slack!!


Looks like a couple just popped their heads over the parapet!:lol: And there were other using that Champion League excuse as well. You have a short memory Rob.

No way should that have been chief support in a PPV. I'm glad you agree.


----------



## Ernest Shackleton (Jun 8, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> just so you know....I think Bellew v Chileba II was shit and the PPV was UC was shit.


I am pleased that was on the undercard. I would rather it was than headline a show of its own.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Jack said:


> Like I said before, I can't speak for anyone else but as far as PPV goes, I don't care what the main event or undercard is. If people want to buy it, they will, and if they don't, they won't. It doesn't bother me whether a card is worth the money or not. Hatton/Tszyu was a poor card but who cares? PPV is a choice. If fans were being forced to pay to watch it, fair enough, be pissed off but isn't a case. Nobody goes into a shop and cries because they think a t-shirt is too expensive. My attitude towards that is the same regardless of who the promoter is. If Frank Warren wants to put on Junior Witter vs. Jason Welborn in a PPV fight, good luck to him, I couldn't care less.
> 
> I will praise Frank Warren for putting on good cards and criticise him when he doesn't. The same goes for Hearn but right now, Hearn is putting on very few shows that I don't enjoy watching, so for that reason, I don't moan about them.
> 
> The Quigg nonsense is being exaggerated. So it's for a bullshit title? Who cares? These titles aren't new to boxing and most people, like myself, couldn't care less which alphabet title people are carrying.* I'd say Hearn is getting a lot more stick than other promoters have done for similar things in the past.*


That just isn't true Jack, hes just getting more stick than you'd like him too. Thats all.

A


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

GazOC said:


> That just isn't true Jack, hes just getting more stick than you'd like him too. Thats all.
> 
> A


If thats the case, feel free to post links to all the threads talking about how shite Hennessy cards are.

I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

GazOC said:


> Looks like a couple just popped their heads over the parapet!:lol: And there were other using that Champion League excuse as well. You have a short memory Rob.
> 
> No way should that have been chief support in a PPV. I'm glad you agree.


Still. Hearn haters far out way the Hearn lovers these days.

I think I said towards being pro Hearn but I tell it how it is. He has done good and bad.

Has he delivered. Well more Sky dates and a new contract says yes.


----------



## Gary Barlow (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Still. Hearn haters far out way the Hearn lovers these days.
> 
> I think I said towards being pro Hearn but I tell it how it is. He has done good and bad.
> 
> Has he delivered. Well more Sky dates and a new contract says yes.


Why do you over exaggerate your importance on forums, even i like Hearn but you make me want him to get run over at times cause your constant arse licking and always there to pull someone up who comments on him is worse than a cunting stalker.

Stop commenting on everything Hearn/Matchroom, stop acting like your opinion is worth more or what you say is facts & finely stop acting like a fucking boyzone fan girl you creepy bastard.

p.s aside from that you're ok, a good poster.


----------



## tdw (Jun 6, 2012)

Honestly don't know what people want from him. Just about every fighter he promotes has had a significant fight since September (if they haven't it has been for a valid reason), the guys are active, there have been positive signs of growth. The Froch-Kessler undercard was poor and is perfectly fair to criticise but that has been the exception rather than the rule I think.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

tdw said:


> Honestly don't know what people want from him. Just about every fighter he promotes has had a significant fight since September (if they haven't it has been for a valid reason), the guys are active, there have been positive signs of growth. The Froch-Kessler undercard was poor and is perfectly fair to criticise but that has been the exception rather than the rule I think.


George Groves would be one that has not had a significant fight. The way he has been matched has been poor.


----------



## tdw (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> George Groves would be one that has not had a significant fight. The way he has been matched has been poor.


But he has only had one real fight for Matchroom (it was absolutely a poor fight) and his next fight looks like being Froch. You can sit here now and look at the Matchroom stable and be confident that in the new season everyone of them will take a significant step.


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

Jack said:


> Not really. You'd have to be some idealist clown with his head in the clouds to expect the absolute best at all times. Boxing fans need to accept that not every card can be free, with great undercards and a FOTC main event. It's just not realistic. Yeah, sometimes things aren't perfect but they aren't awful either.
> 
> The supposed 'Hearn fans' (I hate typing this childish shit) are far more realistabout the boxing industry than the 'Hearn haters'.


Yes really.

You split those down individually and a solid case can be made for every single one.

I disagree with a few of them, for instance I was intrigued by Bellew Chilemba II but I was in the minority, but if somebody said the undercard was Shit that's not unreasonable.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

tdw said:


> But he has only had one real fight for Matchroom (it was absolutely a poor fight) and his next fight looks like being Froch. You can sit here now and look at the Matchroom stable and be confident that in the new season everyone of them will take a significant step.


In fairness we would have said that this time last year.

*Haye* - v Fury is a good fight. Be interesting to see what they do with him after. Even Vitali goes what will Haye do?
*Froch* - v Groves be interesting to see if its PPV. I would like to see Froch in Vegas v Chavez Jnr in 2014.
*Burns* - v Beltran is a good fight but he cannot go another year without unifying or fighting a big name. Unify/Gamboa/Crawdord need to happen next season.

*Barker* - v Geale he has delivered a genuine shot at a title. If he wins his first defence will be Sturm, Hearn will need to get home advantage, and then the Murray/Macklin/Lee fights need to happen.
*Bellew* - v Stevenson is another great fight. Looks like Bellew will go to Canada but I think he has a shot and fair play to Hearn for getting him a fight with the No.1. Be interesting to see who Bellew faces in a warm up and what he would do with Bellew win or lose against Stevenson.
*Quigg* - v Salinas whether you think this is a world title or not its still a good fight and puts Quigg in the picture. 
*Groves* - v Froch no bigger fight than this for Groves. Be interesting to see how they would rebuild him if he loses.
*Brook* - v Senchenko??? Not the BIG name promised but still a step up. He is mandatory for he winner of Alexander v Khan but they could get Mayweather and Brook fighting for a vacant title will not go down well.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

GazOC said:


> Fucking hell Rob, on ESB when he got his Sky deal. Some of the cards he was going to put on, the fights we were going to see where ridiculous, they made no sense whatsoever but Hearn was going to put them on because he's a boxing fan. Less Sky dates but that was OK because they'd all be rammed with top fights, "quality, not quantity".
> 
> The people coming out with that bollocks are largely to blame for the backlash now. How Jack can say the pro Hearn posters are more realistic about boxing after some of the crap I've seen posted about what Hearn was going to do with his Sky TV, I'll never now.
> 
> ...


Please include me in that list. I was one of the trail blazers for seeing Hearn for who he was!


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> Please include me in that list. I was one of the trail blazers for seeing Hearn for who he was!


Which translates to being someone that took people joking about the saviour of boxing to seriously.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Ah, and now it was all a joke. Revisionist history.


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> Please include me in that list. I was one of the trail blazers for seeing Hearn for who he was!


Nah,I thought you were one of his biggest nuthuggers


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> Ah, and now it was all a joke. Revisionist history.


:lol:

I'm beginning to think I must have dreamt a good part of the last 6-12 months on ESB!


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Fans wanted someone better than Hatton, Hennessy, Warren and Maloney. Hearn delivered that. Most of the comments back then were tongue in cheek though, which I thought was blatantly obvious.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Jack said:


> Fans wanted someone better than Hatton, Hennessy, Warren and Maloney. Hearn delivered that. Most of the comments back then were tongue in cheek though, which I thought was blatantly obvious.


The "Saviour of Boxing" type stuff certainly was but there was far more to it than that. Unrealistic expectations of Hearn were getting posted all the time, all a lot of us did (including DF!) was to point out to people not to get carried away, that Hearn was just a boxing promoter and would be running his operation as one.

It wasn't us who wern't looking at boxing realistically. Events have totally vindicated in our opinion. Hearn is doing OK but he's most defineately not doing what I lot of people unrealistcially hoped he would when he got his Sky deal last year.


----------



## Canastota (Jul 12, 2013)

Nice to see the old ESB massive getting on as well as ever having moved lock stock over here. At the mo there are issues with the way Sky are going about their business in terms of developing up and coming fighters, and Eddie is in a tight spot with the pillocks pulling the boxing strings there to be fair

What I can't argue with is Froch-Groves being a fight I'd look forward to tremendously if that is delivered. People are really underplaying Groves here; can't believe he was mentioned in the same breath as Crolla ffs!!!


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

GazOC said:


> :lol:
> 
> I'm beginning to think I must have dreamt a good part of the last 6-12 months on ESB!


You must have because the last 6 months on ESB was 5 threads a day bashing Hearn. I remember when I started posting on here regularly i noticed how there wasn't so much anti Hearn and pro Warren stuff.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

Canastota said:


> Nice to see the old ESB massive getting on as well as ever having moved lock stock over here. *At the mo there are issues with the way Sky are going about their business in terms of developing up and coming fighters,* and Eddie is in a tight spot with the pillocks pulling the boxing strings there to be fair
> 
> What I can't argue with is Froch-Groves being a fight I'd look forward to tremendously if that is delivered. People are really underplaying Groves here; can't believe he was mentioned in the same breath as Crolla ffs!!!


What are these issues?

Callum Smith, Scott Cardle, Kal Yafai all seem to be coming along nicely. There being match well and fighting 8x a year minimum which has not happened in the UK for a long long time.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

GazOC said:


> The "Saviour of Boxing" type stuff certainly was but there was far more to it than that. Unrealistic expectations of Hearn were getting posted all the time, all a lot of us did (including DF!) was to point out to people not to get carried away, that Hearn was just a boxing promoter and would be running his operation as one.
> 
> It wasn't us who wern't looking at boxing realistically. Events have totally vindicated in our opinion. Hearn is doing OK but he's most defineately not doing what I lot of people unrealistcially hoped he would when he got his Sky deal last year.


Like I said, there have always been unrealistc expectations of promoters. Take my mock PPV cards I write up....i used to do those for Warren & Hayemaker back in the day.

I think people like you, DF & Icemax take issue when guys like myself, Roe, Jack say Hearn is different to other promoters. Thats where we disagree. You guys think he is exactly the same, we think he is different in a positive way. Even if you disagree with us, its hardly going over the top.

The "savior of boxing" stuff was probably first brought up by your side of the argument to try and mock the other side.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> Ah, and now it was all a joke. Revisionist history.


Well in what way have you seen Hearn for who he really is? Who is he?


----------



## Steve Funn (Jul 18, 2012)

On a non professional basis Hearn actually seems like a decent bloke whereas Warren is such a fucking typical comedy villain its funny.


And whilst this has probably already been said from Kugans reaction to Eddie naming the potential Brook opponents, its nobody he named.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

GazOC said:


> The "Saviour of Boxing" type stuff certainly was but there was far more to it than that. Unrealistic expectations of Hearn were getting posted all the time, all a lot of us did (including DF!) was to point out to people not to get carried away, that Hearn was just a boxing promoter and would be running his operation as one.
> 
> It wasn't us who wern't looking at boxing realistically. Events have totally vindicated in our opinion. Hearn is doing OK but he's most defineately not doing what I lot of people unrealistcially hoped he would when he got his Sky deal last year.


That "saviour of boxing" stuff has been taken far more literally from those who want to criticise him. They're the ones who hold him to an incredibly high standard, not the people who have praised the work he's done. Look at the reaction to the Burns/Beltran fight for proof of that. It's a perfectly good fight between two elite lightweights, yet Hearn's critics moan about it because nothing but the absolute best opponent would satisfy them. Isn't this unrealistic, to always demand the best possible opponent and whine if you only get the third or fourth choice?

If the people who are anti-Hearn are fair, then where is that same level of criticism for other promoters fighters? Cleverly/Kovalev is very similar to Burns/Beltran, yet because the anti-Hearn posters hold him to a higher standard, they criticise the Burns fight whilst praising Cleverly's, because they have a lower opinion of Warren.

Personally, I don't care about all this shit. I'll praise fights I like and criticise ones I don't. I don't inherently like one promoter or another, and I certainly don't moan about good fights being made because I don't like the promoter who made it. Can you say the same about all those people who whined about Burns/Beltran? Or are those people against a perfectly good fight because they have an agenda?


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Youre righht on the last part Rob. When I use terms like "Saint Eddie" or "The Saviour of Boxing" I am most certainly having a little bit of a pop (in jest!) at a certain section of posters.:hey


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Jack said:


> That "saviour of boxing" stuff has been taken far more literally from those who want to criticise him. They're the ones who hold him to an incredibly high standard, not the people who have praised the work he's done. Look at the reaction to the Burns/Beltran fight for proof of that. It's a perfectly good fight between two elite lightweights, yet Hearn's critics moan about it because nothing but the absolute best opponent would satisfy them. Isn't this unrealistic, to always demand the best possible opponent and whine if you only get the third or fourth choice?
> 
> If the people who are anti-Hearn are fair, then where is that same level of criticism for other promoters fighters? Cleverly/Kovalev is very similar to Burns/Beltran, yet because the anti-Hearn posters hold him to a higher standard, they criticise the Burns fight whilst praising Cleverly's, because they have a lower opinion of Warren.
> 
> Personally, I don't care about all this shit. I'll praise fights I like and criticise ones I don't. I don't inherently like one promoter or another, and I certainly don't moan about good fights being made because I don't like the promoter who made it. Can you say the same about all those people who whined about Burns/Beltran? Or are those people against a perfectly good fight because they have an agenda?


Probably splitting hairs Jack but Cleverly-Kovalov is a much better fight than Burns-Beltran IMHO. Not that I've got anything against Burns-Beltran, its decent enough and I've never said a word against it. "World class lightweights" is maybe a more accurate term as well, "elite" I'm so not sure off. Would they be "elite" if Warren made the fight? ;-)

I can't speak for the alledged "whiners", just for the people who knew that Hearn wouldn't get the top guy every time or make the best possible match every time or be making cards rammed top to bottom with great fights. And, whether you guys choose to remember it or not, that what what was getting posted a lot back on ESB when Hearn got his Sky deal.


----------



## Canastota (Jul 12, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> What are these issues?.


Well you've slagged off Warren something rotten and I've also had issues with him but what you can't deny is the amount Frank has invested in fighters over the years in bringing them through to world level and giving them all the advantages possible when they get that world title shot.

With Sky and Matchroom right now if you're not one of Adam Smith's chosen ones then you'll be shunted along on other people's cards with a very a short term agenda of being thrown into a title fight overseas.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

GazOC said:


> Youre righht on the last part Rob. When I use terms like "Saint Eddie" or "The Saviour of Boxing" I am most certainly having a little bit of a pop (in jest!) at a certain section of posters.:hey


yeh and it was probably yourself and other who started saying that....but not its been pinned on pro hearn posters that we thought he was gonna be the greatest thing to ever happen to boxing which was never the case.

Do I think Hearn is the best promoter in the UK? YES.
Do I think Hearn is different to the old guard of promoters? YES
Do I think Boxing on Sky has improved under Hearn? YES
Am I underwhelmed by this season of boxing on Sky? YES
Do I think this year will be an improvement? YES
Do I like the fact British Boxing appears to be resting on Hearns shoulders? NO but I would rather it be him and anybody else.


----------



## Trippy (Jun 18, 2013)

Jack said:


> That "saviour of boxing" stuff has been taken far more literally from those who want to criticise him. They're the ones who hold him to an incredibly high standard, not the people who have praised the work he's done. Look at the reaction to the Burns/Beltran fight for proof of that. It's a perfectly good fight between two elite lightweights, yet Hearn's critics moan about it because nothing but the absolute best opponent would satisfy them. Isn't this unrealistic, to always demand the best possible opponent and whine if you only get the third or fourth choice?
> 
> If the people who are anti-Hearn are fair, then where is that same level of criticism for other promoters fighters? Cleverly/Kovalev is very similar to Burns/Beltran, yet because the anti-Hearn posters hold him to a higher standard, they criticise the Burns fight whilst praising Cleverly's, because they have a lower opinion of Warren.
> 
> Personally, I don't care about all this shit. I'll praise fights I like and criticise ones I don't. I don't inherently like one promoter or another, and I certainly don't moan about good fights being made because I don't like the promoter who made it. Can you say the same about all those people who whined about Burns/Beltran? Or are those people against a perfectly good fight because they have an agenda?


Take a fucking bow.


----------



## Canastota (Jul 12, 2013)

Jack said:


> Look at the reaction to the Burns/Beltran fight for proof of that. It's a perfectly good fight between two elite lightweights
> If the people who are anti-Hearn are fair, then where is that same level of criticism for other promoters fighters? Cleverly/Kovalev is very similar to Burns/Beltran, yet because the anti-Hearn posters hold him to a higher standard, they criticise the Burns fight whilst praising Cleverly's, because they have a lower opinion of Warren.


What a ridciulous comparison. Clev-Kovalev is far superior to Burns-Beltran. Beltran and the word 'elite' do not belong in the same sentence.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

Canastota said:


> Well you've slagged off Warren something rotten and I've also had issues with him but what you can't deny is the amount Frank has invested in fighters over the years in bringing them through to world level and giving them all the advantages possible when they get that world title shot.
> 
> With Sky and Matchroom right now if you're not one of Adam Smith's chosen ones then you'll be shunted along on other people's cards with a very a short term agenda of being thrown into a title fight overseas.


In many cases Warren has done that yes. Has he been doing that in the last 2 years since he left Sky? No. He hasn't got a world title fight for one of his fighters in the UK since he went to BoxNation. John Murray & Dereck Chisora both went abroad. Bellew & Mitchell were fighting Cleverly & Burns who were UK champions, and Burns was for an interim title.

Regarding the Adam Smith stuff. You are basing this on absolutely nothing. Which fighters have been shunted along on other peoples cards?


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

Canastota said:


> What a ridciulous comparison. Clev-Kovalev is far superior to Burns-Beltran. Beltran and the word 'elite' do not belong in the same sentence.


He never said world elite.While I think Cleverly v Kovalev is a better fight, Beltran has more world level wins than Kovalev.

and the point Jack was trying to make was that the comments about Burns v Beltran being a shit fight were very much agenda driven. Which they were. Anybody that thinks Burns v Beltran is a shit fight doesn't watch enough boxing.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> yeh and it was probably yourself and other who started saying that....but not its been pinned on pro hearn posters that we thought he was gonna be the greatest thing to ever happen to boxing which was never the case.


There WERE a lot of daft claims being made by pro-Hearn posters when defending his Sky monopoly. If you can't remember that then I can't help it. Thats how this "Saviour" lark started up, in reaction to those expectations.



> Do I think Hearn is the best promoter in the UK? YES.
> Do I think Hearn is different to the old guard of promoters? YES
> Do I think Boxing on Sky has improved under Hearn? YES
> Am I underwhelmed by this season of boxing on Sky? YES
> ...


Here goes.

Do I think Hearn is the best promoter in the UK? YES.
Do I think Hearn is different to the old guard of promoters? Not where it counts.
Do I think Boxing on Sky has improved under Hearn? Domestically yes, overall No (not Hearns problen admittedly)
Am I underwhelmed by this season of boxing on Sky? YES
Do I think this year will be an improvement? We'll see.
Do I like the fact British Boxing appears to be resting on Hearns shoulders? NO and no buts.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> He never said world elite.While I think Cleverly v Kovalev is a better fight, Beltran has more world level wins than Kovalev.
> 
> and the point Jack was trying to make was that the comments about Burns v Beltran being a shit fight were very much agenda driven. Which they were. Anybody that thinks Burns v Beltran is a shit fight doesn't watch enough boxing.


But you wouldn't say calling Beltran an "elite" fighter might be a little itsy-bitsy-teeny-weeny bit agenda driven? :hey


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

@GazOG 

Just deal with it, fast car is the saviour of British boxing :yep

:eddie


----------



## Canastota (Jul 12, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> He never said world elite.





Jack said:


> Look at the reaction to the Burns/Beltran fight for proof of that. It's a perfectly good fight between two elite lightweights





robpalmer135 said:


> Regarding the Adam Smith stuff. You are basing this on absolutely nothing. Which fighters have been shunted along on other peoples cards?


Selby was promised a Cardiff bout on June 15th. But in his latest vid Hearn now says there is no demand in Wales for boxing so won't be going there. This is bollox as Frank has shown with the Aug 17th show. And because Matchroom and Sky are isolated promotionally Selby is not able to take advantage of a card in his hometown like Buckland is doing with the Hatton-Warren link up. The Cardiff show is packed with local talent which is great for the sport and youngsters coming through, as opposed to short-term non-investment shortcut taking.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> @GazOG
> 
> Just deal with it, fast car is the saviour of British boxing :yep
> 
> :eddie


:lol: When I see that friendly, charming face all my doubts just melt away. He is indeed the Messiah to Warrens Lucifer.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Canastota said:


> Selby was promised a Cardiff bout on June 15th. But in his latest vid Hearn now says there is no demand in Wales for boxing so won't be going there. This is bollox as Frank has shown with the Aug 17th show. And because Matchroom and Sky are isolated promotionally Selby is not able to take advantage of a card in his hometown like Buckland is doing with the Hatton-Warren link up. The Cardiff show is packed with local talent which is great for the sport and youngsters coming through, as opposed to short-term non-investment shortcut taking.


Cleverly is a well known World Campion and a ticket seller, Selby isn't. And neither is Buckland for that matter. That's the difference.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

GazOC said:


> :lol: When I see that friendly, charming face all my doubts just melt away. He is indeed the Messiah to Warrens Lucifer.


:deal

Eddie is the Terry Tibbs of boxing.


----------



## Bajingo (May 31, 2012)

Canastota said:


> Selby was promised a Cardiff bout on June 15th. But in his latest vid Hearn now says there is no demand in Wales for boxing so won't be going there. This is bollox as Frank has shown with the Aug 17th show. And because Matchroom and Sky are isolated promotionally Selby is not able to take advantage of a card in his hometown like Buckland is doing with the Hatton-Warren link up. The Cardiff show is packed with local talent which is great for the sport and youngsters coming through, as opposed to short-term non-investment shortcut taking.


That show is in a 5000 seat arena, not great for a "world champion" really. Without HBO's backing I doubt Warren could have afforded to put the fight in Wales or even in the UK.


----------



## Wallet (May 31, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> In many cases Warren has done that yes. Has he been doing that in the last 2 years since he left Sky? No. He hasn't got a world title fight for one of his fighters in the UK since he went to BoxNation. John Murray & Dereck Chisora both went abroad. Bellew & Mitchell were fighting Cleverly & Burns who were UK champions, and Burns was for an interim title.


Regardless of the interim title, everyone knew Marquez wasn't coming back down.

You're splitting hairs there.


----------



## Canastota (Jul 12, 2013)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Cleverly is a well known World Campion and a ticket seller, Selby isn't. And neither is Buckland for that matter. That's the difference.


Exactly, but because Buckland's promoter has ties with other promoters and isn't isolated he is able to get a spot for Buckland on the Cleverly bill


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Canastota said:


> Exactly, but because Buckland's promoter has ties with other promoters and isn't isolated he is able to get a spot for Buckland on the Cleverly bill


Like Uncle Frank will let a Hearn fighter on his show out of generosity after Edward took half his stable :lol:


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

GazOC said:


> There WERE a lot of daft claims being made by pro-Hearn posters when defending his Sky monopoly. If you can't remember that then I can't help it. Thats how this "Saviour" lark started up, in reaction to those expectations.
> 
> Here goes.
> 
> ...


The defenses put forward on my part were more criticisms of the old guard promoters rather than anything else and the use of the world monopoly which I don't think has ever been appropriate. You would have though Hearn was the first promoter in history to have an exclusive contract.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

GazOC said:


> But you wouldn't say calling Beltran an "elite" fighter might be a little itsy-bitsy-teeny-weeny bit agenda driven? :hey


Jack said Brusn are Beltran are two of the elite at 135. I think thats a valid statement.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Jack said Brusn are Beltran are two of the elite at 135. I think thats a valid statement.


Well maybe I'm a little bit cynical but I don't think Jack would be using that word, or you would be defending the use of that word, if it wasn't a Hearn promoted fight.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

Wallet said:


> Regardless of the interim title, everyone knew Marquez wasn't coming back down.
> 
> You're splitting hairs there.


My point is Warren is not exactly doing anything different to Hearn. Only 2 big name fighters have traveled to the UK in the past 2 years, Kessler & Bute.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

whatever you posted...i cannot see it.

If its one of those guy photos Batklit posts.....don't bother. It will just make you look like a little bitch.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

GazOC said:


> Well maybe I'm a little bit cynical but I don't think Jack would be using that word, or you would be defending the use of that word, if it was a Warren promoted fight.


Yeh Jack is a Hearn ass kisser. I don't doubt that. But I don't think he is as bad as Bill and other posters with regards to there hate for Hearn.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2013)

Canastota said:


> Selby was promised a Cardiff bout on June 15th. But in his latest vid Hearn now says there is no demand in Wales for boxing so won't be going there. This is bollox as Frank has shown with the Aug 17th show. And because Matchroom and Sky are isolated promotionally Selby is not able to take advantage of a card in his hometown like Buckland is doing with the Hatton-Warren link up. The Cardiff show is packed with local talent which is great for the sport and youngsters coming through, as opposed to short-term non-investment shortcut taking.


Why do you keep changing the subject after your point is exposed as bullshit. Your opinion is completely agenda driven, so much so it can be exposed with ease as I can give you half a dozen other city's where Warren has not promoted shows and where Hearn has down exactly what you said.

Why was Frankie Gavin fighting in Liverpool and his next fight is in London?
Why was Paul Smith v Tony Dodson set for a London show?
Why did Nathan Cleverly have 12 title fights before he fought in Wales?
Why wasn't Lee Selby on Cleverlys undercards?
Why did Kell Brook not fight in Sheffield one time while under contract with Frank Warren?
Why was Ricky Burns v Miguel Vasquez set for London?

Last weekend in Hull Hearn had local Yorkshire prospects on his shows. He had Tommy Coyle in a title fight who he doesn't promote.
On the Brian Rose show in April Matty Askin & Maxi Huges on the card.
On the Liverpool show in March he had Jazza Dickens & Derry Matthews, fighters he doesn't promote on the show.
On the show in Belfast in February they had plenty of Irish prospects on the card.
On the shows in London throughout 2013 various non Hearn fighters have been on his shows.


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

Canastota said:


> Selby was promised a Cardiff bout on June 15th. But in his latest vid Hearn now says there is no demand in Wales for boxing so won't be going there. This is bollox as Frank has shown with the Aug 17th show. And because Matchroom and Sky are isolated promotionally Selby is not able to take advantage of a card in his hometown like Buckland is doing with the Hatton-Warren link up. The Cardiff show is packed with local talent which is great for the sport and youngsters coming through, as opposed to short-term non-investment shortcut taking.


Where do you think the undercard comes from for Burns fights in Scotland?

Didn't Choi who is promoted by Fearon tke advantage of an inter-promotional link up when he fought Simspon?

How about Derry/Crolla/Coyle when they fought?

Frank hasn't proved anything yet with the Wales show, if there was demand there why wouldn't they do a show, they've just done one in Hull for fuck sake, gambled on a debutant as the main attraction.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Marlow said:


> Where do you think the undercard comes from for Burns fights in Scotland?
> 
> Didn't Choi who is promoted by Fearon tke advantage of an inter-promotional link up when he fought Simspon?
> 
> ...


Nominal main attraction. Campbell was no more the main event in that card than i was.


----------



## Mandanda (Jun 2, 2012)

Canastota are you HOF from ESB?.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Yeh Jack is a Hearn ass kisser. I don't doubt that. But I don't think he is as bad as Bill and other posters with regards to there hate for Hearn.


The thing is, you fucking div is that I don't hate Hearn I just try to balance things out by bringing up what he's doing wrong and to counter act the unrealistic expectations you and others have of him, everything I have criticized Hearn of, is justified but because you love the man and are the unreasonable one, you defend him to the fucking hilt and try to devalue my opinion as worthless.

Get a grip mate.

Is it really wrong to want more for your money? because that's all I really want, which I think is fair enough, we all would fucking benefit you mong.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Marlow said:


> Where do you think the undercard comes from for Burns fights in Scotland?
> 
> Didn't Choi who is promoted by Fearon tke advantage of an inter-promotional link up when he fought Simspon?
> 
> ...


On a seperate note, I still think Choi beat Simpson, but Simpson being the home fighter he got the nod.


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2013)

GazOC said:


> Nominal main attraction. Campbell was no more the main event in that card than i was.


Who was the main event?


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2013)

Bill said:


> The thing is, you fucking div is that I don't hate Hearn I just try to balance things out by bringing up what he's doing wrong and to counter act the unrealistic expectations you and others have of him, everything I have criticized Hearn of, is justified but because you love the man and are the unreasonable one, you defend him to the fucking hilt and try to devalue my opinion as worthless.
> 
> Get a grip mate.
> 
> Is it really wrong to want more for your money? because that's all I really want, which I think is fair enough, we all would fucking benefit you mong.


You have the most unrealistic expectations of anyone. And you are so anti Hearn its beyond belief. You critisise him for things he hasn't even done yet!

Whats your thoughts on the Maweather v Canelo PPV coming up with Garcia v Matthysse, Trout v Lara & Smith v Molina? Bear in mind its £50.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Well in what way have you seen Hearn for who he really is? Who is he?


From the very start I said Hearn was going to be no different to the many promoters who came before him. The idea that he would usher in a new age of popularity for the sport was without any foundation. He is a promoter and his sole purpose is to make as much money as possible for himself and his fighters.

I frequently received a hammering on ESB for pointing this out, not least by you. Posters would tell me that Eddie was in it for the fans, that the reduced Sky dates would lead to really high quality matches, and that Eddie was interested in growing the sport which was the reason for Prizefighter (and whatever Jack says, it does not build interest in boxing, it's simply a piece of old-school toughman bullshit pandering to the lowest common denominator).

But it was never going to be possible because a) none of Eddie's fighters are big enough stars to really generate the sort of revenue that allows you to run loss leaders, and b) Eddie only wants to play with Sky, which is completely counter-intuitive to this idea of him as really growing the sport. The only way any promoter can do that is building a business model that doesn't rely on TV money solely.

And I'm calling bullshit on your claim that it was tongue in cheek the regard Hearn was held in - the messiah jibes came from the Hearn doubters. When he came on the scene, people said he was going to be different and made ridiculous claims (as Gaz has pointed out). Even you, not six months ago, came up with your Froch-Kessler PPV card featuring Quigg-Frampton, etc. And what did we get? Bellew-Chilemba II.

What Eddie is getting now is the backlash from some of his own statements ("I'll only do PPV if it's really worth the money") and what many of his fans believed he'd do.

He's no better than Warren was 15 years ago, he's just got a nicer Twitter manner.


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Who was the main event?


Brook.


----------



## Canastota (Jul 12, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Why do you keep changing the subject after your point is exposed as bullshit. Your opinion is completely agenda driven, so much so it can be exposed with ease as I can give you half a dozen other city's where Warren has not promoted shows and where Hearn has down exactly what you said.
> 
> Why was Frankie Gavin fighting in Liverpool and his next fight is in London?
> Why was Paul Smith v Tony Dodson set for a London show?
> ...


:lol::lol::lol: You're on a rather sticky wicket throwing the word "agenda" around!! You are the most agenda driven individual I've come across on any sporting forum!!!

As for that post, I'm not sure whether it's impressive or sad. Hmmm, you say are in work when you write all this stuff??



dftaylor said:


> And I'm calling bullshit on your claim that it was tongue in cheek the regard Hearn was held in - the messiah jibes came from the Hearn doubters.


Yep the Pro-Hearn stuff on ESB was a full blown campaign ffs. Got to the point where it was counter productive tho



Mandanda said:


> Canastota are you HOF from ESB?.


Well the HOF is in Canastota but I'm not so sure about that


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> You have the most unrealistic expectations of anyone. And you are so anti Hearn its beyond belief. You critisise him for things he hasn't even done yet!
> 
> Whats your thoughts on the Maweather v Canelo PPV coming up with Garcia v Matthysse, Trout v Lara & Smith v Molina? Bear in mind its £50.


Its a brilliant card and worthy of PPV status but $50 is too much though, the yanks are getting fleeced imho $15 yeah no problem I don't think anyone would grudge paying that for a good card like that.

Much like we was with the Froch/Kessler PPV and the Upcoming Haye/Fury PPV


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Jack said Brusn are Beltran are two of the elite at 135. I think thats a valid statement.


How do you define elite?
Beltran is top ten but elite? I would call Abril,Vazquez,Burns,Gamboa,Shafikov and DeMarco elite at that weight. Beltran is not on that level imo. I would pick everyone out of that list to beat Beltran.
And guys like Crawford,Troyanovsky,Figueroa,Estrada ect have a really good chance to beat him. Beltran is hardly an elite fighter even at Lightweight.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Bill said:


> Its a brilliant card and worthy of PPV status but $50 is too much though, the yanks are getting fleeced imho $15 yeah no problem I don't think anyone would grudge paying that for a good card like that/


IMO, a Sky Box Office card should be one exceptional fight PLUS a high-quality SS1-level card (equivalent to Quigg-Frampton, for example) and some solid support fights. US PPV is, admittedly expensive due to the vast variety of cable providers across the country, but it works out at £30 or something which is ok for such a high-quality card in this case.

GBP really do pull out the stops on their PPVs now, with good cross-site bouts to add value.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> IMO, a Sky Box Office card should be one exceptional fight PLUS a high-quality SS1-level card (equivalent to Quigg-Frampton, for example) and some solid support fights. US PPV is, admittedly expensive due to the vast variety of cable providers across the country, but it works out at £30 or something which is ok for such a high-quality card in this case.
> 
> GBP really do pull out the stops on their PPVs now, with good cross-site bouts to add value.


I totally agree, although $50 dollars is a bit steep, it's a quality product, this is what pisses me off with Hearn and the return of PPV over here, It wasn't quality, Yes Froch/Kessler was a good fight but it was one good fight in a overall shit night of boxing, Hearn changed nothing in which PPV was dropped in the first place, he was catering for the casuals (as usual) and again showed a total lack of respect to the hardcore mob and people that couldn't give a toss about some Germans kicking a ball and would rather watch a class night of boxing.

And the way People defended a shit undercard I found astonishing, they tried to justify it by saying no one was going to watch it anyway because of the champions league final, well? wrong I for starters didn't watch the football I was interested in the boxing and spent the night underwhelmed.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Bill said:


> I totally agree, although $50 dollars is a bit steep, it's a quality product, this is what pisses me off with Hearn and the return of PPV over here, It wasn't quality, Yes Froch/Kessler was a good fight but it was one good fight in a overall shit night of boxing, Hearn changed nothing in which PPV was dropped in the first place, he was catering for the casuals (as usual) and again showed a total lack of respect to the hardcore mob and people that couldn't give a toss about some Germans kicking a ball and would rather watch a class night of boxing.
> 
> And the way People defended a shit undercard I found astonishing, they tried to justify it by saying no one was going to watch it anyway because of the champions league final, well? wrong I for starters didn't watch the football I was interested in the boxing and spent the night underwhelmed.


Yeah, it is expensive but it's the cost of doing business for Showtime and HBO. So many pipers to pay in the ridiculous media setup over there.

I agree with everything else you say. It amazes me how so-called fans go out of their way to defend the business of boxing over their own interests as paying customers. But I maintain that Hearn and Sky's silence over the PPV suggests it was a moderate success at best.


----------



## Mandanda (Jun 2, 2012)

Canastota said:


> Well the HOF is in Canastota but I'm not so sure about that


Yeah thought it was you.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

The constant arguing about Between pro and anti Hearn posters is beyond boring now. He's got his supporters and he's got his doubters. Just make a Eddie Hearn thread if you want to discuss him.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> The constant arguing about Between pro and anti Hearn posters is beyond boring now. He's got his supporters and he's got his doubters. Just make a Eddie Hearn thread if you want to discuss him.


So, in a thread called "Eddie Hearn answers fans' questions with Kugie" it's inappropriate to discuss Eddie Hearn?

Fuck me, your standards are high!


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> So, in a thread called "Eddie Hearn answers fans' questions with Kugie" it's inappropriate to discuss Eddie Hearn?
> 
> Fuck me, your standards are high!


Not at all. The same posts coming from the same posters on a daily basis in multiple threads is boring. And reply to my post earlier in the thread.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Not at all. The same posts coming from the same posters on a daily basis in multiple threads is boring. And reply to my post earlier in the thread.


Which post?


----------



## Ernest Shackleton (Jun 8, 2013)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Not at all. The same posts coming from the same posters on a daily basis in multiple threads is boring. And reply to my post earlier in the thread.


Reading whinging about it is far more tedious.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> The constant arguing about Between pro and anti Hearn posters is beyond boring now. He's got his supporters and he's got his doubters. Just make a Eddie Hearn thread if you want to discuss him.


Like Edward said, he doesnt care if you love or hate him, just as long as you have an opinion.

Any exposure is good exposure in this business. Eddie Hearn couldnt give a flying fuck what you think, when he is laid back on his recliner at night smoking a cigar. Just as long as his name is relevant and being talked about....job done.

Dont any of you get it yet?

Easy work. He dont have to do anything as you lot do it for him.

Done.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> Which post?


You'll have to go onto your notification page.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

- DC - said:


> Like Edward said, he doesnt care if you love or hate him, just as long as you have an opinion.
> 
> Any exposure is good exposure in this business. Eddie Hearn couldnt give a flying fuck what you think, when he is laid back on his recliner at night smoking a cigar. Just as long as his name is relevant and being talked about....job done.
> 
> ...


Exactly the same goes for me. Why would I care if fast car doesn't five a fuck what I think?


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> Yeah, it is expensive but it's the cost of doing business for Showtime and HBO. So many pipers to pay in the ridiculous media setup over there.
> 
> I agree with everything else you say. It amazes me how so-called fans go out of their way to defend the business of boxing over their own interests as paying customers. But I maintain that Hearn and Sky's silence over the PPV suggests it was a moderate success at best.


What I find ironic David, is that I get accused of not being a Boxing fan, by Rob mainly but I only want things that makes the sport better and a more enjoyable experience for us all? work that one out?


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Exactly the same goes for me. Why would I care if fast car doesn't five a fuck what I think?


Another 22 pages says otherwise again though.

People are just so easy to get today. They are pawns who can only move once forward, just waiting to be took.

Eddie only has to open his mouth and people are all over it. Like flies round shit. :verysad

May I remind you this is a BOXING forum, not a promoters forum. The same happened over at ESB, gradually turning more and more from boxing, to all this tosh.

Eddie must be rubbing his hands at night. Dont get me wrong, I've said a few things in the past, but I cant understand how Eddie Hearn consistently gets threads that seem to go on forever on here and like before on ESB.

"The Eddie Hearn brigade" and "The United Against Eddie Hearn" can all just fuck off. This right wing/left wing shit is boring me to tears. Fighting against one another, while the promoters just sit back and watch and mug you all of. Very much like the Muslims and the EDL right now. Fighting against one another while the system and government continue to fuck us all over.

I swear they should make Marijuana COMPULSORY in this country, all this shit would be irrelevant, like it is anyway. Eat a cake and STFU about this irrelevant Eddie Hearn booooosheet.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

- DC - said:


> Another 22 pages says otherwise again though.
> 
> People are just so easy to get today. They are pawns who can only move once forward, just waiting to be took.
> 
> ...


Craney why are you talking to me about this. I said the whole thing is boring.


----------



## BHAFC (Jun 6, 2013)

Robpalmer you are no doubt a good active poster but fuck me do you bore me off topics when you hi-jack them and start tonguing Eddie and Matchroom, honestly do you have to keep hi-jacking threads like this and challenge everything someone says about Eddie its so boring, maybe im the only one who thinks this but i have skimmed read most of this topic because you go on and on, its not the only topic you have done it to.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> The constant arguing about Between pro and anti Hearn posters is beyond boring now. He's got his supporters and he's got his doubters. Just make a Eddie Hearn thread if you want to discuss him.


Agreed. It's just pathetic, honestly. As a fan, I couldn't care less about the promoters as long as they do the right thing by the fans and fighters. It's as simple as that for me.

Some of these arguments are cringeworthy. I hate typing things like "Hearn fans" or "Hearn haters" :rolleyes It's awful.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Jack said:


> Agreed. It's just pathetic, honestly. As a fan, I couldn't care less about the promoters as long as they do the right thing by the fans and fighters. It's as simple as that for me.
> 
> Some of these arguments are cringeworthy. I hate typing things like "Hearn fans" or "Hearn haters" :rolleyes It's awful.


Stop jumping into threads defending him then. These debates would be infinitely shorter if you just shut the fuck up.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Jack said:


> Agreed. It's just pathetic, honestly. As a fan, I couldn't care less about the promoters as long as they do the right thing by the fans and fighters. It's as simple as that for me.
> 
> Some of these arguments are cringeworthy. I hate typing things like "Hearn fans" or "Hearn haters" :rolleyes It's awful.


Use "fantasists" and "pragmatists" instead then.


----------



## Wallet (May 31, 2012)

*On a card in Birmingham:* Looking at it for November. "We just need one big draw from Birmingham, we've got a lot coming through but we need that big name who's going to sell in Birmingham. Maybe it's bringing down one of our Matchroom fights down to Birmingham. Other than Frankie Gavin tell me another big brummie fighter? At the moment in our stable we would probably have a bring a fighter from our stable. A Brook, Bellew, rather than someone there because there isn't a big name."

:think


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Wallet said:


> *On a card in Birmingham:* Looking at it for November. "We just need one big draw from Birmingham, we've got a lot coming through but we need that big name who's going to sell in Birmingham. Maybe it's bringing down one of our Matchroom fights down to Birmingham. Other than Frankie Gavin tell me another big brummie fighter? At the moment in our stable we would probably have a bring a fighter from our stable. A Brook, Bellew, rather than someone there because there isn't a big name."
> 
> :think


Mackin when he's not too busy being Irish.


----------



## Wallet (May 31, 2012)

He also said that he's discussed the possibility of making Brook-Broner in the UK.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Wallet said:


> He also said that he's discussed the possibility of making Brook-Broner in the UK.


I'd be VERY surprised if that happened.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Well in what way have you seen Hearn for who he really is? Who is he?


A cunt possibly?


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Jack said:


> Agreed. It's just pathetic, honestly. As a fan, I couldn't care less about the promoters as long as they do the right thing by the fans and fighters. It's as simple as that for me.
> 
> Some of these arguments are cringeworthy. I hate typing things like "Hearn fans" or "Hearn haters" :rolleyes It's awful.


Get fucked you agenda driven arsehole, you are one of the most blatant nughuggers on this forum, don't try to act all impartial all of a sudden, maybe you have finally seen the light and I'll give praise for that, I doubt it though.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

GazOC said:


> Use "fantasists" and "pragmatists" instead then.


:lol:

Like I said, I don't really care about this topic. It's not me who is constantly going into threads accusing people of being "haters/fantasists" () but there are countless people who want to accuse me of being biased. That's the only reason I tend to get involved in these petty arguments. It's far easier to dismiss a person with accusations of bias than it is to challenge their opinion. If someone thinks I'm wrong or biased, I'll happily debate my points but I know how posters like Bill and DFTaylor react to that, so it's pointless.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Jack said:


> :lol:
> 
> Like I said, I don't really care about this topic. It's not me who is constantly going into threads accusing people of being "haters/fantasists" () but there are countless people who want to accuse me of being biased. That's the only reason I tend to get involved in these petty arguments. It's far easier to dismiss a person with accusations of bias than it is to challenge their opinion. If someone thinks I'm wrong or biased, I'll happily debate my points but I know how posters like Bill and DFTaylor react to that, so it's pointless.


Actually, Jack, let's get it right. You're the one who was suggesting I was naive and viewed the economics of PPV in a simple-minded fashion, so you might want to avoid that high horse.

And I will take issue with you suggesting that you get frustrated by the partisan bickering when you frequently pop up in any Hearn-related thread to defend your hero's honour. Hence why you need to stop engaging in the debate if you're so tired of it.


----------



## faz (Jan 25, 2013)

They answered my question (about Darren Barker's possible defences if he beats Geale) but changed it to say he has to fight the mandatory, my question was about ideal defences - would Eddie go for unifications or domestic showdowns with Murray/Macklin/Lee. 

I like the Q&A's though, would love to see iFilm do similar things with Warren, Hatton, Coldwell and even some current boxers.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

faz said:


> They answered my question (about Darren Barker's possible defences if he beats Geale) but changed it to say he has to fight the mandatory, my question was about ideal defences - would Eddie go for unifications or domestic showdowns with Murray/Macklin/Lee.
> 
> I like the Q&A's though, would love to see iFilm do similar things with Warren, Hatton, Coldwell and even some current boxers.


He said Sturm was mandatory but the ideal first defence would be Macklin if he could choose.


----------



## Canastota (Jul 12, 2013)

Jack said:


> Agreed. It's just pathetic, honestly. As a fan, I couldn't care less about the promoters as long as they do the right thing by the fans and fighters. It's as simple as that for me.
> 
> Some of these arguments are cringeworthy. I hate typing things like "Hearn fans" or "Hearn haters" :rolleyes It's awful.


:lol::lol::lol: Somebody please archive this beauty, typed with not a hint of irony!!!


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> Actually, Jack, let's get it right. You're the one who was suggesting I was naive and viewed the economics of PPV in a simple-minded fashion, so you might want to avoid that high horse.
> 
> And I will take issue with you suggesting that you get frustrated by the partisan bickering when you frequently pop up in any Hearn-related thread to defend your hero's honour. Hence why you need to stop engaging in the debate if you're so tired of it.


If you want a debate about the positives and negatives of PPV, start a new thread and I'll happily discuss that with you. I said before why I think you're wrong about it and I still have that same opinion.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Jack said:


> If you want a debate about the positives and negatives of PPV, start a new thread and I'll happily discuss that with you. I said before why I think you're wrong about it and I still have that same opinion.


I'll say this, while you can spell properly, you definitely have the same ability as Rob to constantly shift a discussion onto a side-point rather than discussing what's right in front of you.


----------



## faz (Jan 25, 2013)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> He said Sturm was mandatory but the ideal first defence would be Macklin if he could choose.


Cheers, I was half asleep watching it. That would be a good fight.


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

ahh nothing gets CHB going like a debate about fast car Eddie.The day a member of his team calls up a Forum poster threating legal action over a forum post I`ll say he`s the same as a certain other promoter.He was never going to be the benelovent saviour some had hoped, he would of gone broke if he tried.He got it wrong with the Froch ppv,I loved the fight and it was better then many ppvs of the past but he could of set a new standard with the undercard but failed to do so.I think going forward he will put on the best shows on a consistant basis unless the legion of Doom do great things.



Also if he puts on Groves-Froch on normal Sky will he be renamed hardcore Eddie by some or is that to much like a porn name.


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

Ashedward said:


> Also if he puts on Groves-Froch on normal Sky will he be renamed hardcore Eddie by some or is that to much like a porn name.


What there are talks of Froch vs Groves on PPV???
Thats as worse as these NZ PPVs!


----------



## DynamiteDan (Jul 18, 2013)

LuckyLuke said:


> What there are talks of Froch vs Groves on PPV???
> Thats as worse as these NZ PPVs!


Lets not be stupid its nowhere near as bad as NZ


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Jack said:


> Prizefighter is good for British boxing. Casual fans are always interested, which is why ticket sales and TV ratings are much better than they would be for a card with the same fighters without the format, and it allows low level fighters to earn a massive payday compared to what they'd usually be earning. A fighter like Glenn Foot probably made 10x the amount he's ever made in boxing before, so I like it for that reason. It can be a really fun night when the type of boxers involved are right too.
> 
> However, I do think there are a few too many of these shows. I'd like Prizefighter to be more of a novelty but I'm not surprised that Sky are against reducing the numbers. It's a format that works for them so even if I'd like to see it less often, the more that Sky like it, the better it is for British boxing.


Show me proof and I may just take your posts seriously, not promising anything mind.

I'll bet that you can't on the basis your talking bullshit.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> I'll say this, while you can spell properly, you definitely have the same ability as Rob to constantly shift a discussion onto a side-point rather than discussing what's right in front of you.


I'd already answered the other point you'd made, several times in the thread earlier. You think I solely defend Hearn but when everyone else was slagging off Frampton's next opponent, I defended that choice for the same reasons I have defended other Warren fights in the past. If I was biased, surely you'd think I'd jump all over that, seeing as Hearn's nemesis Warren was behind the choice? I didn't complain about Chisora's last opponent, I defended the Price/Thompson II choice, I've defended the general lack of quality home cards in Britain on BoxNation and so on. I think that if you listed a few of the things Warren, Maloney or some of the other promoters have been chastised for, you'd find that I was more accepting than most other posters are.

I think promoting is a tough business, especially when these men are losing money. The only thing I am unreservedly critical about is the way that promoters have treated the fans and fighters, such as non-payments and ludicrous things like selling tickets to a fight which isn't signed and not offering refunds when it doesn't happen. As far as bullshit titles, soft fights etc., go, I'm generally understanding whoever the promoter is. It's just part of the business and having watched and read about boxing for such a long time, I've grown to accept that this is the nature of the sport.


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

LuckyLuke said:


> What there are talks of Froch vs Groves on PPV???
> Thats as worse as these NZ PPVs!


There has been massive speculation on here that Groves-Froch will be ppv,I don`t think it will be going by Eddies video and he could make it work without ppv money if they can sell out o2 or MEN.If it`s a non ppv fight the undercard will likely be weak because Froch and Groves will still expect a decent payday and a decent undercard costs money unless Hearn wants to lose money.


----------



## BoltonTerrier (Jun 12, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> IMO, a Sky Box Office card should be one exceptional fight PLUS a high-quality SS1-level card (equivalent to Quigg-Frampton, for example) and some solid support fights. US PPV is, admittedly expensive due to the vast variety of cable providers across the country, *but it works out at £30 or something which is ok for such a high-quality card in this case.
> *
> GBP really do pull out the stops on their PPVs now, with good cross-site bouts to add value.


This card is around $70 so around £50


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

BoltonTerrier said:


> This card is around $70 so around £50


I was going on the figure Rob quoted. £50 is steep!


----------



## BoltonTerrier (Jun 12, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> I was going on the figure Rob quoted. £50 is steep!


Rob did originally say £50 I think. Someone misread it as $50. Its a fucking lot of money I agree but is probably the best PPV card of recent years so compared to other cards could be seen as value for money. They are expecting it to break the all time record of buys


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Who cares ow much them yanks pay when we get It for the price of a pint :yep


----------



## sim_reiss (Jun 6, 2012)

I apply the same standard I apply to my evaluation of any person in boxing. What would I do in their shoes? I made the same point when Gonzalez quit against Burns.

Would I have taken the Bradley fight for Brook? 
No

Would I have made Froch-Mack?
No, I certainly would have looked to sign up a proper super middle, and a top-10 one at that.

Would I have made Froch-Kessler a PPV? 
Yes, but I would have definitely put on a better undercard when Bute-Pascal got shelved. Only two fights of consquence (especially when Bellew-Chilemba was so poor first time round) was not good enough

Would I have signed Groves? 
No-one has really paid attention to this but Eddie deserves criticism for bending over to Booth/Groves just to seemingly one-up Warren. Groves has been given excessive exposure for poor fights and knowing how Hayemaker operate I've no doubt he's using his mandatory status to lobby for a PPV fight against Froch. He should have at least one top-10 win before a PPV is entertained.

Would I market Quigg-Salinas as a world title fight?
Don't know. I wouldn't encourage a single one of my fighters to go the WBA route. On the other hand, Quigg arrived as an interim champion and would I be doing right by my client?

Would I still be doing Prizefighter?
No, it's been overdone and I question how interested casual fans really are. I've got a feeling its more down to bookmakers.

Would I inflate the market by paying over the odds for fighters and fights and then reneg on my commitments? 
No. Hearn's notable contribution has been to inject a dose of realism into our domestic scene. He doesn't overpay fighters but at least he pays.

Would I market or sell tickets to a fight without signed contracts?
No, and I wouldn't continue to do so even after the fakery was exposed.

Would I monitor boxing forums and threaten litigation any time my name has been disparaged?
No

People who criticize Hearn for being a realist don't have a leg to stand on. People are well within their rights to lobby the suits for the best fights at the lowest price, but why brand them a cunt for not delivering the unfeasible?

Boxing is a sport, but it's a professional one and a dangerous one. No fighter wants a promoter who won't try and make them the most money for the level of risk they are willing to accept. The promoter obviously has to balance this without ripping off the paying public. It's a balancing act, and on balance, I think Hearn has done an acceptable job.


----------



## Canastota (Jul 12, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> I was going on the figure Rob quoted. £50 is steep!


Over there it's $65 in standard def, $75 in HD


----------



## NoMas (Jun 7, 2012)

DL Khan87: 'Eddie your a punk, come to Bolton and I'll fck you up and that cheap suit of yours, what you got to say to that?' 

Eddie: I would say its definitely not cheap, I was in Bolton why so didnt you fck me up already, ummm and 3 go swin in a lake punk'

:lol:


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

I'm still waiting @Jack show me some proof mush? and Ill show you some proof prizefighter gets trounced by a decent fight card?


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

@Jack you still there boy, or have I already proved your a lying agenda driven prick?


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> IMO, a Sky Box Office card should be one exceptional fight PLUS a high-quality SS1-level card (equivalent to Quigg-Frampton, for example) and some solid support fights. US PPV is, admittedly expensive due to the vast variety of cable providers across the country, but it works out at £30 or something which is ok for such a high-quality card in this case.
> 
> GBP really do pull out the stops on their PPVs now, with good cross-site bouts to add value.


Mayweather v Canelo is $75 in HD.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

A question lord Roberto, IYHO do you consider Prizefighter good for the sport?


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

@Bill :lol: Cut Jack some slack mate. I hate Prizefighter, but when Fast car does it right i.e you put a bunch of hungry unknown prospects in there its a good platform for the fighters to create a fN base and move onto bigger things, you can make an argument that it's good for the sport. It also attracts the casuals but like you, me and pretty much everyone on the forums we don't care about the casuals.

I'd love for Prizefighter to be canned, but while it's here if Eddie does it right, like the one the other week then fair enough. Eddies argument for doing prizefighter is that he wants to attract casuals and build the sport, but we all know that's bullshit, sky like it and Eddie loves a pound note.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Mayweather v Canelo is $75 in HD.


Yes, I saw that afterwards. But thanks for the clarification.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Mayweather v Canelo is $75 in HD.


The card promises to be one of the best ever though if everything works out.

Are you going Rob?

Mayweather-Canelo
Garcia-Matthysse
Lara-Trout

:ibutt :happy


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Ashedward said:


> There has been massive speculation on here that Groves-Froch will be ppv,I don`t think it will be going by Eddies video and he could make it work without ppv money if they can sell out o2 or MEN.If it`s a non ppv fight the undercard will likely be weak because Froch and Groves will still expect a decent payday and a decent undercard costs money unless Hearn wants to lose money.


Groves-Froch could "be made to work without PPV money" probably because its not a PPV fight. All this "making it work" lark comes from Froch-Kessler, its bullshit.

Pay Froch a decent purse and Groves the challengers end. No need for PPV.


----------



## Libertarian (Jun 2, 2012)

GazOC said:


> Groves-Froch could "be made to work without PPV money" probably because its not a PPV fight. All this "making it work" lark comes from Froch-Kessler, its bullshit.
> 
> Pay Froch a decent purse and Groves the challengers end. No need for PPV.


Exactly.

Kessler probably (well, certainly) would have wanted top dollar, he can fight any old turd in Denmark and earn big bucks.

Groves is a boy, with 0 wins over world class opponents.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Bill said:


> @Jack you still there boy, or have I already proved your a lying agenda driven prick?


Like I've said to you before, you're an awful poster. The last few times I've taken the time to educate you, something you need, you've ignored me. Are you going to call me a "******" and ignore me after I school you once again?

Anyway...

Boxing typically doesn't get great TV ratings without a star name. Froch got over 250,000 views for his fight with Mack and other big names in British boxing, like Kell Brook or Tony Bellew, will tend to get around 150,000. On a level below those two, TV viewership on Sky Sports 1 tends to average around 100,000 but it's not rare that a good name fighter can do a lot less than that. Sky Sports 2 gets fewer viewers but Darren Barker's 60,000 against Rotolo was very disappointing. However, Prizefighter cards do good numbers, especially you consider the lack of star value in the competition. The last International Heavyweight show got 140,000 viewers, well above average for a boxing card, and made it into the 'top 10' for the week on SS1 and SS4. The 4th November Prizefighter got 100,000 TV viewers, despite the biggest name on the show being McEwan. Had those 8 fighters been on individual bouts, there's no way that the card would have got anywhere near 100,000 views, the format is what lured such a big audience in. The International Heavyweight Prizefighter show on a Wednesday got over 80,000 views, which is an _incredibly_ high number for a mid week boxing show. Despite being a mid week show, it still made it into the 'top 10' for Sky Sports 1 that week, something which many Saturday Fight Night shows fail to do.

I don't deny that certain names in British boxing get more TV views. They do, like I said. However, when a fighter like Carl Frampton was on Sky, his TV ratings weren't as good as a Prizefighter show, whose biggest name was Craig McEwan. How can anyone argue that the format doesn't attract casual fans? It clearly does. It's not the biggest draw in British boxing, and loses it's appeal when there are too many, but it does have an attraction. Like I said before, there's no way you could put 7 inexperienced novices with one shot veteran on a card and get anything like the ratings a Prizefighter show with those same 8 fighters would get.

Sky know that Prizefighter ratings are high which is why they spend so much time advertising the product. Why do you think Adam Smith wanted to run more of them? Do you think it's because it's a success or a failure? Similarly, BetFair are huge backers of the format, which is why they spend lots on advertising their company during Prizefighter shows. The advertising on Prizefighter is more prominent than any other sponsership deal in British boxing right now, because BetFair know there is a market for the product and it's great for betting on.

Consider ticket sales too. Every Prizefighter card sells loads of tickets and they're almost always sold out, especially in the York Hall. Ticket sales for Prizefighter cards are better than the old small hall Friday Fight Night shows used to be, even though those cards routinely had bigger names on them. This is further proof that casual fans enjoy Prizefighter shows.

There's no way you can prove me wrong, so do what you usually do. Call me a "******", pretend you've 'won' and ignore me.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> @Bill :lol: Cut Jack some slack mate. I hate Prizefighter, but when Fast car does it right i.e you put a bunch of hungry unknown prospects in there its a good platform for the fighters to create a fN base and move onto bigger things, you can make an argument that it's good for the sport. It also attracts the casuals but like you, me and pretty much everyone on the forums we don't care about the casuals.
> 
> I'd love for Prizefighter to be canned, but while it's here if Eddie does it right, like the one the other week then fair enough. Eddies argument for doing prizefighter is that he wants to attract casuals and build the sport, but we all know that's bullshit, sky like it and Eddie loves a pound note.


Prizefighters one redeeming feature us the exposure it gives to young British fighters
Also you have prospect taking on prospect,something that wouldn't happen otherwise

As a passionate follower of domestic
Boxing it's refreshing to see the likes of terry flannigan,chris Jenkins,glen foot and others step up to the plate.
With the Hearn monopoly on sky we need boxers who don't have an Olympic background to be shown on a decent stage.there are loads of talented boxers in Britain outside of Campbell,Joshua,yafai or Callum smith
Also careers like Martin Murray,Martin rogan,Gavin Rees,larry ekundayo and more were boosted by prizefighter.
I don't always enjoy it,I love the ebb and flow of distance fights,prizefighter can be patchy and scrappy but the youngsters emerging for me gives it relevance
Plus wars like Dallas-little,o'kane-Fitzgerald and agui dua-quigley

If prizefighters scrapped I would be pleased because of the extra dates but I would like to see something on sky like box academy but with no prospect-journeyman bouts only prospect- prospect.i think that would work over 6 rounders with a main event on top to sell it


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Jack said:


> Like I've said to you before, *you're an awful poster. The last few times I've taken the time to educate you, something you need, you've ignored me.* Are you going to call me a "******" and ignore me after I school you once again?


Oh for the love of all that is sacred. Do you lack all self-awareness!?


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

I was on a no-fap mission, but as soon as these rumors started coming out for this card, I couldn't take it any longer.

This card will change the face of boxing forever, anything less than this from now on will be seen as unacceptable. Its a lot to live up to, but fairplay. Stacked cards are the way to go! 

They dont get much better than this today and people will happily pay PPV for cards like these.

Eddie Hearn - take notice!!!!


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

GazOC said:


> Groves-Froch could "be made to work without PPV money" probably because its not a PPV fight. All this "making it work" lark comes from Froch-Kessler, its bullshit.
> 
> Pay Froch a decent purse and Groves the challengers end. No need for PPV.


True Gaz, I was just thinking off egos and greed and the fact that Groves got £200,000 grand for the degale fight and Booth will push for around 500,000 for this fight and Froch will want around a million I think but I`m out of my depth talking about fight purses really.Groves has talked about this fight being a ppv fight so we know he thinks he should get well paid,All said and done it should be on regular Sky imo.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> Oh for the love of all that is sacred. Do you lack all self-awareness!?


Why didn't you answer my earlier post?


----------



## sim_reiss (Jun 6, 2012)

- DC - said:


> The card promises to be one of the best ever though if everything works out.
> 
> Are you going Rob?
> 
> ...


Lara-Trout isn't happening apparently. Schaefer doesn't even know where the rumours started...


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> From the very start I said Hearn was going to be no different to the many promoters who came before him. The idea that he would usher in a new age of popularity for the sport was without any foundation. He is a promoter and his sole purpose is to make as much money as possible for himself and his fighters.
> 
> I frequently received a hammering on ESB for pointing this out, not least by you. Posters would tell me that Eddie was in it for the fans, that the reduced Sky dates would lead to really high quality matches, and that Eddie was interested in growing the sport which was the reason for Prizefighter (and whatever Jack says, it does not build interest in boxing, it's simply a piece of old-school toughman bullshit pandering to the lowest common denominator).
> 
> ...


Hearn has only had this Sky deal for a year. I still believe under his stewardship the sports popularity will grow.
I agree that his sole purpose is to make money but I think he does it in a fan friendlier way and thats the difference between himself and the old guard.
The quality of fights on Sky has improved.
Hearn does want to grow the sport (So he can make more money)
He is building fighters into starts. Its a long term process.
Why would he have to build a business that doesn't rely on TV when he has a guaranteed TV contract?
Hearn has fighters fighting of TV all the time.
He is different.
The PPV was shit but I have always made those fantasy cards.
Agree he sis a victim of false promises and empty gestures.
There are many differences between Hearn & Warren, but you just chose to overlook them.


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2013)

Canastota said:


> :lol::lol::lol: You're on a rather sticky wicket throwing the word "agenda" around!! You are the most agenda driven individual I've come across on any sporting forum!!!
> 
> As for that post, I'm not sure whether it's impressive or sad. Hmmm, you say are in work when you write all this stuff??
> 
> Yep the Pro-Hearn stuff on ESB was a full blown campaign ffs. Got to the point where it was counter productive tho


Exposed again and you change the subject. Well done you clown!


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2013)

Bill said:


> What I find ironic David, is that I get accused of not being a Boxing fan, by Rob mainly but I only want things that makes the sport better and a more enjoyable experience for us all? work that one out?


I have never once accused you of not being a boxing fan. thats a load of shit!


----------



## Wallet (May 31, 2012)

Jack said:


> Consider ticket sales too. Every Prizefighter card sells loads of tickets


"Loads of tickets"

1,200 isn't exactly loads. :lol:


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2013)

sim_reiss said:


> Would I have taken the Bradley fight for Brook?
> No
> 
> Would I have made Froch-Mack?
> ...


My responses.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Hearn has only had this Sky deal for a year. I still believe under his stewardship the sports popularity will grow.
> I agree that his sole purpose is to make money but I think he does it in a fan friendlier way and thats the difference between himself and the old guard.
> The quality of fights on Sky has improved.
> Hearn does want to grow the sport (So he can make more money)
> ...


No, I just don't think they're as significant as you do, but fair enough on the rest of it.

The Sky thing baffles me - he knows he can't rely of Sky's money, he's admitted as much. It's a bad business model when you only have one output for your product, IMO.


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> No, I just don't think they're as significant as you do, but fair enough on the rest of it.
> 
> The Sky thing baffles me - he knows he can't rely of Sky's money, he's admitted as much. It's a bad business model when you only have one output for your product, IMO.


In fairness DF what was the last Warren show and the last Hearn show you attended? I have been 5000 miles away but in 2012 i went to 2-3 shows for each and you notice a difference. The casuals I brought along also noticed it or I noticed it in there thoughts on the event.

He doesn't. He said so in his interview. They cannot go to Cardiff as they still need to sell tickets?


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2013)

Bill said:


> A question lord Roberto, IYHO do you consider Prizefighter good for the sport?


Glad I am finally being refered to as Lord Rob. Please make sure the L is capital from now on.
I don't think its bad for the sport.

The posatives are that it provides fighters with an opportunity and provides them with a chance to make a very good payday. Most British champions wont make £32k for a defense. Where would Martin Rogan, Martin Murray, Rocky Fielding, Gary Buckland, Ovil McEnzie, Sam Sexton, Adil Anwar, Gavin Rees, Prince Arron, Willie Casey, Lee Haskins, Choi be without Prizefighter? All of these guys went on to fight for a domestic title or higher after making there name in Prizefighter. Chris Jenkins who won the last one has now bypassed a year of 6 rounders and will go straight to area title level.

I have personally never watch a Prizefighter from start to finish. Its just not my cup of tea. I used to Sky+ it and fast forward most of the way through it. But my old man who is a casual boxing fan really enjoys them and will watch them if my Mum is out.

It does get good viewers. Not sure how you can even argue this and it attracts a diffetent kind of demographic which is good.

The negatives are that it takes away from a night of regular boxing. Thats it. What else is there thats bad about Prizefighter especially when nobody is forcing you to watch? Outside of Audley Harrison no fighter has jumped into a fight they didn't deserve and that had more to do with it being Audley than anything else.

Hearn has already said there will be less Prizefighter next season, something you seem to refuse to acknowledge. For me I think it should move to weeknights. Have 20 regular Sky shows and then 6 Prizefighters a year on Wednesdays nights when theres no Champions League.


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2013)

- DC - said:


> The card promises to be one of the best ever though if everything works out.
> 
> Are you going Rob?
> 
> ...


Unfortunately not. I am getting married the week after in Vegas so a trip to Vegas would not be possible. Also my parents are visiting so will have to be with them. Probably won't even be able to watch the card live.

Would have been able to get a ticket though. But I have been a boxing fan long enough to know this might be to good to be true and I won't get my hopes up until the weigh ins.


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2013)

Jack said:


> Like I've said to you before, you're an awful poster. The last few times I've taken the time to educate you, something you need, you've ignored me. Are you going to call me a "******" and ignore me after I school you once again?
> 
> Anyway...
> 
> ...


Other than the selling loads of tickets comment.... @Bill you just got owned!


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2013)

LuckyLuke said:


> How do you define elite?
> Beltran is top ten but elite? I would call Abril,Vazquez,Burns,Gamboa,Shafikov and DeMarco elite at that weight. Beltran is not on that level imo. I would pick everyone out of that list to beat Beltran.
> And guys like Crawford,Troyanovsky,Figueroa,Estrada ect have a really good chance to beat him. Beltran is hardly an elite fighter even at Lightweight.


Beltran should be ranked ahead of Shafikov, DeMarco, Crawford, Troyanovsky, Figueroa & Estrada. He has wins over Kim and should have got the wins v Bogere & Ramos Jnr and his win over Lundy looks better after his dominant win over Olusegun last night.

Beltran is top 5 in the division. So I put him as an elite fighter.


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Glad I am finally being referedn to as Lord Rob. Please make sure the L is capital from now on.
> I don't think its bad for the sport.
> 
> The posatives are that it provides fighters with an opportunity and provides them with a chance to make a very good payday. Most British champions wont make £32k for a defense. Where would Martin Rogan, Martin Murray, Rocky Fielding, Gary Buckland, Ovil McEnzie, Sam Sexton, Adil Anwar, Gavin Rees, Prince Arron, Willie Casey, Lee Haskins, Choi be without Prizefighter? All of these guys went on to fight for a domestic title or higher after making there name in Prizefighter. Chris Jenkins who won the last one has now bypassed a year of 6 rounders and will go straight to area title level.
> ...


Is Colin your old man Rob? He is a Spurs fan too.


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2013)

Grant said:


> Is Colin your old man Rob? He is a Spurs fan too.


haha saw the connection there. No, my Dad is pretty much the opposite of that melt. My Mum has to watch Strictly on Sky+ while my Dads at golf.


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

Prizefighter is just like 20-20 cricket.A shorten inferior product sold to people without a long attention span.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Glad I am finally being refered to as Lord Rob. Please make sure the L is capital from now on.
> I don't think its bad for the sport.
> 
> The posatives are that it provides fighters with an opportunity and provides them with a chance to make a very good payday. Most British champions wont make £32k for a defense. Where would Martin Rogan, Martin Murray, Rocky Fielding, Gary Buckland, Ovil McEnzie, Sam Sexton, Adil Anwar, Gavin Rees, Prince Arron, Willie Casey, Lee Haskins, Choi be without Prizefighter? All of these guys went on to fight for a domestic title or higher after making there name in Prizefighter. Chris Jenkins who won the last one has now bypassed a year of 6 rounders and will go straight to area title level.
> ...


:lol:


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2013)

Bill said:


> :lol:


Don't be a little bitch Bill. I will take your inability to respond as me bring right and that you agree with me.


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> haha saw the connection there. No, my Dad is pretty much the opposite of that melt. My Mum has to watch Strictly on Sky+ while my Dads at golf.


haha top man.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Jack said:


> Like I've said to you before, you're an awful poster. The last few times I've taken the time to educate you, something you need, you've ignored me. Are you going to call me a "******" and ignore me after I school you once again?
> 
> Anyway...
> 
> ...


My point still stands, Prizefighter gets trounced by a decent fight card, your just Eddies lap dog that buys whatever he says, if Eddie put on better fights he will get better ratings its as simple as that, as for educating me, get real mate, how can a promoters puppet educate me, I have my own opinion you live by Eddie Hearns opinion and is not capable of having your own. :rofl

You are the awful poster mate, and are a cretin to boot, you need locking up you mentalist.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Beltran should be ranked ahead of Shafikov, DeMarco, Crawford, Troyanovsky, Figueroa & Estrada. He has wins over Kim and should have got the wins v Bogere & Ramos Jnr and his win over Lundy looks better after his dominant win over Olusegun last night.
> 
> Beltran is top 5 in the division. So I put him as an elite fighter.


Beltran burns is a worthy title fight and I'm looking forward to it
But demarcos wins over an on form linares and destruction of Molina trump beltrans win over Kim who is more top entertainment than top class,Kim had already lost 7 times before the bout
Beltrans win over Lundy by majority is good form as you mentioned but ammeth Diaz who was outclassed in his world title shot blew beltran away in 4,also commendable losses on the cards whether correct or not don't convert as anything else than a points loss when it comes to rankings(bogere and Ramos jnr)
Crawford hasn't done enough yet but you can be sure he will climb up the rankings fast as should shafikov and troyanovsky

We all know you fancy this fight but you don't need to resort to hyping up beltrans chequered cv.the fact is beltran is one tough mother who will run Ricky hard unless burns can take advantage of the fact beltran can be hurt
It's a good fight and worthy of the wbo lightweight belt but to say he is top 5 for me is overstating him


----------



## Canastota (Jul 12, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Exposed again and you change the subject. Well done you clown!


:lol::lol: I know all about you so don't go calling me a clown!!! As for changing the subject, I was so blinded by your knack for quoting various things of the top of your head whilst you are hard at work in your day job I forgot to reply as I generally don't have so much time on my hands.

The crux of your argument about bringing fighters through was that Frank hasn't done so over the last few years whilst Eddie does in collaboration with other promoters because he is a jolly good sport. On the first point you're right - W*rren has had a shit time of it of late and so his standards have slipped in terms of backing his fighters to come through as they have in the past. And I'm no defender of his but hopefully that'll change as we need competition in this country not monopoly.

As for your assessment of Eddie bringing through local talent on the bills you pointed out even though they weren't his fighters, do you know how that works out business-wise? You seem to know most things. The crux of it is that Eddie will work with other fighters as long as he is the boss man and the other promoter is the little guy - and he can do that because of Sky; you'll notice how the likes of Coldwell fit snugly into Eddie's arse pocket. Bearing this in mind, it is somewhat ironic that the biggest fight on Sky since they climbed into a single bed with Matchroom will have come about with no involvement from Hearn.

As for other collaborations, Hearn is hoping to wheedle his way into Golden Boy's good books over the likes of Ogogo so he can then dump fighters that Sky deem to be uneconomic in this country into fights in the States.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Don't be a little bitch Bill. I will take your inability to respond as me bring right and that you agree with me.


The real problem I have with Prizefighter is that it is being shown Saturday nights when proper boxing should be shown, it takes up valuable tv dates and is just an awful spectacle over all.


----------



## NoMas (Jun 7, 2012)

What where the comments Eddie made on Twitter that he got fined by the BBBoC??? The ones Buncey went round txting people to complain about???


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2013)

NoMas said:


> What where the comments Eddie made on Twitter that he got fined by the BBBoC??? The ones Buncey went round txting people to complain about???


That his Dad would get in the sauna with Lee Purdy so he could make weight.


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2013)

Bill said:


> The real problem I have with Prizefighter is that it is being shown Saturday nights when proper boxing should be shown, it takes up valuable tv dates and is just an awful spectacle over all.


Which is exactly what I said. So why the laughter??


----------



## NoMas (Jun 7, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> That his Dad would get in the sauna with Lee Purdy so he could make weight.


oh yeah i remember hearing that in the interview now haha its been couple hrs since i heard the interview so i forgot haha whats so bad about that comment??? how he get fined for that, i dont get it :huh


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Which is exactly what I said. So why the laughter??


It was the use a capital L in future comment I wasn't laughing at the post, I thought that was quite witty.


----------



## Mandanda (Jun 2, 2012)

:lol::lol:
Tony Bellew ‏@TonyBellew 38m
Didn't even know the boxing was on tonight.. If it wasn't for twitter Id never have known.. Oh well laptop time it is.. 
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More

Frankie Gavin ₯ ‏@frankiegavin1 29m
@TonyBellew funny u ha x
Expand

Tony Bellew ‏@TonyBellew 1m
@frankiegavin1 some things never change ma man x
Hide conversation Reply Retweet Favorite More
9:02 PM - 20 Jul 13 · Details


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2013)

Canastota said:


> :lol::lol: I know all about you so don't go calling me a clown!!! As for changing the subject, I was so blinded by your knack for quoting various things of the top of your head whilst you are hard at work in your day job I forgot to reply as I generally don't have so much time on my hands.
> 
> The crux of your argument about bringing fighters through was that Frank hasn't done so over the last few years whilst Eddie does in collaboration with other promoters because he is a jolly good sport. On the first point you're right - W*rren has had a shit time of it of late and so his standards have slipped in terms of backing his fighters to come through as they have in the past. And I'm no defender of his but hopefully that'll change as we need competition in this country not monopoly.
> 
> ...


What I do for work or during my working day is none of your business and completley irrelivent to the debate, and I was not at work yesterday anyway.

No Eddie is doing it because its good for business. You said that he wasn't doing it at all. He does it because he can fill out undercards without a long term commitment to lower tier fighters (A mistake of Warrens) and if any of these fighters look good he can sign them (example John Ryder) or put them in title fights on TV (example Tommy Coyle).

Your point about Eddie being the Boss Mann and Coldwell being the little guy.....what is your point? What do you want him to do instead.

And who are these unecenomic fighters he can dump on Goldenboy? Even if this was happening (which it isn't) at least he would be getting fighters opportunities and paydays.

You have been a clown in this thread. Every point you have made has been exposed as bullshit and you run away or change the subject whenever this is proven.


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2013)

Mandanda said:


> :lol::lol:
> Tony Bellew ‏@TonyBellew 38m
> Didn't even know the boxing was on tonight.. If it wasn't for twitter Id never have known.. Oh well laptop time it is.. ��
> Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
> ...


The card has really gone under the radar!


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> The card has really gone under the radar!


Bellew the comedian


----------



## Franco AFC (Jun 6, 2013)

Yeah he didn't know chisora was fighting my arse.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Franco AFC said:


> Yeah he didn't know chisora was fighting my arse.


Same as nobody realised Bellew had been fighting after he stunk the o2 out against Chilemba for a second time.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

One to watch said:


> Bellew the comedian


Well he did say that his rematch with Orvil Mckenzie was a masterclass so he's up there in comedic terms.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Bill said:


> Well he did say that his rematch with Orvil Mckenzie was a masterclass so he's up there in comedic terms.


And I'm pretty sure he had Ricky burns up by six rounds against Jose gonzalez
Good judge of a fight is our tone


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

One to watch said:


> And I'm pretty sure he had Ricky burns up by six rounds against Jose gonzalez
> Good judge of a fight is our tone


:lol: I believe even Barry Hearn asked him if he was watching the same fight.


----------



## Libertarian (Jun 2, 2012)

Fast Eddie really needs to be careful.

The honeymoon period is well and truly over :hey


----------



## Canastota (Jul 12, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> What I do for work or during my working day is none of your business and completley irrelivent to the debate, and I was not at work yesterday anyway.
> 
> No Eddie is doing it because its good for business. You said that he wasn't doing it at all. He does it because he can fill out undercards without a long term commitment to lower tier fighters (A mistake of Warrens) and if any of these fighters look good he can sign them (example John Ryder) or put them in title fights on TV (example Tommy Coyle).
> 
> ...


:lol::lol::lol: You complete bell end. You have proven jack shit except in your own mind. Uneconomic fighters fight away from home for world titles. Poor Darren Barker! Selby is on his way out there too. Plus I know exactly what you do for work anyway. How's Ed?


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> You have the most unrealistic expectations of anyone.


No he doesn't Rob, you can just be a completely argumentative cunt sometimes. If you pay the money you have every right to criticise.



> Whats your thoughts on the Maweather v Canelo PPV coming up with Garcia v Matthysse, Trout v Lara & Smith v Molina? Bear in mind its £50.


Not worth 50 rubs, but its a meaningless point because we don't live in the US


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Exposed again and you change the subject. Well done you clown!


Oh the irony :lol:


----------



## Guest (Jul 21, 2013)

Canastota said:


> :lol::lol::lol: You complete bell end. You have proven jack shit except in your own mind. Uneconomic fighters fight away from home for world titles. Poor Darren Barker! Selby is on his way out there too. Plus I know exactly what you do for work anyway. How's Ed?


I have stated fact.

What do I do....and who's Ed?


----------



## Guest (Jul 21, 2013)

icemax said:


> No he doesn't Rob, you can just be a completely argumentative cunt sometimes. If you pay the money you have every right to criticise.
> 
> Not worth 50 rubs, but its a meaningless point because we don't live in the US


Go away!


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> I have stated fact.
> 
> What do I do....and who's Ed?


Ed Hearn possibly, just a wild guess?


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Dinamita said:


> Fast Eddie really needs to be careful.
> 
> The honeymoon period is well and truly over :hey


Thats pretty much it for me. He got the benefit of the doubt when starting his Sky deal, now people are a little more cynical towards him.

Welcome to Frankies world...:hey


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Go away!


Great comeback dicksplash :lol:


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

GazOC said:


> Thats pretty much it for me. He got the benefit of the doubt when starting his Sky deal, now people are a little more cynical towards him.
> 
> Welcome to Frankies world...:hey


You know things can't be that good in the boxing world when you find yourself actually wanting Frank Warren to do well.


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

Not a great card tonight from Frank although Aug 17th is shaping up nicely.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Bill said:


> You know things can't be that good in the boxing world when you find yourself actually wanting Frank Warren to do well.


I think Eddie probably is the lesser of 2 evils but not by that much! Just glad the playing field has leveled out a bit!:smile


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

GazOC said:


> I think Eddie probably is the lesser of 2 evils but not by that much! Just glad the playing field has leveled out a bit!:smile


I think there's a lot of envy and jealousy towards Eddie, I imagine all the people slating him are like Moe from the Simpsons.

I don't think people can argue with what Eddie's done this year, he's already took the Promoter of the year and New age Promoter of the year awards from me, also bagged "best card in Hull" and "best tan".

Hell of a year and a hell of a ride from fast car.

#NewAgePromoting

#DoYouUnderstandWhatImSaying


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

Marlow said:


> I think there's a lot of envy and jealousy towards Eddie, I imagine all the people slating him are like Moe from the Simpsons.


Jealousy of what? Being a self made man?, lots of cash off of his own back?, carving a swaith through the business world without a hand up?...that sort of thing?


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

#:lol:


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

icemax said:


> Jealousy of what? Being a self made man?, lots of cash off of his own back?, carving a swaith through the business world without a hand up?...that sort of thing?


Chill Moe.


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

Marlow said:


> Chill Moe.


I was hoping for a better retort than that.....I was expecting you were going to answer the question.......... you cant though


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

icemax said:


> I was hoping for a better retort than that.....I was expecting you were going to answer the question


I didn't think it required answering as the points you raised were clearly just digs at Hearn.

But I'll play the game, none of the above no.

I think because he is a naturally charming guy and is credited with being good looking and added to the fact that he's wealthy I think some people will always have an inherent dislike of him, but it is quite amusing at times.


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

Marlow said:


> I didn't think it required answering as the points you raised were clearly just digs at Hearn.
> 
> But I'll play the game, none of the above no.
> 
> I think because he is a naturally charming guy and is credited with being good looking and added to the fact that he's wealthy I think some people will always have an inherent dislike of him, but it is quite amusing at times.


:lol: is that it?


----------



## Guest (Jul 21, 2013)

icemax said:


> I was hoping for a better retort than that.....I was expecting you were going to answer the question.......... you cant though


listen Moe.....calm the fuck down!


----------



## Guest (Jul 21, 2013)

Marlow said:


> I didn't think it required answering as the points you raised were clearly just digs at Hearn.
> 
> But I'll play the game, none of the above no.
> 
> I think because he is a naturally charming guy and is credited with being good looking and added to the fact that he's wealthy I think some people will always have an inherent dislike of him, but it is quite amusing at times.


100% there is a degree if jealousy there.


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> listen Moe.....calm the fuck down!


You getting your profile logons wrong again Robert? :lol:


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> 100% there is a degree if jealousy there.


The ESB Borg strike again :-(


----------



## Guest (Jul 21, 2013)

icemax said:


> You getting your profile logons wrong again Robert? :lol:


no


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> no


:lol: Just like before, get your shit together Rob(ert)


----------



## Guest (Jul 21, 2013)

icemax said:


> :lol: Just like before, get your shit together Rob(ert)


is it supposed to annoy me that my name is Robert?


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> is it supposed to annoy me that my name is Robert?


You tell me, how would I know? :huh


----------



## Guest (Jul 21, 2013)

icemax said:


> You tell me, how would I know? :huh


It doesn't.


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> It doesn't.


Thats OK then, so long as you're happy :rolleyes


----------



## Guest (Jul 21, 2013)

icemax said:


> Thats OK then, so long as you're happy :rolleyes


Very happy. Just watching Billy Joe fight before I head out for a nice dinner. Life is good.


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Very happy. Just watching Billy Joe fight before I head out for a nice dinner. Life is good.


Is there such a thing in LA?....I suppose it depends what your standards are :deal


----------



## Guest (Jul 21, 2013)

icemax said:


> Is there such a thing in LA?....I suppose it depends what your standards are :deal


A nice restaurant in Los Angeles?


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> A nice restaurant in Los Angeles?


You'll have to educate me sometime because I always think sub-standard and over-priced, its hardly Paul Bocuse


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

Stop googling Paul Bocuse


----------



## Guest (Jul 21, 2013)

icemax said:


> Stop googling Paul Bocuse


lol. I am not really a food expert but theres plenty of good places and its allot cheaper to eat out compared to London.


----------



## Libertarian (Jun 2, 2012)

GazOC said:


> Thats pretty much it for me. He got the benefit of the doubt when starting his Sky deal, now people are a little more cynical towards him.
> 
> Welcome to Frankies world...:hey


I think he's more inclined to make big fights than Allegedly, who wouldn't have paid Bute to come over. He'd have taken one look at the KO % and shit his pants.

But.... lately, it's a case of propaganda with a smile or the threat of a lawsuit.

Allegedly serves up rubbish and makes excuses afterwards, whereas Eddie is a second hand car salesman, highlighting the ''toys'' - an unbeaten record or a high KO %, or the exotic country where the fighter comes from.

The casuals love him, he responds on twitter, doesn't have a meltdown over emails, invites people to call the office.... whereas the fans just want him to bullet Prizefighter and quit with the eliminators, homecomings and announcements about announcements about announcements.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Dinamita said:


> I think he's more inclined to make big fights than Allegedly, who wouldn't have paid Bute to come over. *He'd have taken one look at the KO % and shit his pants.*
> 
> But.... lately, it's a case of propaganda with a smile or the threat of a lawsuit.
> 
> ...


Eddie's reputation as a guy that takes risks with his fighters rests largely on that - but it's not like Froch was a scrub who hadn't fought at that level.

It's easy to see Barker and Rees and Purdy out to the line when they've got nothing to lose, but harder when you've built someone up.


----------



## Danny (May 31, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> Eddie's reputation as a guy that takes risks with his fighters rests largely on that - but it's not like Froch was a scrub who hadn't fought at that level.
> 
> It's easy to see Barker and Rees and Purdy out to the line when they've got nothing to lose, but harder when you've built someone up.


Very true. Barker loses to Geale, he's only in the same boat as Macklin and Murray so they're still big domestic clashes for him, Rees if he had beaten Crolla convincingly would probably have ended up getting another title shot at Burns down the line anyway, and Purdy is a domestic-level fighter who'll never reach anywhere near world-level so got a real once in a lifetime opportunity gifted to him.

It's worth saying too that the bolded sentence from @Dinamita doesn't really make sense anyway, giving he's bringing Kovalev over. Might not be the same money he's having to invest, but it's still the same principle, potentially sacrificing his biggest star to a fearsome, unbeaten fighter verging on elite with knockout power.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Danny said:


> Very true. Barker loses to Geale, he's only in the same boat as Macklin and Murray so they're still big domestic clashes for him, .


We've been saying the same thing about Barker, Macklin, Murray, Lee and even old John Duddy for years. When are they going to happen?


----------



## Danny (May 31, 2012)

GazOC said:


> We've been saying the same thing about Barker, Macklin, Murray, Lee and even old John Duddy for years. When are they going to happen?


Unfortunately it's probably had to take numerous losses between them fighting for titles for it to happen. They've all known that if they keep unbeaten beating solid names or just working a route to a title that they'll get their individual shots. Really no point in them fighting each other and risk losing and alienating themselves from a potential title shot.

It's probably got to the point now though where with each guy having lost or failed to win a title on at least one occasion that they're potentially now viable fights, with them having to do more to now get back in title contention so probably prepared to take more risk to get there, and a win being a potential avenue right back to the top of the contender pile.

I would expect at least one of them to happen soon. Macklin has failed to win a title 3 times now and got destroyed in his most recent outing so even though he's with DiBella, I'd suggest he's most in need of a clash with one of Barker or Murray or Lee. He'll fancy his chances and a win over any would be big for him and put him right back in the mix.

If Barker loses, they are really all in the same boat and need to beat a contender or two to get back up there, so I'd suspect that a clash would happen somewhere between them. And if Barker wins, it makes sense as an ideal defence anyway. So I think in any situation, we are finally going to see a few of them collide potentially. It's just a shame the allure has been taken off it a bit with Macklin getting smashed, and especially if Barker loses to Geale.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

It hightlights the crap of having all these world titles. Looks like each guy is going to have to lose 3 world title shots before we get a domestic fight that should have happened years ago. Crazy.


----------



## Danny (May 31, 2012)

GazOC said:


> It hightlights the crap of having all these world titles. Looks like each guy is going to have to lose 3 world title shots before we get a domestic fight that should have happened years ago. Crazy.


Yep, absolutely. I mean what did Murray do to earn a title shot? Win an early Prizefighter, remain unbeaten against weak oppostion and win the British title against an 8 fight novice. Mackin's best win was Asikainen, Barker's Domenico Spada. If we only had one title they would have had their hand's forced and probably have HAD to face each other in order to earn their shots at the title.

They have a combined resume of Joachim Alcine, Amin Asikainen, Domenico Spada, Kerry Hope and Simone Rotolo and that has earned them 7 title shots between them. :rolleyes


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

GazOC said:


> We've been saying the same thing about Barker, Macklin, Murray, Lee and even old John Duddy for years. When are they going to happen?


When they're basically done, as until then a "world title" is "needed" in order for the fights to happen.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Danny said:


> Yep, absolutely. I mean what did Murray do to earn a title shot? Win an early Prizefighter, remain unbeaten against weak oppostion and win the British title against an 8 fight novice. Mackin's best win was Asikainen, Barker's Domenico Spada. If we only had one title they would have had their hand's forced and probably have HAD to face each other in order to earn their shots at the title.
> 
> They have a combined resume of Joachim Alcine, Amin Asikainen, Domenico Spada, Kerry Hope and Simone Rotolo and that has earned them 7 title shots between them. :rolleyes


Great post
Their cvs are so ordinary when you take out 'good' losses or draws in murrays case
Promoters are scared to risk their fighter unless its for a world title


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

GazOC said:


> I think Eddie probably is the lesser of 2 evils but not by that much! Just glad the playing field has leveled out a bit!:smile


Hearn smiles more when taking your hard earned cash, he reminds me of an estate agent.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

..or one of those twats that was selling endowment mortgages in the 90s that arn't going to cover the cost of the house!


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

One to watch said:


> Great post
> Their cvs are so ordinary when you take out 'good' losses or draws in murrays case
> Promoters are scared to risk their fighter unless its for a world title


Fans enable it though. Promoters constantly talk about appealing to the casual fan, which makes sense, buy dismiss the core audience who can tell some of these fights are shit - and some folk praise them as "it makes good business sense".



Bill said:


> Hearn smiles more when taking your hard earned cash, he reminds me of an estate agent.





GazOC said:


> ..or one of those twats that was selling endowment mortgages in the 90s that arn't going to cover the cost of the house!


:rofl


----------



## Ishy (Jun 2, 2012)

Danny said:


> Yep, absolutely. I mean what did Murray do to earn a title shot? Win an early Prizefighter, remain unbeaten against weak oppostion and win the British title against an 8 fight novice. Mackin's best win was Asikainen, Barker's Domenico Spada. If we only had one title they would have had their hand's forced and probably have HAD to face each other in order to earn their shots at the title.
> *
> They have a combined resume of Joachim Alcine, Amin Asikainen, Domenico Spada, Kerry Hope and Simone Rotolo and that has earned them 7 title shots between them.* :rolleyes


:lol:

Bloody hell, when you put it like that...


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

GazOC said:


> ..or one of those twats that was selling endowment mortgages in the 90s that arn't going to cover the cost of the house!


:lol: Have I got a good deal for you... etc.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Ishy said:


> :lol:
> 
> Bloody hell, when you put it like that...


Yeah, its quite a sobering post that. Isn't it?:lol:


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

GazOC said:


> Yeah, its quite a sobering post that. Isn't it?:lol:


Remember: big domestic fights involving them just aren't possible without a "world title," as they're on that HBO money. :huh


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Danny said:


> Very true. Barker loses to Geale, he's only in the same boat as Macklin and Murray so they're still big domestic clashes for him, Rees if he had beaten Crolla convincingly would probably have ended up getting another title shot at Burns down the line anyway, and Purdy is a domestic-level fighter who'll never reach anywhere near world-level so got a real once in a lifetime opportunity gifted to him.
> 
> It's worth saying too that the bolded sentence from @Dinamita doesn't really make sense anyway, giving he's bringing Kovalev over. Might not be the same money he's having to invest, but it's still the same principle, potentially sacrificing his biggest star to a fearsome, unbeaten fighter verging on *elite* with knockout power.


That word is starting to get misappropriated in boxing, much in the same way "great" has. There are very few elite-level fighters out there - Kovalev, like Cleverley, is probably world-level since they could compete with pretty much everyone in the top ten. But there's nothing elite about either of them. Around 160-175, only Ward is a true elite level fighter.

Kovalev is making a step up too against Cleverley, IMO.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Ishy said:


> :lol:
> 
> Bloody hell, when you put it like that...


Barker in particular has no business getting title shots, IMO.


----------

