# FRANK WARREN TALKS ABOUT OFFERS TO MATCHROOM, BARRY HEARN & EDDIE HEARN (INTERVIEW - PART 2)



## Franco AFC (Jun 6, 2013)




----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

Lands a couple of bombs on the Hearns does Frank with this. :bbb


----------



## smoggy7188 (May 28, 2013)

Didnt Bellew go in a sauna when he was trying to make weight for Cleverley fight?


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2013)

Fails to mention suing boxrec, phones calls to posters and threats to ESB and this site when discussing forums.


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2013)

smoggy7188 said:


> Didnt Bellew go in a sauna when he was trying to make weight for Cleverley fight?


Yes!


----------



## smoggy7188 (May 28, 2013)

Also didnt it turn out that purdy was mandatory for Alexander in the end? He dont half make me laugh sometimes.


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

Froch ducking Cleverly as usual.
Seriously: Is there a bigger fight for Froch besides Ward rematch (wich he would lose anyway)?????


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2013)

as if he wouldn't make Kessler 3!!!


----------



## Gunner (Jun 4, 2013)

I dont get it, is this whole interview about Froch not wanting to fight that bum Cleverly?

That he wouldnt move up to fight Cleverly, but would obviously move up for the much more respected, bigger fight with BHOP?

I don't get it


----------



## Peter Barlow (Jun 4, 2013)

Cleverly Kovalev is a better fight than Froch Kessler III.

War Frank.....:bbb


----------



## Ari Gold Bawse (Jun 4, 2013)

hes trying to make it seem that froch is ducking cleverly.

they told you fish eyes that froch is only fighting at 168. if cleverly cant do that then fuck off with your offers its as simple as that.

he seems to have a real hate for barry hearn aswell :lol:


----------



## cheekyvid (Jun 9, 2012)

Just watched it now, wooft, Big Bad Frank on form, some good points he makes, strong jab on him


----------



## DaveyBoyEssexUK (Jun 8, 2013)

And so the battle continues


----------



## Primadonna Kool (Jun 14, 2012)

This shit has just got real serious!

That's the Truth right there guys....


----------



## Primadonna Kool (Jun 14, 2012)

Ari Gold Bawse said:


> hes trying to make it seem that froch is ducking cleverly.
> 
> they told you fish eyes that froch is only fighting at 168. if cleverly cant do that then fuck off with your offers its as simple as that.
> 
> he seems to have a real hate for barry hearn aswell :lol:


But Carl Froch has mentioned wanting to fight Bernard Hopkins.

Are they going to make a 48/49 year old 175 fighter come down to 168..?

Excuse excuses excuses.

http://checkhookboxing.com/showthre...warrior-who-will-face-anybody-Oh-is-he-really


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2013)

Mugsy said:


> Cleverly Kovalev is a better fight than Froch Kessler III.
> 
> War Frank.....:bbb


I wonder which one sells more tickets and would make more tv money in the US & UK!


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

Nobody wants to see Kessler-Froch III. Only milking this fight nothing more. Most guys said Kessler wont win! Of course he almost had to retire and never was the same after his Long lay off! Now another fight against past prime Kessler? Please not! But I bet Froch fans and casual fans will buy it anyway. Boxig fans know that it will be another clear win for Froch.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Not interested in Froch-Kessler III and I don't think it would sell with a lot of fans either. The second fight just confirmed what most people thought, that Kessler had slipped since the first fight, they arn't going to pay again to see if he's continued slippiing after the last fight.


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2013)

Berliner said:


> Nobody wants to see Kessler-Froch III. Only milking this fight nothing more. Most guys said Kessler wont win! Of course he almost had to retire and never was the same after his Long lay off! Now another fight against past prime Kessler? Please not! But I bet Froch fans and casual fans will buy it anyway. Boxig fans know that it will be another clear win for Froch.





GazOC said:


> Not interested in Froch-Kessler III and I don't think it would sell with a lot of fans either. The second fight just confirmed what most people thought, that Kessler had slipped since the first fight, they arn't going to pay again to see if he's continued slippiing after the last fight.


These millionaire promoters really don't know fuck all do they!


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> These millionaire promoters really don't know fuck all do they!


Have they made Froch-Kessler III? Also that statement is a bit hypocritcal considering the number of times you've told "millionaire promoters" where they are going wrong!


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> These millionaire promoters really don't know fuck all do they!


Milking the fight. good Money fight for both fighters. But not an important fight for boxing. kessler just over his prime.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

They will not get another PPV out of that series. No way. 

And consdering that (apparently!) the only way the second fight could happen was that if it was a PPV then that would show theres little call for a rubber match.


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

GazOC said:


> Not interested in Froch-Kessler III and I don't think it would sell with a lot of fans either. The second fight just confirmed what most people thought, that Kessler had slipped since the first fight, they arn't going to pay again to see if he's continued slippiing after the last fight.


I think it would still sell out the o2 because many casual fans of people who went to the first one would jump on the bandwagon but I got a feeling it would do less ppvs because in the build up to the fight I don`t think they will convince people it`s a 50-50.I would still go but would be expecting it to be probably the most one sided of the trilogy


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

GazOC said:


> They will not get another PPV out of that series. No way.
> 
> And consdering that (apparently!) the only way the second fight could happen was that if it was a PPV then that would show theres little call for a rubber match.


Hearn will try and it would take an exceptional chief support and undercard to stop people on here calling for him to be hung strung and quetered for doing so.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

To me, without an exceptional undercard, it sells out Nottingham and thats about it. Certainly no PPV without a stellar undercard and I mean the level of Brook fighting for a world title and a final eliminator type fight.


----------



## BUMPY (Jul 26, 2012)

Frank going in on Eddie!

I don't like that James Helder fellow, much prefer Kugan personally.


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2013)

GazOC said:


> They will not get another PPV out of that series. No way.
> 
> And consdering that (apparently!) the only way the second fight could happen was that if it was a PPV then that would show theres little call for a rubber match.


I heard 6 months of this will fail as a PPV and lose money.....here we go again!


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2013)

GazOC said:


> To me, without an exceptional undercard, it sells out Nottingham and thats about it. Certainly no PPV without a stellar undercard and I mean the level of Brook fighting for a world title and a final eliminator type fight.


you would moan if Brook was in a final eliminator.


----------



## Eoghan (Jun 6, 2013)

smoggy7188 said:


> Didnt Bellew go in a sauna when he was trying to make weight for Cleverley fight?


As in when it was 1st arranged at about 2 days notice?


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

The bandwagon brigade would mean it would still sell out the o2 imo.I agree completely with you Gaz that it shouldn't be ppv without something special on it.we could have a burns defence on ot to give it more value but it's s tough sell as a ppv


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> you would moan if Brook was in a final eliminator.


Damn right I would moan if he was in ANOTHER final eliminator. Read my post, Brook in a world title fight AND a final elimintor bout on the card. Otherwise Froch-Kessler III will not get off the ground as a PPV without that sort of undercard.


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2013)

GazOC said:


> Damn right I would moan if he was in ANOTHER final eliminator. Read my post, Brook in a world title fight AND a final elimintor bout on the card. Otherwise Froch-Kessler III will not get off the ground as a PPV without that sort of undercard.


People said that about Froch v Kessler II though?


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> I heard 6 months of this will fail as a PPV and lose money.....here we go again!


Do I really have to point out the difference out between the second fight and a third fight? The second fight went exactly how most people though it would, theres really no need to pay 20 quid to watch their suspicions about Kessler confirmed in a third fight.

For the record, I was never critical of Froch-Kessler II being PPV, I was critical of the exceedingly mediocre undercard that came with it after Hearn promised something decent.


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2013)

GazOC said:


> Do I really have to point out the difference out between the second fight and a third fight? The second fight went exactly how most people though it would, theres really no need to pay 20 quid to watch their suspicions about Kessler confirmed in a third fight.
> 
> For the record, I was never critical of Froch-Kessler II being PPV, I was critical of the exceedingly mediocre undercard that came with it after Hearn promised something decent.


It was still an entertaining fight which is what 90% of the people that purchased the PPV paid 15quid for.

The fight was still close. A nuetral venue shakes things up allot. Even a few people thought Kessler won the fight. I had it 115-113 and want to see the 3rd. I am excited about the prospect.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> People said that about Froch v Kessler II though?


We are not discussing Froch-Kessler II where people wanted to see whether Froch could reverse a close loss. We are discussing a third fight which is a rematch of a fight that ended with a clear win and went the way that most people though it would. Thats the big difference, forget the second fight. It was fought and sold under totally different circumstances.


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> People said that about Froch v Kessler II though?


Froch-Kessler is something different than Froch-Kessler III. Till now I doubt kessler even want a third fight! He just knows that he is not in his prime anymore! But he Needs to be to beat Froch. He was talking about retirement for a year now. I wouldnt be suprised if he retires.


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

GazOC said:


> We are not discussing Froch-Kessler II where people wanted to see whether Froch could reverse a close loss. We are discussing a third fight which is a rematch of a fight that ended with a clear win and went the way that most people though it would. Thats the big difference, forget the second fight. It was fought and sold under totally different circumstances.


This! I mean most People said Froch would win. Kessler just didnt look the same after his big eye injury and after the Long lay off. A third fight against a past prime Kessler really just would take place to "milk" this fight. It actually has no meaning for the boxing world at all.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> It was still an entertaining fight which is what 90% of the people that purchased the PPV paid 15quid for.


It was decent fight. Nowhere near a classic and not enough to sell a PPV on a third fight when most people figure they already know the result. We are not talking HWs here or great personalities selling the fight. Neither fighter is really a PPV fighter but that one fight, Kessler-Froch II, was intriuging enough that it was a PPV fight. The third fight isn't.


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

A third fight with Kessler, I'd watch it but I wouldn't be over the moon about it and I certainly wouldn't pay PPV. Hearn can bleat on as much as he likes, Kessler is past it and it was clear to everyone in that fight he was past it. He's not shot, he's just at the stage where he can't improve on anything he did in that second fight. For him to beat Froch in a third fight is highly unlikely and every knows it so what really is the point?

Much rather see Froch fight someone else like a Groves or a Hopkins. But as Frank said, Matchroom will likely try to make some easy money and just put on the third fight and sell it under the whole trilogy and "once and for all" bullshit.


----------



## Ishy (Jun 2, 2012)

Frank punching back off the ropes :lol:


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> Much rather see Froch fight someone else like a Groves or a Hopkins.


Wont see Hopkins. Hearn says Froch cant and wont fight at Light heavyweight. he even refuses a catch weight (by saying Froch will defend his super middleweight belts). Really a shame. And weak excuses by Hearn. Hopkins-Froch would be great.


----------



## Lazarus (Jun 2, 2012)

Frank went fucking *IN*.

Fuck Eddie and his PPV.


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

Frank did ppvs for many years,I hope they never do a ppv function on boxnation but you never know


----------



## cheekyvid (Jun 9, 2012)

Ashedward said:


> Frank did ppvs for many years,I hope they never do a ppv function on boxnation but you never know


That's effectively what Haye-Chisora was, to the casual fans. Of course FW would love it if they then stuck with BN, as would I and most boxing fans but I dunno how likely that was


----------



## malt vinegar (Jun 5, 2013)

DO ME FAVOUR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

franks funny as fuck when he gets goin


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Ashedward said:


> Frank did ppvs for many years,I hope they never do a ppv function on boxnation but you never know


Never say never where money and boxing is concerned. Hopefully they will be happy to use the big fights to just drive new, short term subscriptions rather than charage existing subscribers but you never know.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

cheekyvid said:


> That's effectively what Haye-Chisora was, to the casual fans. Of course FW would love it if they then stuck with BN, as would I and most boxing fans but I dunno how likely that was


Most of the casual fans I know kept the channel for a while after that fight. The biggest complaint was the number of requests compared to live fights. Some of them have admitted if they'd kept it on for a few months they'd have been happy with the American fights the channel has shown, but it's the British guys they're interested in, outside of the big name stars like Mayweather, Khan etc. I know a few that would stick with the channel if Frank's original aim for one live domestic card per week comes to fruition. (Assuming we get competitive fights and guys like Frampton develop and move up a level with time etc.)


----------



## Lilo (Jun 4, 2012)

Berliner said:


> Wont see Hopkins. Hearn says Froch cant and wont fight at Light heavyweight. he even refuses a catch weight (by saying Froch will defend his super middleweight belts). Really a shame. And weak excuses by Hearn. Hopkins-Froch would be great.


Are people ignoring the fact that Froch stated he would do a catchweight for a Hopkins fight? So he is prepared to go above 168 then? He wouldn't earn 2.5 million fighting Hopkins and it'd be a shit fight.



Batkilt said:


> Most of the casual fans I know kept the channel for a while after that fight. The biggest complaint was the number of requests compared to live fights. Some of them have admitted if they'd kept it on for a few months they'd have been happy with the American fights the channel has shown, but it's the British guys they're interested in, outside of the big name stars like Mayweather, Khan etc. I know a few that would stick with the channel if *Frank's original aim for one live domestic card per week comes to fruition. (*Assuming we get competitive fights and guys like Frampton develop and move up a level with time etc.)


52 UK shows a year is probably an unrealistic aim TBH. Obviously there will be more now, hopefully one a fortnight or three per month but with Xmas/New Year, Easter and the Summer break its unlikely.

Entertaining interview that. I'd like to hear Eddie's response about his Dad. Frank mentioned points about health before - was it a Herol Graham fight in Spain where someone failed a medical?

His points about home advantage are true IMO. Eddie goes on about what he does for his fighters but Frank does the same. Frank pays them more and is more likely to get them to a title.

The one fighter Hearn deemed worthy enough to fork out home advantage for was Froch against Bute. Look what happened there. Frank consistently forks out for his fighters, Hearn maneuvers them into a position to get a big away payday without committing as much of his own money himself.

Just different styles I suppose.


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> Most of the casual fans I know kept the channel for a while after that fight. The biggest complaint was the number of requests compared to live fights. Some of them have admitted if they'd kept it on for a few months they'd have been happy with the American fights the channel has shown, but it's the British guys they're interested in, outside of the big name stars like Mayweather, Khan etc. I know a few that would stick with the channel if Frank's original aim for one live domestic card per week comes to fruition. (Assuming we get competitive fights and guys like Frampton develop and move up a level with time etc.)


genuinley you had this conversation with casual sports fans?


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

@Lilo Aye, it's an unrealistic aim, but there should be an increase in decent domestic output. To me, Rigondeaux/Donaire was a big fight, as was Canelo/Trout. Not so much to the casual fans I know. They know about Broner, but other than Mayweather, Khan etc they're not staying up until 5am for fights, and as they have wives & kids - silly bastards - if they don't see it live, they don't find the time to watch it. They're more interested in following the domestic fighters.

I'm not suggesting every fan that subscribes for Mayweather/Canelo will stick around just because of an increase in domestic output, but a few will.


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2013)

Lilo said:


> Are people ignoring the fact that Froch stated he would do a catchweight for a Hopkins fight? So he is prepared to go above 168 then? He wouldn't earn 2.5 million fighting Hopkins and it'd be a shit fight.
> 
> 52 UK shows a year is probably an unrealistic aim TBH. Obviously there will be more now, hopefully one a fortnight or three per month but with Xmas/New Year, Easter and the Summer break its unlikely.
> 
> ...


I think a dedicated boxing channel with 4 promoters signed to exclusive contracts should be producing 40 shows a year at a minimum. All this stuff looks great at a press conference but will they actually deliver on the promise of 30 shows a year? We will have to wait and see.

Eddie has responded to this stuff before re. his Dad and has been openly critical of his poor matchmaking etc and said he wouldnt be able to get away with that now.

Re. Froch v Bute in Nottingham, Carl Froch took very very short money to get that fight over here, and there was also a rematch clause to go to Canada and Froch was mandatory.

In terms of fighters being happy. Compare a fighter thats worked with both Frank & Hearn and there opinion on the men is like night and day. Frank might pay more....but does it always get paid? Ricky Burns, Joe Calzaghe, Tony Bellew certainly think that way!


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> genuinley you had this conversation with casual sports fans?


Aye. The same sort of casual fans that love stuff like Prizefighter. Signed up for Mayweather/Cotto or Haye/Chisora.

They're not casual sports fans; they're sports fans that only follow boxing casually, for lack of a better word. The exact type of fan promoters want to reel in.


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> @Lilo Aye, it's an unrealistic aim, but there should be an increase in decent domestic output. To me, Rigondeaux/Donaire was a big fight, as was Canelo/Trout. Not so much to the casual fans I know. They know about Broner, but other than Mayweather, Khan etc they're not staying up until 5am for fights, and as they have wives & kids - silly bastards - if they don't see it live, they don't find the time to watch it. They're more interested in following the domestic fighters.
> 
> I'm not suggesting every fan that subscribes for Mayweather/Canelo will stick around just because of an increase in domestic output, but a few will.


The biggest issue for me was marketing. It might have changed since I moved but I never saw much advertising from BoxNation. I remember people asking me "Is Haye v Chisora on Sky Box Office"


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

40 is a lot off shows a year when you factor in Xmas, January, August and cancelations. Lets be realistic and be happy enough if they get to the promised 30 shows a year.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> Aye. The same sort of casual fans that love stuff like Prizefighter. Signed up for Mayweather/Cotto or Haye/Chisora.
> 
> They're not casual sports fans; they're sports fans that only follow boxing casually, for lack of a better word. The exact type of fan promoters want to reel in.


Ok. I see what you mean. Like i said in my post a moment ago, marketing is the biggest issue for BoxNation for me. Tony Bellew as an example, has more twitter followers than Nathan Cleverly. Callum Smith has double the amount of followers as Frank Buglioni. That gives you an indication of how much of a difference being on Sky makes.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

GazOC said:


> 40 is a lot off shows a year when you factor in Xmas, January, August and cancelations. Lets be realistic and be happy enough if they get to the promised 30 shows a year.


Its better than the 4 in 6 months thats happened so far lol!


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> The biggest issue for me was marketing. It might have changed since I moved but I never saw much advertising from BoxNation. I remember people asking me "Is Haye v Chisora on Sky Box Office"


The folk I spoke to had heard about BoxNation and after subscribing did watch fights promoted by Sauerland etc, but they didn't know who they were watching and told me they care more about watching British fighters. Burns, obviously, but the likes of Macklin, Barker, Frampton, Quigg, Bellew, Cleverly, Murray, Crolla etc.

They'd rather watch those guys than Donaire. Broner was linked with a fight with Burns from about 2011 onwards, so folk have heard about him and pay some attention to him.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Ok. I see what you mean. Like i said in my post a moment ago, marketing is the biggest issue for BoxNation for me. Tony Bellew as an example, has more twitter followers than Nathan Cleverly. Callum Smith has double the amount of followers as Frank Buglioni. That gives you an indication of how much of a difference being on Sky makes.


Yeah, exposure is obviously a big issue. Channel 5 have done hee haw to advertise Tyson Fury's fights, but he's still becoming known by casuals due to being on terrestrial TV.

Every single subscriber counts for BoxNation, so I'm glad they're securing more shows/content.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> Yeah, exposure is obviously a big issue. Channel 5 have done hee haw to advertise Tyson Fury's fights, but he's still becoming known by casuals due to being on terrestrial TV.
> 
> Every single subscriber counts for BoxNation, so I'm glad they're securing more shows/content.


Channel 5 is over rated in terms of exposure though. Groves has twice as many fans on facebook and twitter as DeGale, who won the gold medal an has been on 5. Frampton way ahead of Kid Galahad.


----------



## Lilo (Jun 4, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> I think a dedicated boxing channel with 4 promoters signed to exclusive contracts should be producing 40 shows a year at a minimum. All this stuff looks great at a press conference but will they actually deliver on the promise of 30 shows a year? We will have to wait and see.
> 
> Eddie has responded to this stuff before re. his Dad and has been openly critical of his poor matchmaking etc and said he wouldnt be able to get away with that now.
> 
> ...


I'm sure we'd all love 40 shows a year. Won't happen for a year or do at least. 30 is doable but can Barry and Maloney put on 7/8 shows a year?

Not talking about matchmaking - did Eddie respond about the 'health' points?

If Froch is happy taking shit money with options then fair play to him, had he lost there'd be no Kessler PPV or 2.5 million offers. My point is Froch is the only one who had home advantage and is the only one who won. Frank has a far, far higher win ratio in 1st time championship fights.

Being around for years works two ways - you have experience but are also more likely to have pissed people off. Some fighters will get pissed off with Eddie in time. Frank has had an awful lot of court cases though!


----------



## wombraider (Jun 27, 2013)

Oh so this is where you all are.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Channel 5 is over rated in terms of exposure though. Groves has twice as many fans on facebook and twitter as DeGale, who won the gold medal an has been on 5. Frampton way ahead of Kid Galahad.


It's not overrated to have had over 1 million people watch you fight on a consistent basis. There's a reason Matchroom and Hennessey expect Haye/Fury to be PPV while Haye/Charr was on Sky Sports; Fury's exposure from Channel 5 means folk know who he is.

If Mick and 5 had been putting Galahad in decent fights on Fury's undercard and televising it, he'd be more well known too.


----------



## Lilo (Jun 4, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Channel 5 is over rated in terms of exposure though. Groves has twice as many fans on facebook and twitter as DeGale, who won the gold medal an has been on 5. Frampton way ahead of Kid Galahad.


Come on Rob - even you know there are other factors that affect followers. Followers counts for little when you can easily buy them.

Frampton has more because of the coverage he gets in N.I./Ireland where he has been backed by the most famous fella from that part of the world. Galahad competes with all the Yorkshire fighters for press coverage.

Frampton has Barry hyping him/mentioning him etc.
Groves has David Haye hyping him/mentioning him etc.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> It's not overrated to have had over 1 million people watch you fight on a consistent basis. There's a reason Matchroom and Hennessey expect Haye/Fury to be PPV while Haye/Charr was on Sky Sports; Fury's exposure from Channel 5 means folk know who he is.
> 
> If Mick and 5 had been putting Galahad in decent fights on Fury's undercard and televising it, he'd be more well known too.


Yeh nothing to do with the fact Fury is British, top 10 in the world and a 7ft gypsy that never shuts up!


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Its better than the 4 in 6 months thats happened so far lol!


I think thats the plan with getting the other promoters on board, don't you?


----------



## Peter Barlow (Jun 4, 2013)

Galahad may fight on Channel 5 but alot of them arent live are they?

Anyway I actually think Galahad is well enough known.

Galahad is more known than Scott Quigg imo despite Scott having fought more and had bigger wins!


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

GazOC said:


> I think thats the plan with getting the other promoters on board, don't you?


I'm not sure that will happen though. Frank intended to put on far more shows than he has done but he's not done that, solely because his shows aren't making money. If they were, he'd have 20-30 shows each year but he doesn't. There's a reason he can't pay his fighters. Frank has lost money on shows, just like Hatton and Maloney will.McGuigan is the only one I see making regular profit as he, unlike the others, doesn't need publicity. Frampton will sell out shows easily without the Sky hype, something Frank has failed to do and something Hatton and Maloney will also fail to do.

As good as BoxNation is for hardcore fans, boxing needs casuals to make money and they aren't a dedicated enough audience to buy a subscription channel.


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

Ari Gold Bawse said:


> hes trying to make it seem that froch is ducking cleverly.
> 
> they told you fish eyes that froch is only fighting at 168. if cleverly cant do that then fuck off with your offers its as simple as that.
> 
> he seems to have a real hate for barry hearn aswell :lol:


Froch and Hearn are crying all day long about Froch moving up to LHW.
As if Froch would be the first fighter ever to give up a bit weight to the opponent. If Froch is the big warrior he thinks he is he should stop crying and move up to LHW and face Hopkins/Cleverly. Easy as that. There is nothing left at SMW besides Groves who is not ready yet.


----------



## DrMo (Jun 6, 2012)

Lilo said:


> Entertaining interview that. I'd like to hear Eddie's response about his Dad. Frank mentioned points about health before - was it a Herol Graham fight in Spain where someone failed a medical?


Herol Graham vs Julian Jackson.

Jackson had a badly damaged eye & failed the BBBoC medical so Barry Hearn moved the fight to Andalucia


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

wombraider said:


> Oh so this is where you all are.


:hi:

Only for the last 12 months..


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Jack said:


> I'm not sure that will happen though. Frank intended to put on far more shows than he has done but he's not done that, solely because his shows aren't making money. If they were, he'd have 20-30 shows each year but he doesn't. There's a reason he can't pay his fighters. Frank has lost money on shows, just like Hatton and Maloney will.McGuigan is the only one I see making regular profit as he, unlike the others, doesn't need publicity. Frampton will sell out shows easily without the Sky hype, something Frank has failed to do and something Hatton and Maloney will also fail to do.
> 
> As good as BoxNation is for hardcore fans, boxing needs casuals to make money and they aren't a dedicated enough audience to buy a subscription channel.


They've got it give it a go and it can only be good for all concerned. The reality of the Hearn/ Sky situation meant they had to do something to try and level the playing field a bit. I can't see a downside to it TBH although I'm sure somebody will find one! ;-)


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> In terms of fighters being happy. Compare a fighter thats worked with both Frank & Hearn and there opinion on the men is like night and day.


Who are you talking about here Rob? Name names.

Lets not forget that Bellew wouldn't have a bad word said about Warren when he was with him.

Or do you mean fighters who are with Hearn now, and used to be with Warren?

Find me one, a la Frampton who has gone the other way and find us a link stating how much better things were when he was with Eddie.........please.

Or, is it just adgenda driven bollcks by the fighter?


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Bellew was a strange one. Got gifted a world title shot, lost it and then complained when he didn't get another. I know there was more to it than that but in that situation I'd have taken the glass as being half full rather than half empty.


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

GazOC said:


> Bellew was a strange one. Got gifted a world title shot, lost it and then complained when he didn't get another. I know there was more to it than that but in that situation I'd have taken the glass as being half full rather than half empty.


Not only a title shot, but in Liverpool, after failing to make weight once when he said he could.


----------



## Primadonna Kool (Jun 14, 2012)

LuckyLuke said:


> Froch and Hearn are crying all day long about Froch moving up to LHW.
> As if Froch would be the first fighter ever to give up a bit weight to the opponent. If Froch is the big warrior he thinks he is he should stop crying and move up to LHW and face Hopkins/Cleverly. Easy as that. There is nothing left at SMW besides Groves who is not ready yet.


Carl Froch has got afew choices.

Face George Groves & James Degale and possible get beat.

Face Andrew Ward and get beat.

Move up to 175 and get beat.

Or..? have a rematch with Kessler, or make a pointless fight against Chavez.

To prove that he is the greatest British fighter of all-time.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Yeh nothing to do with the fact Fury is British, top 10 in the world and a 7ft gypsy that never shuts up!


What's your point? Would Fury be as well known if he'd never fought on Channel 5 and had instead been fighting on BoxNation? That he's fought on 5 has certainly helped him in terms of his exposure and name value.

If being a tall, British heavyweight was the main reason then Price wouldn't be mostly unknown to the casual audience.


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

Batkilt said:


> What's your point? Would Fury be as well known if he'd never fought on Channel 5 and had instead been fighting on BoxNation? That he's fought on 5 has certainly helped him in terms of his exposure and name value.
> 
> If being a tall, British heavyweight was the main reason then Price wouldn't be mostly unknown to the casual audience.


It's rare, but I am with Rob on this one.

Sometimes I've missed shows on Ch5 because I've not known they are on. Literally there is one programme I watch on Ch5 (@Bryn knows) and that's on Sky plus so I dont watch any adverts.

Fury is well known because of his gob and the crazy things he says. Not because of Ch5.

Go ask a casual fan when Eubank Jr's or Galahad's last fight was, and when their next one is. They'd not have a clue.


----------



## Charliebigspuds (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> It was still an entertaining fight which is what 90% of the people that purchased the PPV paid 15quid for.
> 
> The fight was still close. A nuetral venue shakes things up allot. Even a few people thought Kessler won the fight. I had it 115-113 and want to see the 3rd. I am excited about the prospect.


Seriously you'd excited about a 3rd fight?

There is only one winner and this time most likely by stoppage. The last fight has taken whatever was left of Kessler,the only point of this is to milk it and to give Froch the chance to come out on top of the the trilogy.

I understand all this but excited,no.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Rob is living in some sort of Hearn induced alternate reality where Froch-Kessler III is concerned. Neutral venue when Kessler draws in Denmark and Froch can probably fill Nottingham against anyone? Not a hope in hell. For someone who loves the financial side of boxing so much Rob isn't thinking very logically, probably because its not logically a PPV fight.

The problem Rob has is that he knows theres no real demand for the fight and it won't (or at the very least shouldn't) be PPV but if Eddie Hearn promotes it he'll be forced to toe the party line and say what a great fight it is. The posts he's making in this thread of just preparation for that, "I've always said Froch-Kessler III is a great fight" etc etc.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Grant said:


> It's rare, but I am with Rob on this one.
> 
> Sometimes I've missed shows on Ch5 because I've not known they are on. Literally there is one programme I watch on Ch5 (@Bryn knows) and that's on Sky plus so I dont watch any adverts.
> 
> ...


Fury's gob wouldn't mean a damn thing if he was on BoxNation though. The 1 million or so that watch despite the piss poor advertising wouldn't suddenly be watching BoxNation.


----------



## Steve Funn (Jul 18, 2012)

Grant said:


> Fury is well known because of his gob and the crazy things he says. Not because of Ch5.


Well its both, his mouth + free tv = fame. A lot of my mates have watched Fury on Ch5 who dont usually watch boxing.


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

Batkilt said:


> Fury's gob wouldn't mean a damn thing if he was on BoxNation though. The 1 million or so that watch despite the piss poor advertising wouldn't suddenly be watching BoxNation.


Of course it would. He'd be just as well known. He just wouldn't have the audience watching him fight. It's not his fighting that has got him to this level of stardom lets be honest.

Or do you honestly think that people have ONLY ever seen him on Ch5?



Steve Funn said:


> Well its both, his mouth + free tv = fame. A lot of my mates have watched Fury on Ch5 who dont usually watch boxing.


You are quite correct. But my point still stands, Ch5 is crap for promotion.

Fury is known because of his mouth. It's just a happy coincedence for people that he is on free tv.

If it was Ch5 that was making him visible, all the other fighters would be as well known as him.

BBC/ITV would be entirely different.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

GazOC said:


> Rob is living in some sort of Hearn induced alternate reality where Froch-Kessler III is concerned. Neutral venue when Kessler draws in Denmark and Froch can probably fill Nottingham against anyone? Not a hope in hell. For someone who loves the financial side of boxing so much Rob isn't thinking very logically, probably because its not logically a PPV fight.
> 
> The problem Rob has is that he knows theres no real demand for the fight and it won't (or at the very least shouldn't) be PPV but if Eddie Hearn promotes it he'll be forced to toe the party line and say what a great fight it is. The posts he's making in this thread of just preparation for that, "I've always said Froch-Kessler III is a great fight" etc etc.


I am not getting onto the debate again. I went through 6 months of hearing;

_"Froch won't draw outside of Nottingham"
"He isn't a big enough star for this to be PPV"
"US TV won't want this fight"
"This won't make any money"_

All turned out to be wrong. I like this fight. It has nothing to do with who promotes it. If I lived in the UK I wouldn't have bought the PPV but that doesn't mean I don't like the fight and if there was a worthwhile undercard I wouldn't have an issue. There was no reason for Gatti & Ward to fight a 3rd time but it was still a great fight.

Plus if you take out the first 3 rounds Kessler would have won the fight in my eyes. He won't give away 3 rounds like he did last time.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> Fury's gob wouldn't mean a damn thing if he was on BoxNation though. The 1 million or so that watch despite the piss poor advertising wouldn't suddenly be watching BoxNation.


BoxNation no but ITV4, Sky Sports. In terms of exposure the difference is not that great imo.


----------



## Lilo (Jun 4, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> I am not getting onto the debate again. I went through 6 months of hearing;
> 
> _"Froch won't draw outside of Nottingham"
> "He isn't a big enough star for this to be PPV"
> ...


You tight bastard.

You should've made a thread - "Are southerners tight?" instead!


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> I am not getting onto the debate again. I went through 6 months of hearing;
> 
> _"Froch won't draw outside of Nottingham"
> "He isn't a big enough star for this to be PPV"
> ...


You're literally alone in believing Froch vs Kessler III is PPV worthy. The majority want a different fight for Froch now. A 3rd fight wouldn't be any closer than the 2nd was and everyone knows it, hence why no one is really that interested.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> You're literally alone in believing Froch vs Kessler III is PPV worthy. The majority want a different fight for Froch now. A 3rd fight wouldn't be any closer than the 2nd was and everyone knows it, hence why no one is really that interested.


LOL Paulie MC the voice of the people!

Theres other fights I would prefer for Froch but thats doesn't mean Kessler III is not a great fight that excites me.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

Lilo said:


> You tight bastard.
> 
> You should've made a thread - "Are southerners tight?" instead!


Nothing tight about lol. Just didn't think the PPV was value for money. Would have gone to a bar and watched it....which is what i did here anyway.


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> LOL Paulie MC the voice of the people!
> 
> Theres other fights I would prefer for Froch but thats doesn't mean Kessler III is not a great fight that excites me.


Like you're the voice of Eddie Hearn on here, spewing his spin.

That's the fact though, it's not a great fight, not in the eyes of the majority of boxing fans. The 1st and 2nd ones were great but a 3rd one wouldn't be because it wouldn't be any different. When you make a film that's fantastic you can't just make a sequel which is exactly the same and expect people to like it just as much as they did the previous film. People want something else.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> Like you're the voice of Eddie Hearn on here, spewing his spin.
> 
> That's the fact though, it's not a great fight, not in the eyes of the majority of boxing fans. The 1st and 2nd ones were great but a 3rd one wouldn't be because it wouldn't be any different. When you make a film that's fantastic you can't just make a sequel which is exactly the same and expect people to like it just as much as they did the previous film. People want something else.


http://www.hindustantimes.com/Enter...lion-in-opening-weekend/Article1-1067163.aspx

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2820852/


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> http://www.hindustantimes.com/Enter...lion-in-opening-weekend/Article1-1067163.aspx
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2820852/


Those films are shite (in my opinion). Only ever watched the first 2 and then stopped because like I said, they're all the same.

If St Eddie only wants to do fights that make money and not fights that true fans want then fair enough, he's a businessmen and he can do whatever he likes with his business. Just don't bullshit and make out like you care about what real boxing fans want, be honest and admit you're only going after the casuals.

I never said Froch vs Kessler 3 wouldn't make any money, I said no fans want to see it (or wouldn't pay PPV to see it anyway). Casuals may buy it but that's because they're thick and will buy anything Sky Sports hype up. Same type of people who bought Haye vs Harrison, probably the worst PPV of all time.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> Those films are shite (in my opinion). Only ever watched the first 2 and then stopped because like I said, they're all the same.
> 
> If St Eddie only wants to do fights that make money and not fights that true fans want then fair enough, he's a businessmen and he can do whatever he likes with his business. Just don't bullshit and make out like you care about what real boxing fans want, be honest and admit you're only going after the casuals.
> 
> I never said Froch vs Kessler 3 wouldn't make any money, I said no fans want to see it (or wouldn't pay PPV to see it anyway). Casuals may buy it but that's because they're thick and will buy anything Sky Sports hype up. Same type of people who bought Haye vs Harrison, probably the worst PPV of all time.


I was just pointing out how retarded your sequals analogy was! I like the F&F films. There 1hr40mins of mindless entertainment. As long as you don't take them to seriously you will enjoy. Plus has the Rock ever been in a bad film?

I agree. But personally I like the fight and want to see it again. Nothing to do with Hearn....and I ws one of the most outspoken fans against the quality of the PPV.

The reason why the casual's would be buying it is because they really enjoyed the first fight which was action packed and competative world class boxing. I don't see how thats a bad thing!


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Grant said:


> Of course it would. He'd be just as well known. He just wouldn't have the audience watching him fight. It's not his fighting that has got him to this level of stardom lets be honest.
> 
> Or do you honestly think that people have ONLY ever seen him on Ch5?


Where did I say that was the case? Go on, have a read back; you'll see that I haven't said that people only know him from Channel 5 or that they advertise their fights well. I am saying anyone who thinks he'd be as well known to casual fans if he was fighting on BoxNation is wrong. His antics wouldn't have reached as many people, for a start.



robpalmer135 said:


> BoxNation no but ITV4, Sky Sports. In terms of exposure the difference is not that great imo.


ITV4? Aye, sure. But regardless you've just conceded my point: Fury's exposure to a mainstream audience is why his camp are able to negotiate a PPV fight with Haye. His personality and antics wouldn't matter in that regard if people weren't aware of who he is.


----------



## DaveyBoyEssexUK (Jun 8, 2013)

Froch vs Kessler III if so but no way PPV!!


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> ITV4? Aye, sure. But regardless you've just conceded my point: Fury's exposure to a mainstream audience is why his camp are able to negotiate a PPV fight with Haye. His personality and antics wouldn't matter in that regard if people weren't aware of who he is.


No. I think people would have been aware of who he was had he boxed on Sky Sports for his entire career and this fight would still be PPV.


----------



## Tywin (Jun 28, 2013)

Haye vs Fury should not be PPV. Utter mismatch and both are pathetic cunts who want to swindle the public.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> No. I think people would have been aware of who he was had he boxed on Sky Sports for his entire career and this fight would still be PPV.


Which isn't really relevant, as that's not what happened.


----------



## Ernest Shackleton (Jun 8, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> Those films are shite (in my opinion). Only ever watched the first 2 and then stopped because like I said, they're all the same.
> 
> If St Eddie only wants to do fights that make money and not fights that true fans want then fair enough, he's a businessmen and he can do whatever he likes with his business. Just don't bullshit and make out like you care about what real boxing fans want, be honest and admit you're only going after the casuals.
> 
> I never said Froch vs Kessler 3 wouldn't make any money, I said no fans want to see it (or wouldn't pay PPV to see it anyway). Casuals may buy it but that's because they're thick and will buy anything Sky Sports hype up. Same type of people who bought Haye vs Harrison, probably the worst PPV of all time.


I'd rather see Frock Kessler 3 than Frock Ward 2, the first one is more unpredictable than the second.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> Which isn't really relevant, as that's not what happened.


Your argument was that Fury v Haye is PPV because of Fury being on channel 5. I argue that is not the only reason, and that if he had been on another platform (except BoxNation) the fight would still be PPV.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

Ernest Shackleton said:


> I'd rather see Frock Kessler 3 than Frock Ward 2, the first one is more unpredictable than the second.


Yeh I would much rather see Froch v Kessler again than Froch v Ward.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Your argument was that Fury v Haye is PPV because of Fury being on channel 5. I argue that is not the only reason, and that if he had been on another platform (except BoxNation) the fight would still be PPV.


Wrong. I said his exposure to casual fans via Channel 5 is why there's an interest in fighting Haye from those casual fans. Not the same thing at all as saying there wouldn't be any such interest if his fights had been televised online.

You're the one that rubbished the suggestion that the exposure he had received had anything to do with it - or at least downplayed it - in the post you referred to him as a gypsy.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> Wrong. I said his exposure to casual fans via Channel 5 is why there's an interest in fighting Haye from those casual fans. Not the same thing at all as saying there wouldn't be any such interest if his fights had been televised online.
> 
> You're the one that rubbished the suggestion that the exposure he had received had anything to do with it - or at least downplayed it - in the post you referred to him as a gypsy.


Bloody Hell you are hard work. Theres several reasons why this fight is going to be a major event. In no particular order.

1. David Haye is a crossover star
2. Tyson Fury is a 7ft loud mouth gypsy
3. There Heavyweights
4. Both our British
5. Both our in the top 10
6. Both have exciting styles
*7. Tyson Fury has been fighting in front of big TV audiences*

You just beleive No.7 to be the biggest factor of all. I think its important...but not as big a factor as you beleive. No dobut Fury has been exposed to the casual fan on Channel 5.....but I think had he been fighting on Sky Sports or ITV4 his whole career he would still have got enough exposure for this to be a major fight.

Ricky Hatton's whole career was on Sky Sports remember.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Bloody Hell you are hard work. Theres several reasons why this fight is going to be a major event. In no particular order.
> 
> 1. David Haye is a crossover star
> 2. Tyson Fury is a 7ft loud mouth gypsy
> ...


All 7 points are true but in the ring, its not that brilliant a fight and a bit of a mismatch in all honesty ,imo of course.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

Bill said:


> All 7 points are true but in the ring, its not that brilliant a fight and a bit of a mismatch in all honesty ,imo of course.


I think its more competitive and more exciting than others. Haye has always struggled against giant heavyweights, and Fury is not as negative as the eastern europeans.


----------



## Ernest Shackleton (Jun 8, 2013)

Bill said:


> All 7 points are true but in the ring, its not that brilliant a fight and a bit of a mismatch in all honesty ,imo of course.


Every single boxer I've seen interviewed thinks Fury stands a great chance and they favour him. Internet fans think otherwise. I'll go with those who know what they are on about.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> I think its more competitive and more exciting than others. Haye has always struggled against giant heavyweights, and Fury is not as negative as the eastern europeans.


Again true but Fury is wild and leaves himself open more than your Eastern European's, especially with the overhand right, also you have to wonder about Fury's temperment, how is he going to cope with the occasion and quite possibly hitting thin air, will his temperment hold up, I have serious doubts it can which will make him leave himself even more open.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Bloody Hell you are hard work. Theres several reasons why this fight is going to be a major event. In no particular order.
> 
> 1. David Haye is a crossover star
> 2. Tyson Fury is a 7ft loud mouth gypsy
> ...


No, you're just being a spastic and inferring things that I haven't actually posted. Please point to where I've said that his fights being broadcast on Channel 5 is the most important factor behind his popularity.

You can't. Because all I've said in regard to the way he sells a fight, his charisma and being a heavyweight is that he wouldn't be as well known if he'd been fighting on BoxNation over the last few years. I'm not convinced that he'd even have gotten the Johnson fight on ITV4, but how does expressing doubt that he'd be as well known from continuing to fight on ITV4 mean I'm arguing that he wouldn't be just as big - no pun intended - if he'd been fighting in main events on Sky Sports?

I posted that if being a tall heavyweight was all it took to be that popular then Price would be just as popular. But he's not. And I credited you with the intelligence to realise that I wasn't, by pointing out it takes more than being a tall heavyweight, rubbishing the fact Fury's charisma and antics are an important factor. That's the one thing you could have inferred, and you didn't.

Instead you seem to be telling me what I think.

You're right though. You don't see many disabled firemen, do you?


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

Bill said:


> Again true but Fury is wild and leaves himself open more than your Eastern European's, especially with the overhand right, also you have to wonder about Fury's temperment, how is he going to cope with the occasion and quite possibly hitting thin air, will his temperment hold up, I have serious doubts it can which will make him leave himself even more open.


Yeh. Part of the reason why I would pay 15quid to watch this fight....with a good UC.

How about?

Tyson Fury v David Haye (WBC Heavyweight Final Eliminator)
Scott Quigg v Yolandis Salinas (WBA Regular Super Bantamweight)
Denton Vassell v Matthew Hatton (British & Commonwealth Welterweight)
Brian Rose v Jorge Melendez (WBO Light Middleweight Eliminator)
Kid Galahad v Jazza Dickens (Vacant British Super Bantamweight)


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> No, you're just being a spastic and inferring things that I haven't actually posted. Please point to where I've said that his fights being broadcast on Channel 5 is the most important factor behind his popularity.
> 
> You can't. Because all I've said in regard to the way he sells a fight, his charisma and being a heavyweight is that he wouldn't be as well known if he'd been fighting on BoxNation over the last few years. I'm not convinced that he'd even have gotten the Johnson fight on ITV4, but how does expressing doubt that he'd be as well known from continuing to fight on ITV4 mean I'm arguing that he wouldn't be just as big - no pun intended - if he'd been fighting in main events on Sky Sports?
> 
> ...





Batkilt said:


> There's a reason Matchroom and Hennessey expect Haye/Fury to be PPV while Haye/Charr was on Sky Sports; Fury's exposure from Channel 5 means folk know who he is.


There you go.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Yeh. Part of the reason why I would pay 15quid to watch this fight....with a good UC.
> 
> How about?
> 
> ...


Good card, with the hype and build up of Haye/Fury id probably buy it.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> There you go.


And? His exposure as a main event fighter has been on Channel 5. Or are you going to pretend we hadn't previously been discussing the importance of mainstream exposure in regards to BoxNation?

That's not the same as "his exposure on Channel 5 is the only reason a fight with Haye would sell," by the way. I think even a five year old could work that out.

Your cardigans are cutting off the blood flow to your brain.


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

The only PPV fight Matchroom could possibly sell to me at the moment is Haye vs Fury and that's just because of the crossover appeal it would have. EVERY fan wants to see it, regardless of how one-sided many believe it would be. If it did have an undercard like the one Rob suggested then I'd probably buy it just to feel like part of the occasion.

The only other fight that could possibly be PPV worthy in my opinion is Price vs Fury if David builds himself back up again. There's so much ill-feeling and pride at stake there. Maybe a lot of southerners wouldn't be bothered but Price vs Fury would be HUGE up here in the North West, the Manchester-Liverpool intercity rivalry would help it sell big.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> I am not getting onto the debate again. I went through 6 months of hearing;
> 
> _"Froch won't draw outside of Nottingham"
> "He isn't a big enough star for this to be PPV"
> ...


Did you *REALLY* just compare Froch-Kessler to Gatti-Ward?

FFS Rob, the fights arn't comparable. I've told you the big differences inbetween selling Kessler-Froch II and selling Kessler-Froch III but you don't seem willing to listen.



> Plus if you take out the first 3 rounds Kessler would have won the fight in my eyes. He won't give away 3 rounds like he did last time.


So you need a neutral venue and the first 3 rounds missing from the first fight (and hopefully Kessler hasn't declined further since the second fight) to sell the PPV? Sounds great!

Its not a goer and I'd bet Hearn knows that.


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Yeh. Part of the reason why I would pay 15quid to watch this fight....with a good UC.
> 
> How about?
> 
> ...


You love a fantasy ppv don't you.

If the ppv does happen I would hope Hearn ups his game because the Froch undercard was woeful.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Marlow said:


> You love a fantasy ppv don't you.
> 
> If the ppv does happen I would hope Hearn ups his game because the Froch undercard was woeful.


A rational Hearn fan? fuck me I didn't know they existed.


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

Bill said:


> A rational Hearn fan? fuck me I didn't know they existed.


Objective with everything Bill.

There's lots of pros and cons with Hearn.

Think he did a fantastic job with Frampton and the way he built Brook up in Sheffield from leisure centre to arena to World title shot was top class.

Bringing Bute and Kessler to England for Froch was also excellent and securing Barker a World title shot is great as well.

However, thinking that the undercard for Froch/Kessler was worthy is a joke and I appear to be in the minority here but I also think this Saturdays card is poor.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Marlow said:


> Objective with everything Bill.
> 
> There's lots of pros and cons with Hearn.
> 
> ...


Hearn does do a lot of thing well and has got credit and will continue to get credit if justified, like any promoter, all the points you mentioned are worthy of praise but with that, for the sake of fairness he deserves to be panned when he fucks up, he is a boxing promoter, history tells you that none are to be fucking trusted and to expect the worst, anything else is a bonus.

I was also a bit harsh in saying you are the only rational Hearn fan @Ashedward is another, sadly you are the only two. :lol:


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> And? His exposure as a main event fighter has been on Channel 5. Or are you going to pretend we hadn't previously been discussing the importance of mainstream exposure in regards to BoxNation?
> 
> That's not the same as *"his exposure on Channel 5 is the only reason a fight with Haye would sell,"* by the way. I think even a five year old could work that out.
> 
> Your cardigans are cutting off the blood flow to your brain.


So I don't get what you have been arguing about. Thats basically what I said 4 pages ago!

Your attempts at humor is to poor. Try watching more office episodes.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

Marlow said:


> Objective with everything Bill.
> 
> There's lots of pros and cons with Hearn.
> 
> ...


I think this Saturdays card is pretty poor aswell to be honest.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

Bill said:


> I was also a bit harsh in saying you are the only rational Hearn fan @Ashedward is another, sadly you are the only two. :lol:


Personally I think thats very very unfair!


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> So I don't get what you have been arguing about. Thats basically what I said 4 pages ago!
> 
> Your attempts at humor is to poor. Try watching more office episodes.


You're the one that started arguing, ya rocket. Your brain has been rotted by shite like The Office, obviously.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

GazOC said:


> Did you *REALLY* just compare Froch-Kessler to Gatti-Ward?
> 
> FFS Rob, the fights arn't comparable. I've told you the big differences inbetween selling Kessler-Froch II and selling Kessler-Froch III but you don't seem willing to listen.
> 
> ...


The fights are comparable.

The fight sells as a PPV because its two world class fighters in a fight with a great clash of styles.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> You're the one that started arguing, ya rocket. Your brain has been rotted by shite like The Office, obviously.


You are truly delusional mate! read back the thread.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> *You are truly delusional mate!* read back the thread.


:lol: Good one, Rob.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

@robpalmer135, you do criticize him now and again, you deserve praise for that, but you do hold him in higher regard than other promoters and you are more willing to let things go and will try to see things his way, I'm not having a pop at you but you do, do that sometimes when it isn't justified, you do have certain bias, in fairness though I genuinely think you believe it, which is fair enough.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> :lol: Good one, Rob.


Im being serious!!!


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Im being serious!!!


I know, that's why it's hilarious.


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

Batkilt said:


> Where did I say that was the case? Go on, have a read back; you'll see that I haven't said that people only know him from Channel 5 or that they advertise their fights well. I am saying anyone who thinks he'd be as well known to casual fans if he was fighting on BoxNation is wrong. His antics wouldn't have reached as many people, for a start.


Where did I say you'd said it? Go on, have a read back; you'll see that I was asking you a question.

He is known to the majority of people for mouthing off, twitter, youtube, Sky TV and being in the papers all of the time. I reckon about 5% of his infamy comes from channel 5. It's negligable and he'd be just as well known if he was on Primetime.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

Bill said:


> @robpalmer135, you do criticize him now and again, you deserve praise for that, but you do hold him in higher regard than other promoters and you are more willing to let things go and will try to see things his way, I'm not having a pop at you but you do, do that sometimes when it isn't justified, you do have certain bias, in fairness though I genuinely think you believe it, which is fair enough.


I feel like allot of the criticism he gets is based on false promises rather than actually doing something thats shit.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> I feel like allot of the criticism he gets is based on false promises rather than actually doing something thats shit.


Is making false promises the same thing as telling lies?


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

Hearn does something wich is shit. He just says, NO MATTER WHAT, Froch wont fight at Light heavyweight. He will just defend his belts at super middleweight. For many many fans this is shit. We wont see Hopkins-Froch, Cleverly-Froch, Stevenson-Froch etc. And if Ward moves up there really is nothing left at light heavyweight. Not that I think Hearn really wants a Ward fight.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

GazOC said:


> Is making false promises the same thing as telling lies?


No. Theres a difference between them. Both bad but there is a difference.

I genuinely beleive what Hearn is trying to achieve will be a posative thing for British Boxing. Thats why I support him. I am anti Frank because of some of the antics he has pulled in the past. I challenge anybody to read the Joe Calzaghe case file and support Frank.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

Berliner said:


> Hearn does something wich is shit. He just says, NO MATTER WHAT, Froch wont fight at Light heavyweight. He will just defend his belts at super middleweight. For many many fans this is shit. We wont see Hopkins-Froch, Cleverly-Froch, Stevenson-Froch etc. And if Ward moves up there really is nothing left at light heavyweight. Not that I think Hearn really wants a Ward fight.


I would say Froch v Kessler, Groves, DeGale, Chavez Jnr & Golovkin at 168lbs are better than those fights.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Grant said:


> Where did I say you'd said it? Go on, have a read back; you'll see that I was asking you a question.


Apologies. I wasn't in the best of moods when I posted that.



> He is known to the majority of people for mouthing off, twitter, youtube, Sky TV and being in the papers all of the time. I reckon about 5% of his infamy comes from channel 5. It's hegligable and he'd be just as well known if he was on Primetime.


I don't agree tbh. I think the platform that Channel 5 provides isn't as lucrative as Sky - like you and I both agree on, they do practically nowt to advertise the boxing content - but being on channels that are easily accessible helps. Casual punters don't go out of their way to find out when someone is fighting - Channel 5 take note - and I don't imagine they would have done that for Fury a couple of years ago.

I was never suggesting that fighting on Channel 5 itself has made him "a name"; my point is that, no matter how charismatic you are, you need a platform to showcase yourself in order for anyone to take note. I don't think he'd have built up the name recognition he has on BoxNation.

Then again, if Maloney, Hatton and Mick had all signed up to BoxNation when it was formed maybe Fury would have become the selling point - in terms of a domestic fighter - that the channel could do with. He'd sell the hell out of it for sure. Not convinced it would have played out that way but....don't think it's implausible either actually.


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

Batkilt said:


> Apologies. I wasn't in the best of moods when I posted that.
> 
> I don't agree tbh. I think the platform that Channel 5 provides isn't as lucrative as Sky - like you and I both agree on, they do practically nowt to advertise the boxing content - but being on channels that are easily accessible helps. Casual punters don't go out of their way to find out when someone is fighting - Channel 5 take note - and I don't imagine they would have done that for Fury a couple of years ago.
> 
> ...


No worries, champ.

I don't think we are that far apart in reality.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> No. Theres a difference between them. Both bad but there is a difference.
> 
> I genuinely beleive what Hearn is trying to achieve will be a posative thing for British Boxing. Thats why I support him. I am anti Frank because of some of the antics he has pulled in the past. I challenge anybody to read the Joe Calzaghe case file and support Frank.


Rob,

Forget about the Warren vs. Hearn stuff, Calzaghe "case file" and save yourself the trouble of defending your position on this issue.

Froch-Kessler III isn't a PPV and I'd bet that Eddie Hearn knows that. Theres no need to defend it as a PPV. It won't happen mate. Simple as that.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

GazOC said:


> Rob,
> 
> Forget about the Warren vs. Hearn stuff, Calzaghe "case file" and save yourself the trouble of defending your position on this issue.
> 
> Froch-Kessler III isn't a PPV and I'd bet that Eddie Hearn knows that. Theres no need to defend it as a PPV. It won't happen mate. Simple as that.


I wanna get this straight....are you say Froch v Kessler 3 won't happen?


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> I would say Froch v Kessler, Groves, DeGale, Chavez Jnr & Golovkin at 168lbs are better than those fights.


Groves, DeGeale Chavez Junior NO just NO. Chavez is not even a top 5 Middleweight let alone a top 10 supder middleweight. So far Groves and DeGeale didnt do anything Special and I dont see how it would be better than a Hopkin, Stevenson or Cleverly fight. get real. Golovkin wont move to super middleweight any time soon and you know that. Kessler would be a good fight. But the others? No...


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Grant said:


> No worries, champ.
> 
> I don't think we are that far apart in reality.


No, I think we're all somewhere on the same page - @robpalmer135 - but it's easy for things to get convoluted really quickly on forums.

Especially if you're posting from a phone.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> I wanna get this straight....are you say Froch v Kessler 3 won't happen?


As a PPV, I'd be luke warm to it happening at all but as a PPV? No chance.


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> I wanna get this straight....are you say Froch v Kessler 3 won't happen?


It depends on kessler if it will happens. Hearn and Froch will love to have a third fight. Wich will be a good fight but it wont get the Hype of the second fight thats sure.I still think Kessler will retire.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

I agree Ber. Hearns not stupid, its not a PPV and Kessler may well call it a day in nay case.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

I'd imagine Kessler would want a "farewell" fight in Denmark before retiring. I'd still like to see Kessler/Abraham. Both are past their best, but still have enough left that they'd make for a good fight together; it's not as if one is totally shot and one is shopworn; they're close enough in respect of what they have left.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

GazOC said:


> As a PPV, I'd be luke warm to it happening at all but as a PPV? No chance.


im not asking do you like it.

your saying it won't happen on PPV.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

kessler would beat AA pretty handily. Might be a nice fight for him if he wants one more but these "farewell" fights never end up that way. If a fighter wins he usually has another fight until he loses.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> im not asking do you like it.
> 
> your saying it won't happen on PPV.


Fucking hell Rob, I've said it as clearly as I can. Froch-Kessler III will not be a PPV in the UK and I bet Eddie Hearn knows that. Surely that needs no further clarification?;-)

You're trying to defend something that doesn't need defending.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

GazOC said:


> Fucking hell Rob, I've said it as clearly as I can. Froch-Kessler III will not be a PPV in the UK and I bet Eddie Hearn knows that. Surely that needs no further clarification?;-)


You were not very clear about whether you didnt think it should be a ppv or would be a ppv.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> You were not very clear about whether you didnt think it should be a ppv or would be a ppv.


It shouldn't be and it won't be.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

GazOC said:


> kessler would beat AA pretty handily. Might be a nice fight for him if he wants one more but these "farewell" fights never end up that way. If a fighter wins he usually has another fight until he loses.


I agree on both counts. I'd rather Kessler retire tbh, as he's said to have been smart with his money. But I can see him fighting on.

I reckon he'd beat AA, but we'd get an entertaining fight out of it. Wouldn't shock me if Sauerland make Stieglitz/Kessler though. I thought Stieglitz was being overlooked a bit when the fight was supposed to happen last year - not because I think he's great, but he's not awful like some folk say, and I wasn't sure it was a good fight for Kessler to take at the time - and I think he'd have a decent shot if they fought now. I'd still favour Kessler, but I'd be surprised if it was easy.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

IMO Eddie Hearn is like the young pretender. "Silverspoon Eddie" He represents the new age. The cocky son of a bitch. The contemp businessmen. The David Brent of Boxing. He's come into the sport, regardless of what he says on camera to iFilmMatchroom, its how he is, he thinks he is the bee's knees, the dog's bollocks. You can tell. He thinks he is the man to change boxing and pull it out from the pits it is in. He thinks its never been done before and that he is the savior and boxing is in need of Eddie Hearn. Boxing needs to be saved. The second coming of Christ himself. The one to take it to the old age. The one who says Boxing is not a monopoly, but deep down is exactly what he wants if possible, because it means more money for them. Here to change British Boxing for good. Here to clean up the sport and bring the sport of Boxing into the new age. Here to make the sport genuine again and with the times. Suited and booted, clean shaven, fast cars, bright lights, shaken not stirred, twitter, betfair, genuine PPV, final eliminators, daily interviews with iFilm, refunds through twitter. Eddie is flavor of the month. A house special Lasagne with caviar side and tiramasu to finish it of, all with a nice glass of the finest wine to wash it down. 

If his Dad taught him well, Eddie should be alright, he might trip over his own laces a few times along the way, but he seems more honest and open on the surface than some other promoters, and people like that. But take it with a pinch of salt, because really deep down, he is like all the rest. All promoters are the same. They have to be or else they wouldnt be in the business of promoting.

Frank is the old horse. Frank is Frankel. Been there done it all before. Experienced. Veteran of the game. Never been knocked out, the Shane Mosley of promoting. Frank is the slippery devil, hard to beat, hard to keep down. Frank is game and just as smart. He can do the Eddie Hearn approach and then some. Frank has got more in his locker. People like Eddie have come and gone. Frank has seen them all out. Taking no prisoners in the process. Frank is for the fans so he says, but Frank is brutal when he wants to be. Frank is the full English with brown sauce and spotted dick and custard for desert. Washed down with a coffee.

Competition is good for boxing and long may it last. Because we the boxing fans are the real winners when it is like this.


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

- DC - said:


> IMO Eddie Hearn is like the young pretender. "Silverspoon Eddie" He represents the new age. The cocky son of a bitch. The contemp businessmen. The David Brent of Boxing. He's come into the sport, regardless of what he says on camera to iFilmMatchroom, its how he is, he thinks he is the bee's knees, the dog's bollocks. You can tell. He thinks he is the man to change boxing and pull it out from the pits it is in. He thinks its never been done before and that he is the savior and boxing is in need of Eddie Hearn. Boxing needs to be saved. The second coming of Christ himself. The one to take it to the old age. The one who says Boxing is not a monopoly, but deep down is exactly what he wants if possible, because it means more money for them. Here to change British Boxing for good. Here to clean up the sport and bring the sport of Boxing into the new age. Here to make the sport genuine again and with the times. Suited and booted, clean shaven, fast cars, bright lights, shaken not stirred, twitter, betfair, genuine PPV, final eliminators, daily interviews with iFilm, refunds through twitter. Eddie is flavor of the month. A house special Lasagne with caviar side and tiramasu to finish it of, all with a nice glass of the finest wine to wash it down.
> 
> If his Dad taught him well, Eddie should be alright, he might trip over his own laces a few times along the way, but he seems more honest and open on the surface than some other promoters, and people like that. But take it with a pinch of salt, because really deep down, he is like all the rest. All promoters are the same. They have to be or else they wouldnt be in the business of promoting.
> 
> ...


Tell me you're not that cunt craney.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

Marlow said:


> Tell me you're not that cunt craney.


No! What a cunt he was Marlow!

I couldn't take his shit anymore so I left and came here and then I found out whoever it was got perma-banned.

Wouldn't go back to ESB now though. Its dead.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> I feel like allot of the criticism he gets is based on false promises rather than actually doing something thats shit.


That statement sort of proves my point Rob, it's 1 rule for one and one rule for the other, that's not right or fair Rob.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

Bill said:


> That statement sort of proves my point Rob, it's 1 rule for one and one rule for the other, that's not right or fair Rob.


How does that prove your point?


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

The fact that you have to resort to the term "false promises" when Hearn has lied kinda shows a bias. Does Frank Warren ever "false promise" or is he just full of shit like every other boxing promoter besides Eddie Hearn?


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> How does that prove your point?


In that you would believe Hearn and give him the benefit of the doubt, without good reason and try to defend him, if it was any other promoter other than Hearn you wouldn't have the same tone, this isn't hear say, you only need to read your posts to know it too be true, Rob you are biased, it's not up for debate please don't insult my intelligence or anybody else's intelligence trying to deny that you are not.


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

GazOC said:


> The fact that you have to resort to the term "false promises" when Hearn has lied kinda shows a bias. Does Frank Warren ever "false promise" or is he just full of shit like every other boxing promoter besides Eddie Hearn?


Especially when Rob's posted about Hearn lying about Brooks 'injury'.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

GazOC said:


> The fact that you have to resort to the term "false promises" when Hearn has lied kinda shows a bias. Does Frank Warren ever "false promise" or is he just full of shit like every other boxing promoter besides Eddie Hearn?


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

Grant said:


> Especially when Rob's posted about Hearn lying about Brooks 'injury'.


Did I?

Brooks injury was genuine!


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Did I?
> 
> Brooks injury was genuine!


Didnt you say about Brook having too much weight to lose? Apologies if I'm mistaken.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

Grant said:


> Didnt you say about Brook having too much weight to lose? Apologies if I'm mistaken.


I don't remember saying that to be honest.

Brook's injury was legit. He eat a couple of twixes on his day off and panicked, went for a run in the snow and fucked his ankle.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Warren lies, he's full of shit. Thats not a problem, he's a boxing promoter and it goes with the territory. What you don't seem to realize Rob is that Eddie Hearn is exactly the same but with a shinier suit and a Twitter account.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> He eat a couple of twixes on his day off and :lol:, went for a run in the snow and fucked his ankle.


Imagine if Frank Warren came up with that excuse for cancelling a fight?:lol:


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> I don't remember saying that to be honest.
> 
> Brook's injury was legit. He eat a couple of twixes on his day off and panicked, went for a run in the snow and fucked his ankle.


If Brook never sees 147 again, will you agree that the above is a load of nonsense?


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

GazOC said:


> Imagine if Frank Warren came up with that excuse for cancelling a fight?:lol:


Has Hearn ever said that in public?


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

GazOC said:


> Warren lies, he's full of shit. Thats not a problem, he's a boxing promoter and it goes with the territory. What you don't seem to realize Rob is that Eddie Hearn is exactly the same but with a shinier suit and a Twitter account.


Can you tell me a lie Eddie Hearn has told?


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Can you tell me a lie Eddie Hearn has told?


Are we talking a lie or a false promise? Because I'm a little hazy over what the difference is.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Has Hearn ever said that in public?


So Hearn was keeping the truth why the fight was cancelled from the fans? Shocking revelation.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2013)

GazOC said:


> Are we talking a lie or a false promise? Because I'm a little hazy over what the difference is.


In this case;

A false promise is where you say your going to do something and you fail to deliver.
A Lie is when you say you have done something that you haven't.


----------



## Lilo (Jun 4, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Can you tell me a lie Eddie Hearn has told?


That Beltran is the best 135 opponent outside of the champions.

Prizefighter is entertaining.

Kell Brook will fight for a world title next.

Smith vs Dodson is a good fight.

Carl Froch is the man at 168.

Gonzalez was a good opponent for Groves.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

Lilo said:


> That Beltran is the best 135 opponent outside of the champions.
> 
> Prizefighter is entertaining.
> 
> ...


This is it.

Final eliminator.


----------



## Joaquín Guzmán (May 8, 2013)

To be fair to Frank, He comes out firing on this one.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

He comes out firing, but just talked nonsense the whole way through. Cringey watching him reading out them emails.


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Can you tell me a lie Eddie Hearn has told?


Scotty Cardle is a good fighter.

I'd never put Lee Purdy in with Devon Alexander.

Kell Brook makes 147lbs easy now.

I can get Carl Frampton a title shot at Jonathan Romero in Belfast for May.

Want some more?


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

PaulieMc said:


> Scotty Cardle is a good fighter.


He is decent tbh and young. Also that's Hearns opinion, not a lie.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

I find it funny the way Warren gets personal with his attacks. He goes after Barry Hearn for things which happened ages ago, he's petty and bitter towards Eddie Hearn, yet you'd think he'd get his own business in order before insulting anyone else. He's admitted having financial difficluties, he's routinely accused of not paying his fighters, he's lost a lot of his top level talent and is likely to lose more in the future and he's invested everything into a platform which is incapable of making a star. So yeah, he can say that Eddie Hearn was raised with a silver spoon in his mouth but so what? As promoters, one is currently a success and one is a failure.

Warren is like Mitch Green to Hearn's Tyson, still talking shit despite nobody really being interested and despite the fact everyone knows it's bullshit. He should focus on beating Hearn, not doing this petty nonsense with emails, like anyone gives a fuck. It just makes him look petty and bitter...surely not?


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Jack said:


> I find it funny the way Warren gets personal with his attacks. He goes after Barry Hearn for things which happened ages ago, he's petty and bitter towards Eddie Hearn, yet you'd think he'd get his own business in order before insulting anyone else. He's admitted having financial difficluties, he's routinely accused of not paying his fighters, he's lost a lot of his top level talent and is likely to lose more in the future and he's invested everything into a platform which is incapable of making a star. So yeah, he can say that Eddie Hearn was raised with a silver spoon in his mouth but so what? As promoters, one is currently a success and one is a failure.
> 
> Warren is like Mitch Green to Hearn's Tyson, still talking shit despite nobody really being interested and despite the fact everyone knows it's bullshit. He should focus on beating Hearn, not doing this petty nonsense with emails, like anyone gives a fuck. It just makes him look petty and bitter...surely not?


Id take your posts a lot more seriously as would a lot other people, if you were to remove Hearn's cock from your mouth. you have so much bias that its genuinely retarded,


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

@Bill :lol: To be fair he does raise a few good points.


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Can you tell me a lie Eddie Hearn has told?


He said Alcoba was a good Opponent for Groves. He wasnt. This was a disgraceful second main Event for a PPV Event. I never saw anything worse. NEVER. Just lying to Hype that Opponent nothing more.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> @Bill :lol: To be fair he does raise a few good points.


He does make some good points mate but again it's hard to take him serious when he has Hearns sperm running down his chin, the fucker called me an awful poster the other day because he don't like the fact I'm knocking his mancrush, I may be a miserable cunt sometimes but at least I'm fair and unbiased 99% of the time, Jack has an agenda which makes him a bit of a spacker.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Bill said:


> He does make some good points mate but again it's hard to take him serious when he has Hearns sperm running down his chin, the fucker called me an awful poster the other day because he don't like the fact I'm knocking his mancrush, I may be a miserable cunt sometimes but at least I'm fair and unbiased 99% of the time, Jack has an agenda which makes him a bit of a spacker.


:lol:


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

Hearn having some digs back at Warren over this video.

"I'm worried for his health, his blood pressure must be going mad."


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

PaulieMc said:


> Hearn having some digs back at Warren over this video.
> 
> "I'm worried for his health, his blood pressure must be going mad."


Hearn has really rattled Warren of late, Frank hates Eddie with a passion and every time he's mentioned he looks like he's going to explode, whenever Warren is mentioned to Hearn fast car just plays it cool.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2013)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Hearn has really rattled Warren of late, Frank hates Eddie with a passion and every time he's mentioned he looks like he's going to explode, whenever Warren is mentioned to Hearn fast car just plays it cool.


Fair play everyone. Hearn does tells lies lol!

I think the reason why Frank is so rattled is becauce for a period of 20 years he was the clear number 1. All the top ams would sign with him, any free agent would sign with him, the best tv deal would be his, the US promoters would deal with him. All off this has changed in the past 2 years. Frank used to be able to mess fighters around and they would stay with him becase there only other option was to go solo or sign with another promoter that would fuck them over just as much as Frank and pay them less. You can say allot of negative things about Eddie Hearn but I am yet to here a fighter say a bad word about him. Frampton at a push and it sounds more like he is being Barrys puppet!

Frank keeps mentioning "We always have some new kid on the block trying to challenge us and they always go away" but who is he talking about. The only time hes has genuine competition since Barry Hearn has been Eddie!

The 6 most important people to a Boxing promoter are;

The Fighters
The Fans
The Venues
The Broardcasters
The Media
The Govering bodies

With 5/6 of them Hearn is in a noticeably higher standing and thats why he is doing better than Frank right now. If you look at the posters that defend Hearn allot (Me, Jack, Ashedward, Beetson Brawler etc) were all at least semi respected as posters on here. The posters that defend Warren (The Genius) are literally seen as mental cases! Its only the governing bodies where Warren is ahead of Frank right now.


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Fair play everyone. Hearn does tells lies lol!
> 
> The 6 most important people to a Boxing promoter are;
> 
> ...


Not necessarily. The fighters and the fans like Hearn far better at the moment for sure. 2/6

The venues though? Warren almost every year has a big show at a Premier League football ground and just secured an exclusive deal with the brand new Copper Box down in the Olympic park which was a pretty cushdy deal. Hearn just moves around city to city and any promoter can do that really if they have fighters who'll draw. I don't think he's done a major football ground show yet.

The media? They seem to like Warren still. Some of the old the journalists who've been around for donkeys like Jeff Powell and Colin Hart fucking love him and are always talking up his shows. I've never read any professional journalist openly saying Hearn is better than Warren, they always remain subjective and just write about the "battle for control" going on between them.

The broadcasters? Warren walked away from Sky, they didn't dump him for Hearn like they did Maloney and Hatton. Frank chose to leave, had he not there's a good chance they'd have kept him and Matchroom so it's not like Sky didn't want him.

The governing bodies? They're about the same again. Frank has the WBO in his arse pocket and has for years. Eddie seems to have built up a good relationship with the IBF which is a similar sort of thing. The WBA and WBC though don't bend to either of them, they cosy up more to the American promoters.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> Not necessarily. The fighters and the fans like Hearn far better at the moment for sure. 2/6
> 
> The venues though? Warren almost every year has a big show at a Premier League football ground and just secured an exclusive deal with the brand new Copper Box down in the Olympic park which was a pretty cushdy deal. Hearn just moves around city to city and any promoter can do that really if they have fighters who'll draw. I don't think he's done a major football ground show yet.
> 
> ...


Hearn isn't blacklisted from any venues. Frank gets whatever he wants from the WBO, Hearn still has to play the game with the IBF. Frank jumped before he was pushed, at least thats what members of the Sky boxing team have told me. Nicky Cook was the last straw for them.


----------



## Tywin (Jun 28, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Hearn isn't blacklisted from any venues. Frank gets whatever he wants from the WBO, Hearn still has to play the game with the IBF.* Frank jumped before he was pushed, at least thats what members of the Sky boxing team have told me.* Nicky Cook was the last straw for them.


You know nobody at Sky. Fuck off.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2013)

Tywin said:


> You know nobody at Sky. Fuck off.


Yep...you got me. The 170 hours I spent at there head offices in 2011 really meant fuck all!


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Bill said:


> Id take your posts a lot more seriously as would a lot other people, if you were to remove Hearn's cock from your mouth. you have so much bias that its genuinely retarded,


If you think I'm biased, that's fine. I'm happy to debate my.points with anyone whereas you seem to just blurt something out like it's fact and just petulantly stick to it, without the intelligence to back it up. People may disagree with me, and thats fine, but you are undoubtedly one of the worst few posters on the British forum. Even if we agreed about everything, I'd still think you're a stubborn moron without an ounce of reason in you.


----------



## Tywin (Jun 28, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Yep...you got me. The 170 hours I spent at there head offices in 2011 really meant fuck all!


I went to Universal Studios once. They told me everything about how ET was made and why they never made a fifth Jaws film. Jaws 4 was the final straw for them. Guess that means fuck all as well when it comes to my intricate knowledge of how the movie process works.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Yep...you got me. The 170 hours I spent at there head offices in 2011 really meant fuck all!


Counting the minutes and hours were you?

I really dont know how you survived this ordeal Rob!?! It really must of been traumatic for you? 170 hours trapped in a hot sweaty stinky office, bent over the photocopier, getting it up the arse from all the Sky top dogs.

Deary me.

I bet you was afraid to touch anything?

It being your Holy Mecca and all....

*IN OTHER NEWS*: Plenty of aspiring teenagers choose to do work experience at Sky Offices! Every single one of them just being there meant something!

:eddie


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

That's harsh, I think Bill has an ounce reason in him, maybe not much more than that but there is definitely the capability for it if he is in a good mood


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Jack said:


> If you think I'm biased, that's fine. I'm happy to debate my.points with anyone whereas you seem to just blurt something out like it's fact and just petulantly stick to it, without the intelligence to back it up. People may disagree with me, and thats fine, but you are undoubtedly one of the worst few posters on the British forum. Even if we agreed about everything, I'd still think you're a stubborn moron without an ounce of reason in you.


Pipe up fanboy, isn't it about time you go to the bathroom and crack one off thinking about Hearn's new suit, you are a pervert and a clueless one at that.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

I don't believe warren was going to be pushed by sky
He had an exceptional domestic stable and still created the big nights
Can you explain rob for my benefit what you did at sky and how those hours enabled you to get information on such things as frank warrens future at sky

And it's a serious question please don't duck it


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Ashedward said:


> That's harsh, I think Bill has an ounce reason in him, maybe not much more than that but there is definitely the capability for it if he is in a good mood


He's fucking right where Eddie Hearn is concerned. That must be the ounce!


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

Bill said:


> Pipe up fanboy, isn't it about time you go to the bathroom and crack one off thinking about Hearn's new suit, you are a pervert and a clueless one at that.


I don't get it?

Hearn offers one on one's after every single press conference, his fanboys are nowhere to be seen....

Perhaps he keeps them locked up ready for dominatrix on evenings?

Or

The fanboys are to shy to face up to their god and instead wait for iFilmMatchroom to upload the porn? Where they can pleasure themselves for however long they want.


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

How come you guys don't phone the office?


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Marlow said:


> How come you guys don't phone the office?


Rob always puts the phone down on me.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

- DC - said:


> I don't get it?
> 
> Hearn offers one on one's after every single press conference, his fanboys are nowhere to be seen....
> 
> ...


Jack is the sort of person that sits outside of Hearn's office wearing nothing but a thong on back to front, hoping our saviour walks into view, his obsession has got to dangerous levels and you have to feel for him.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

Bill said:


> Jack is the sort of person that sits outside of Hearn's office *wearing nothing but a thong on back to front*, hoping our saviour walks into view, his obsession has got to dangerous levels and you have to feel for him.


:rofl:rofl:rofl


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Jack doesn't like me everyone, I don't quite know how will I cope, I may sit there with a candle listening to Elton John love songs crying over this harsh fact or I could not give a flying fuck, I'm edging towards the first option tbh


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

GazOC said:


> He's fucking right where Eddie Hearn is concerned. That must be the ounce!


The praise he has got from some people at times has been sickening I have to admit, but also some of the abuse has been over the top.He`s not the saviour but I think we will get an improvement in regular shows but we could also get ppvs which are a rip off to the hardcore.We have to rember a time wazza was held a breath of fresh air for the sport(to be fair he has made some great shows in the past) and look what happened.It could well be history repeating itself.As a boxing fan I go to the cards were I feel I will get good value for money be that a Wazza card or Hearn bill(The last Barker bill was poor in hindsight) it doesn`t really matter as long as the the fights are good.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Ashedward said:


> The praise he has got from some people at times has been sickening I have to admit, but also some of the abuse hase been over the top.He`s not the saviour but I think we will get an improvement in regular shows but we could also get ppvs which are a rip off to the hardcore.We have to rember a time wazza was held a breath of fresh air for the sport(to be fair he has made some great shows in the past) and look what happened.It could well be history repeating itself.As a boxing fan I go to the cards were I feel I will get good value for money be that a Wazza card or Hearn bill(The last Barker bill was poor in hindsight) it doesn`t really matter as long as the the fights are good.


You talk too much sense mate, maybe you should pull Jack to one side and have a word with him, you will have to wait though, he's in the bathroom again.


----------



## Marvelous Marv (Jun 30, 2012)

Wow, that was pretty venomous and bitter. Regardless of whether a few of his points have some accuracy he needs to relax a little. Can sense a lot of frustration and bitterness in this, never great qualities to have either. I mean even if Eddie Hearn is 100% wrong and Frank Warren is 100% in right in all of their apparent disagreements Eddie Hearn has a far healthier outlook.

To be honest both should grow up a fair bit.


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

Bill said:


> You talk too much sense mate, maybe you should pull Jack to one side and have a word with him, you will have to wait though, he's in the bathroom again.


The good thing about Jack is if I feel someone is being very harsh on Hearn and I can`t be arsed to post a reply I know Jack will be on here defending Hearn to the death.The bad thing is he goes over the top in his defence of the Essex wideboy and can see no wrong.


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

Ashedward said:


> The praise he has got from some people at times has been sickening I have to admit, but also some of the abuse has been over the top.He`s not the saviour but I think we will get an improvement in regular shows but we could also get ppvs which are a rip off to the hardcore.We have to rember a time wazza was held a breath of fresh air for the sport(to be fair he has made some great shows in the past) and look what happened.It could well be history repeating itself.As a boxing fan I go to the cards were I feel I will get good value for money be that a Wazza card or Hearn bill(The last Barker bill was poor in hindsight) it doesn`t really matter as long as the the fights are good.


The abuse he gets now is hilarious.

Hearn hasn't gotten a pass for months now but I still see the same myth trotted out every day that he does.

The fact is, is that Hearn upped his game when all around him didn't, as fans of the sport we have benefited. Frank would never have made Clev/Kov and I'm doubtful on whether BJS/Ryder would have been made same with Chisora/Scott.

If they keep pushing each other to do better then great, long may it continue.

Don't think Hearn/Sky are getting a pass for the deep throating of Crolla last night though, was fucking shameful.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Ashedward said:


> The praise he has got from some people at times has been sickening I have to admit, but also some of the abuse has been over the top.He`s not the saviour but I think we will get an improvement in regular shows but we could also get ppvs which are a rip off to the hardcore.We have to rember a time wazza was held a breath of fresh air for the sport(to be fair he has made some great shows in the past) and look what happened.It could well be history repeating itself.As a boxing fan I go to the cards were I feel I will get good value for money be that a Wazza card or Hearn bill(The last Barker bill was poor in hindsight) it doesn`t really matter as long as the the fights are good.


Thats the thing Ash. Warren was flavour of the month when he came on the scene to take over the Duff/ Lawless/ Astaire monopoly in the 90s. Hearn is no different, the guy seems OK but some people are expecting far too much kindness out of a boxing promoter.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Marlow said:


> The abuse he gets now is hilarious.
> 
> Hearn hasn't gotten a pass for months now but I still see the same myth trotted out every day that he does.
> 
> ...


So we're giving Hearn the credit for Cleverly-Kovalev getting made? :lol:

Saint Eddie!:cheers


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

GazOC said:


> So we're giving Hearn the credit for Cleverly-Kovalev getting made? :lol:
> 
> Saint Eddie!:cheers


Of course we are, you can't have only made the connection when I pointed it out.

Eddie announced the fight before Frank did.


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

Marlow said:


> The abuse he gets now is hilarious.
> 
> Hearn hasn't gotten a pass for months now but I still see the same myth trotted out every day that he does.
> 
> ...


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Marlow said:


> Of course we are, you can't have only made the connection when I pointed it out.
> 
> Eddie announced the fight before Frank did.


He truly does work in mysterious ways!:rofl


----------



## malt vinegar (Jun 5, 2013)

what was the hero worship from sky about for crolla last night he was the away fighter and sky usually stick there colours to the mast for the home fighter / bookies favourite??

crolla has probably been in the best fights on sky cards lately and hes not a matchroom fighter same with derry matthews with his fight coming up which is probably pick of the hull card


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

GazOC said:


> He truly does work in mysterious ways!:rofl


All for the benefit of British Boxing mate.

He works his socks off.


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

GazOC said:


> Thats the thing Ash. Warren was flavour of the month when he came on the scene to take over the Duff/ Lawless/ Astaire monopoly in the 90s. Hearn is no different, the guy seems OK but some people are expecting far too much kindness out of a boxing promoter.


True,to think otherwise will just lead to disappointment.


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

malt vinegar said:


> *what was the hero worship from sky about for crolla last night he was the away fighter and sky usually stick there colours to the mast for the home fighter / bookies favourite??*
> 
> crolla has probably been in the best fights on sky cards lately and hes not a matchroom fighter same with derry matthews with his fight coming up which is probably pick of the hull card


Because they were always building a fight with Burns. I think Rees got stitched up tbh.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Marlow said:


> The abuse he gets now is hilarious.
> 
> Hearn hasn't gotten a pass for months now but I still see the same myth trotted out every day that he does.
> 
> ...


Eddie still gets the benefit of the doubt a lot of the time, but it has turned on him to some extent. His first couple of years, it was like hearing schoolgirls discussing the dishy new boy with the nice smile and smart uniform who gets dropped off in a Aston Martin every morning. People really believed he was going to be a completely different sort of promoter and got outright hostile to anyone who suggested it wasn't the case.

Sadly, he's just like every other promoter - and he even brought back PPV, which hilariously people started defending because he'd "do it right". Which he then categorically didn't and then some, like that cockpot Jack, started saying we couldn't expect him to put on a good show when he was putting on once really good fight.

It's been surreal the slack he gets - so it's only just balancing out because, by and large, he's been a bit of a letdown.

IMO.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Marlow said:


> Because they were always building a fight with Burns. I think Rees got stitched up tbh.


Crolla won pretty clearly IMHO but if you look at the post fight interview neither Crolla or Gallagher looked like they really fancied a fight with Burns.


----------



## malt vinegar (Jun 5, 2013)

Marlow said:


> Because they were always building a fight with Burns. I think Rees got stitched up tbh.


yes but they could have a rees fight built up aswell both with matchroom been in with broner ex world champ etc

i thought crolla won fair and square - rees could have had points off if the fix was in the ref had chance


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

GazOC said:


> Crolla won pretty clearly IMHO but if you look at the post fight interview neither Crolla or Gallagher looked like they really fancied a fight with Burns.


They wouldn't turn down a fight with Burns.


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

malt vinegar said:


> yes but they could have a rees fight built up aswell both with matchroom been in with broner ex world champ etc


I agree and I thought that's what would happen but from the first bell last night they were riding Crolla, there had to be something in that because it is far from the norm.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Marlow said:


> They wouldn't turn down a fight with Burns.


I agree mate. Thats not the same as fancying it though, eh? Its a title shot and a loss for Crolla, they seemed to know that.


----------



## malt vinegar (Jun 5, 2013)

GazOC said:


> Crolla won pretty clearly IMHO but if you look at the post fight interview neither Crolla or Gallagher looked like they really fancied a fight
> with Burns.


i think they both really fancied a burns fight from the intervews afterwards

gallagher was calling for it when the fight was made way before it became clear it as going to be an eliminator


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

GazOC said:


> I agree mate. Thats not the same as fancying it though, eh? Its a title shot and a loss for Crolla, they seemed to know that.


True. You reckon the backlash against the fight will change Hearn's mind in making it?


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

malt vinegar said:


> i think they both really fancied a burns fight from the intervews afterwards
> 
> gallagher was calling for it when the fight was made way before it became clear it as going to be an eliminator


I can't remember the exact words but "We'll try our best" and "Antony needs a break to be a father" arn't exactly what you want to hear from a world title challenger. Read inbetween the lines.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Marlow said:


> True. You reckon the backlash against the fight will change Hearn's mind in making it?


Not at all, Hearn couldn't give a toss what the hardcore fans think, he's not called ''Casual Eddie'' for nothing you know.


----------



## malt vinegar (Jun 5, 2013)

Marlow said:


> True. You reckon the backlash against the fight will change Hearn's mind in making it?


possibly as hearn claims to listen to the fans but sky etc seemed very certain about it all

crolla vs matthews 3 final eliminator??

burns mite move up and they are just trying to make sure they get to keep the title within easy reach


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Marlow said:


> True. You reckon the backlash against the fight will change Hearn's mind in making it?


Its a poor fight. Crolla is a great bloke and very hard dislike but Burns would walk him down in the middle rounds.


----------



## malt vinegar (Jun 5, 2013)

GazOC said:


> Its a poor fight. Crolla is a great bloke and very hard dislike but Burns would walk him down in the middle rounds.


thats what 90% of people said about the rees fight


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

malt vinegar said:


> thats what 90% of people said about the rees fight


Crolla-Rees? Was that for a world title? Burns is no superstar but he;s a clear level above Crolla and Crolla seems a clever enough bloke to know that.


----------



## Tywin (Jun 28, 2013)

If somebody cut Eddie Hearn's cock off then the cunts who live on these sites would preserve it in glass jar and worship it every night like Rasputin.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Tywin said:


> If somebody cut Eddie Hearn's cock off then the cunts who live on these sites would preserve it in glass jar and worship it every night like Rasputin.


:lol:


----------



## malt vinegar (Jun 5, 2013)

GazOC said:


> Crolla-Rees? Was that for a world title? Burns is no superstar but he;s a clear level above Crolla and Crolla seems a clever enough bloke to know that.


no but sky and hearn seem very keen on it all of a sudden and hearn did say in an ifilm interview he was interested in making more fights between british fighters


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Tywin said:


> If somebody cut Eddie Hearn's cock off then the cunts who live on these sites would preserve it in glass jar and worship it every night like Rasputin.


Difficult task when its firmly lodged in Jacks mouth, you might need a crowbar to pry it away.


----------



## Marvelous Marv (Jun 30, 2012)

malt vinegar said:


> no but sky and hearn seem very keen on it all of a sudden and hearn did say in an ifilm interview he was interested in making more fights between british fighters


That's all very well if the two British fighters are of near equal ability or at least close enough that it can be debated, but I don't see that there is any intrigue in that matchup at all.

I mean, the Kevin Mitchell fight was just about on the borderline of being acceptable even though Kevin had done very little at that level, he'd beaten Prescott at least and there was a school of thought that said Mitchell's footwork might cause Burns problems - but what exactly does Crolla offer?


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

GazOC said:


> Its a poor fight. Crolla is a great bloke and very hard dislike but Burns would walk him down in the middle rounds.


Crolla has beaten a top 10 lightweight though, and The Ring, Boxing News, TBRB etc., will all rank Crolla in the top 10 in the world when they update their rankings. I think it's a terrible sign that Crolla will be ranked that highly but lightweight is very weak right now. Even the champions are weak. Vazquez is B-class at best and I don't rate Burns highly either.

Burns would be a strong favourite over Crolla but he's a legitimate top 10 fighter in the world and whilst he may get beaten easily, so would many other challengers out there. Crolla isn't the worst title challenger we'll have seen and unless something changes at lightweight, he won't be the last.

I'd rather see Burns fight Vazquez, Gamboa, DeMarco and Linares. Beyond that, Crolla is in the next tier for me. He's as legitimate as Shafikov, Marsili, Quintero or someone like that.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Seeing as this debate relates to Burns/Crolla, let's not forget that Burns was not a deserving challenger for a world title himself. He lost to Johanneson and after that, his best win was over a shot Gomez. He was less valid than Crolla currently is. In beating Rees, Crolla has beaten a top 10 lightweight whereas Burns would have been nowhere in his divisional rankings at the time because he hadn't beaten anyone close to the top 10.


----------



## Marvelous Marv (Jun 30, 2012)

Jack said:


> Crolla has beaten a top 10 lightweight though, and The Ring, Boxing News, TBRB etc., will all rank Crolla in the top 10 in the world when they update their rankings. I think it's a terrible sign that Crolla will be ranked that highly but lightweight is very weak right now. Even the champions are weak. Vazquez is B-class at best and I don't rate Burns highly either.
> 
> Burns would be a strong favourite over Crolla but he's a legitimate top 10 fighter in the world and whilst he may get beaten easily, so would many other challengers out there. Crolla isn't the worst title challenger we'll have seen and unless something changes at lightweight, he won't be the last.
> 
> I'd rather see Burns fight Vazquez, Gamboa, DeMarco and Linares. Beyond that, Crolla is in the next tier for me. He's as legitimate as Shafikov, Marsili, Quintero or someone like that.


I think Shafikov and Marsili are better than Crolla by a decent amount, don't know about Quintero as I ain't seen much.

Obviously its a no brainer that you're going to fight Crolla over them for marketability purposes though when there ain't going to be much of a difference in the recognition and credit attained for beating any of them.

But that's the problem really, its a fight that is all about the marketability and a little light on substance and quality in terms of delivering a fight with genuine interest. The only interest is going to be the people that want to turn up and see Burns have a good performance and the mere fact he's British makes him somewhat more interesting than Marsili or a random, but the problematic thing for the hardcore fans is just how light on genuine intrigue the fight is.


----------



## Peter Barlow (Jun 4, 2013)

Is Crolla still with Hatton or whats going on there?

No sign of Ricky at the fight and no mention of it on his twitter, all very strange?


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

Jack said:


> Seeing as this debate relates to Burns/Crolla, let's not forget that Burns was not a deserving challenger for a world title himself. He lost to Johanneson and after that, his best win was over a shot Gomez. He was less valid than Crolla currently is. In beating Rees, Crolla has beaten a top 10 lightweight whereas Burns would have been nowhere in his divisional rankings at the time because he hadn't beaten anyone close to the top 10.


Rees was not and never has been a top 10 LW!


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

Mugsy said:


> Is Crolla still with Hatton or whats going on there?
> 
> No sign of Ricky at the fight and no mention of it on his twitter, all very strange?


Dont think he is.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

Marlow is right. Hearn gets the hardest time of any promoter in boxing right now on this forum. He is held to a higher standard.


----------



## Peter Barlow (Jun 4, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Dont think he is.


Any idea whats going on there?

Alot of rumours hes signing for Hearn, would explain some of the commentary yesterday. They dont usually "commentate against" a non Sky fighter.

Be very shit for Hatton if Crolla and Quigg left for Hearn. What has he left? 
You'd have to think something went on behind the scenes, Gallagher is also a mutual trainer of both aswell. Wonder what his involvement is?


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

Tywin said:


> I went to Universal Studios once. They told me everything about how ET was made and why they never made a fifth Jaws film. Jaws 4 was the final straw for them. Guess that means fuck all as well when it comes to my intricate knowledge of how the movie process works.


Poor effort.


----------



## Marvelous Marv (Jun 30, 2012)

I really find it quite hard to see how somebody could come up with a reasoned argument that says Eddie Hearn has not been a good promoter or been a positive overall influence on British boxing since he came onto the scene. I remain open to somebody arguing the point.

Declaring him the messiah or criticising the odd fight is probably losing sight of perspective. It's good to try and keep things balanced, you aren't great because you've done pretty well over a few years, nor are you deserving of mass criticism on the occasion you make a less than great bill. It's the overall that's important.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Marvelous Marv said:


> I think Shafikov and Marsili are better than Crolla by a decent amount, don't know about Quintero as I ain't seen much.
> 
> Obviously its a no brainer that you're going to fight Crolla over them for marketability purposes though when there ain't going to be much of a difference in the recognition and credit attained for beating any of them.
> 
> But that's the problem really, its a fight that is all about the marketability and a little light on substance and quality in terms of delivering a fight with genuine interest. The only interest is going to be the people that want to turn up and see Burns have a good performance and the mere fact he's British makes him somewhat more interesting than Marsili or a random, but the problematic thing for the hardcore fans is just how light on genuine intrigue the fight is.


Shafikov and Marsili have never beaten a fighter as good, or as highly ranked, as Rees though, so Crolla will be ranked higher than the pair of them. As fighters, I agree, Crolla is not much better than them, if at all, but he is going to be deservedly ranked higher.

You touch on a good point about marketability though. As fans, we should want the sport to grow and boom in Britain, which a Burns/Crolla fight would achieve. You'd have 10-15,000 British fans in attendance and two great guys and entertaining fighters stepping into the ring. That's what the sport needs to attract casual fans, not obscure lesser ranked fighters like Shafikov who only hardcore fans have heard of and couldn't sell a handful of tickets. Boxing fans want the sport to grow yet reject fights which help it grow, so promoters are in a no win situation.

There's a few potential Burns opponents who are more competitive bouts but how many of those are easy sells? Boxing needs big events and if Burns wants more nights like when he fought Mitchell, there isn't a long list of opponents who bring such a hot atmosphere.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

One to watch said:


> I don't believe warren was going to be pushed by sky
> He had an exceptional domestic stable and still created the big nights
> Can you explain rob for my benefit what you did at sky and how those hours enabled you to get information on such things as frank warrens future at sky
> 
> And it's a serious question please don't duck it


PM me and il let u no.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

- DC - said:


> Counting the minutes and hours were you?
> 
> I really dont know how you survived this ordeal Rob!?! It really must of been traumatic for you? 170 hours trapped in a hot sweaty stinky office, bent over the photocopier, getting it up the arse from all the Sky top dogs.
> 
> ...


good effort.


----------



## Marvelous Marv (Jun 30, 2012)

Jack said:


> Shafikov and Marsili have never beaten a fighter as good, or as highly ranked, as Rees though, so Crolla will be ranked higher than the pair of them. As fighters, I agree, Crolla is not much better than them, if at all, but he is going to be deservedly ranked higher.
> 
> You touch on a good point about marketability though. As fans, we should want the sport to grow and boom in Britain, which a Burns/Crolla fight would achieve. You'd have 10-15,000 British fans in attendance and two great guys and entertaining fighters stepping into the ring. That's what the sport needs to attract casual fans, not obscure lesser ranked fighters like Shafikov who only hardcore fans have heard of and couldn't sell a handful of tickets. Boxing fans want the sport to grow yet reject fights which help it grow, so promoters are in a no win situation.
> 
> There's a few potential Burns opponents who are more competitive bouts but how many of those are easy sells? Boxing needs big events and if Burns wants more nights like when he fought Mitchell, there isn't a long list of opponents who bring such a hot atmosphere.


Yes, Crolla is probably ever so slightly preferable to Marsili/Shafikov if there are wider considerations beyond who is actually the best fighter he can realistically fight.

But I think that's part of the problem, the fight is a little too weighted towards just exploiting the British/English/Scottish angle which is great where there is call for it - but seriously, Crolla is just not that interesting! There isn't enough boxing merit to it. Maybe we can forgo a little merit sometimes like we did for the Mitchell fight (that wasn't great either - but hey, some people did actually back Mitchell so there was some uncertainty) but in this one what is there to get excited about?

It just feels like treading water again, I mean we've gone back to the Mitchell fight basically, but even worse in terms of competitiveness. That can't be correct at this stage, Burns ain't exactly a spring chicken. He needs to start mixing it up. I know Vasquez and Abril aren't names that make the hairs on the back of peoples neck stand up, but that's not the point anymore, its time to see where Burns' limit is. What are we going to do, wait until he looks beatable against the Crolla's before we ever dip our toes in the big pool?


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Marlow is right. Hearn gets the hardest time of any promoter in boxing right now on this forum. *He is held to a higher standard*


*IF* he is then thats at least partially because of some of the wild claims about how great things were going to be when he got his Sky deal. Thank fuck things have calmed down and bit in that regard and Hearn is getting treated a little more like Warren was.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

GazOC said:


> *IF* he is then thats at least partially because of some of the wild claims about how great things were going to be when he got his Sky deal. Thank fuck things have calmed down and bit in the regard and Hearn is getting treated a little more like Warren was.


Completely agree. Like I said last week, empty promises was Hearns biggest problem.

But people still seem to be posting on this mythical forum where they think Hearn has never been slagged off and Warren always gets a hard time. Thats just crazy.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

One thing I don't understand is the criticism Hearn gets for his shows. I think he's done well this year, I mean apart from the shitty Barker card and Prizefighter the cards have been well matched and more often then not have produced good fights.

Robs right about people holding him to a higher standard, it's easy to hold someone to a higher standard then that cunt Warren.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> One thing I don't understand is the criticism Hearn gets for his shows. I think he's done well this year, I mean apart from the shitty Barker card and Prizefighter the cards have been well matched and more often then not have produced good fights.
> 
> Robs right about people holding him to a higher standard, it's easy to hold someone to a higher standard then that cunt Warren.


You're forgetting the one he charged £15 for mate!

For 2 rematches!!!

One was bound to deliver, the other one was shit the first time around, but Hearn absolutely had to get the result he wanted. He would of kept making it until he did. Eddie Hearn is a con-artist, I've seen smackheads take less of grannies. £15 for a pile of shit.

REMEMBER.

This new age cunt also had the nerve to get Harrison a world title shot and make that PPV on SBO.

Say what you like about Frank. But Eddie has proven to be exactly the same so far.

What has he done differently? Absolutely f*ck all! Prizefighter? Do me a favor!

The fights the fans want to see, he is hardly trying to make! In fact, he is making fights the fans DONT want to see and is killing those that they do.

Yes! Give him a gold medal!


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

- DC - said:


> You're forgetting the one he charged £15 for mate!
> 
> For 2 rematches!!!
> 
> ...


It was a huge fight regardless Craney. As a big Froch fan I was willing to shed out and the fight hardly disappointed.


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

Froch-kessler pisses all over khan-Salita, Groves-degale and other ppvs wazza did imo


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Completely agree. Like I said last week, empty promises was Hearns biggest problem.
> 
> But people still seem to be posting on this mythical forum where they think Hearn has never been slagged off and Warren always gets a hard time. Thats just crazy.


Because for nearly 18 months you'd have sworn that Hearn was completely rewriting the playbook on how boxing is run. That wasn't entirely Eddie, either. A lot of posters made a lot of noise about how Eddie was doing it for the fans and wouldn't ever put on bad fights - PF was just to get fans in, etc. So, IMO, a lot of the backlash is because many of those fans are disappointed. But Eddie still gets the benefit of the doubt quite a lot.

Frank, bless him, gets gouged almost all the time. Even when he does something decent, he get splattered (usually because he fucks it up shortly after, of course).

I think, on balance, you can't really deny that Eddie has gotten a much easier time of it than Frank has in the last 24 months.



BoxingAnalyst said:


> One thing I don't understand is the criticism Hearn gets for his shows. I think he's done well this year, I mean apart from the shitty Barker card and Prizefighter the cards have been well matched and more often then not have produced good fights.
> 
> Robs right about people holding him to a higher standard, it's easy to hold someone to a higher standard then that cunt Warren.


The normal cards he's put on have been mediocre. Considering his claim that he'd raise the standard of fights in return for fewer dates and promoters on Sky, that's not good enough. His major card this year, Froch-Kessler II, was an average card for SS1 and a downright awful one for SBO. Sure the main event was good, but this was Eddie's first foray into PPV after claiming that if he ever did go that route he'd do it "right", and it was really poor.

So, when you complain that Eddie is held to a higher standard, it's because he put himself on that pedestal (as did his followers, like Jack) and has utterly failed to deliver.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

TBH I preferred DeGale-Groves to Froch-Kessler II. It wasn't for a world title but it was a more intruiging fight IMHO.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> It was a huge fight regardless Craney. As a big Froch fan I was willing to shed out and the fight hardly disappointed.


He makes predictable fights that are always going to be made and kind of make themselves under any promoter. If they make Froch-Kessler III you'll have all his demented fans sucking his cock for doing it.

Get real!

Froch should be fighting Andre Ward, Adonis Stevenson or Nathan Cleverly next. But it'll be Groves or Kessler. Maybe Bika.
Ricky Burns should be fighting Vazquez, Abril, Gamboa or Broner. But after Beltran, it'll be Crolla. 
Kell Brook should be fighting Alexander. But it will more than likely be Carson Jones III in a "this is it" "final eliminator".

Carl Frampton saw this shit coming from a mile of, thats why he run of!

Why isn't Eddie doing everything in his power to get Haye-Fury on?

Say what you like about Frank and I hardly like him either like the rest of you, but he has a proven track record of making champions and making the big fights. Regardless of the ways he goes about it. Eddie Hearn is yet to prove he can deliver that. Still. Carl Froch was already a champion, so he cant even claim that.

If this was Frank overseeing Fury-Haye, the fight would of been made weeks ago!!! The proof is in the pudding, he made Haye-Chisora when the rest of the world didnt want it and sat on highground.

....and I aint craney, he was a fucking twerp and one of the main reasons I came here. Oh and for Rob aswell and all his sources and inside knowledge.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

- DC - said:


> You're forgetting the one he charged £15 for mate!
> 
> For 2 rematches!!!
> 
> ...


So Eddie has proven to be exactly the same as Warren? Pure trolling.

1) Hearn doesn't sell tickets to a fight that isn't signed, TWICE. 
2) Hearn puts on better shows, you'll try and debate it but you know it's true.
3) undercards are much better then Fwankies.
4) Can actually criticise Fast car without him threatening to sue you or call you an ingrate.
5) At Matchroom fighters actually get paid on time.
6) Eddies wife didn't fuck the milkman.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Ashedward said:


> Froch-kessler pisses all over khan-Salita, Groves-degale and other ppvs wazza did imo


I thought Groves-DeGale was a lot more meaningful to both mens' careers than the Kessler rematch. Sure, it shouldn't have been on PPV, but still, neither should have Kessler-Froch II.

The Khan PPVs were awful, no debate, but Khan's family had as much to do with that as Warren.


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

Marlow said:


> True. You reckon the backlash against the fight will change Hearn's mind in making it?





dftaylor said:


> Because for nearly 18 months you'd have sworn that Hearn was completely rewriting the playbook on how boxing is run. That wasn't entirely Eddie, either. A lot of posters made a lot of noise about how Eddie was doing it for the fans and wouldn't ever put on bad fights - PF was just to get fans in, etc. So, IMO, a lot of the backlash is because many of those fans are disappointed. But Eddie still gets the benefit of the doubt quite a lot.
> 
> Frank, bless him, gets gouged almost all the time. Even when he does something decent, he get splattered (usually because he fucks it up shortly after, of course).
> 
> ...


Fucking hell Dft, are you really saying froch-Kessler world of been an average ss1 show.The standerd your trying to hold Hearn too is ridiculous.


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> I thought Groves-DeGale was a lot more meaningful to bothered mens' careers than the Kessler rematch. Sure, it shouldn't have been on PPV, but still, neither should have Kessler-Froch II.
> 
> The Khan PPVs were awful, no debate, but Khan's family had as much to do with that as Warren.


Oh come of it mate Groves-Degale were novice fighters and it showed on the night as spectacle it let us down, Froch-kessler didn't I would rather see the number 2v3 on the division fight than two prospects with around 20 pro fight s between them


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> So Eddie has proven to be exactly the same as Warren? Pure trolling.
> 
> 1) Hearn doesn't sell tickets to a fight that isn't signed, TWICE.
> 2) Hearn puts on better shows, you'll try and debate it but you know it's true.
> ...


Deep down they are both the same. In fact if you peeled Eddie's face of you'd probably find Frank underneath.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Ashedward said:


> Fucking hell Dft, are you really saying froch-Kessler world of been an average ss1 show.The standerd your trying to hold Hearn too is ridiculous.


1 - no, I said the card was an average one overall. Bellew-Chilemba was guff the first time around and was just as guff the second. I can't even remember the other fights because they were so turgid. 
2 - we, as boxing fans, often complain about a great main event supported by a poor card. It was a major issue with the Haye-Chisora card and, if people are being fair, Eddie needs to live by the same standard
3 - no it's not. It's the standard Eddie and his fans held him to. For months we had people defending the PPV saying it needed to happen and Hearn would make it worth the money. He didn't, it wasn't. That's the standard and he deserves stick for it.

Incidentally, did we hear about the final sales for the PPV?


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> One thing I don't understand is the criticism Hearn gets for his shows. I think he's done well this year, I mean apart from the shitty Barker card and Prizefighter the cards have been well matched and more often then not have produced good fights.
> 
> Robs right about people holding him to a higher standard, it's easy to hold someone to a higher standard then that cunt Warren.


I still don't think the shows have been as good as promised though. I think there is a standard. Main Event + Domestic title + Area Title + Prospect. To often you will have a show with no real main event like Bolton and Hull, and then you get shows with a great main event but the undercard is lacking.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

- DC - said:


> You're forgetting the one he charged £15 for mate!
> 
> For 2 rematches!!!
> 
> ...


So you are Craney91?


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Ashedward said:


> > I thought Groves-DeGale was a lot more meaningful to *bothered *mens' careers than the Kessler rematch. Sure, it shouldn't have been on PPV, but still, neither should have Kessler-Froch II.
> >
> > The Khan PPVs were awful, no debate, but Khan's family had as much to do with that as Warren.


Why have you requoted me and changed the spelling of one of the words?


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> I still don't think the shows have been as good as promised though. I think there is a standard. Main Event + Domestic title + Area Title + Prospect. To often you will have a show with no real main event like Bolton and Hull, and then you get shows with a great main event but the undercard is lacking.


Eddie Hearn has proved to be great at three things so far:


*Making B or C level fights for fighters that should be fighting A level
*
*Making rematches*
*Final eliminators*

Thats it.

Frank Warren makes champions, he just has trouble keeping them.
Eddie Hearn signs champions, he just doesnt make them.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> So you are Craney91?


As I typed above:



> ....and I aint craney, he was a fucking twerp and one of the main reasons I came here. Oh and for Rob aswell and all his sources and inside knowledge.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> Because for nearly 18 months you'd have sworn that Hearn was completely rewriting the playbook on how boxing is run. That wasn't entirely Eddie, either. A lot of posters made a lot of noise about how Eddie was doing it for the fans and wouldn't ever put on bad fights - PF was just to get fans in, etc. So, IMO, a lot of the backlash is because many of those fans are disappointed. But Eddie still gets the benefit of the doubt quite a lot.
> 
> Frank, bless him, gets gouged almost all the time. Even when he does something decent, he get splattered (usually because he fucks it up shortly after, of course).
> 
> ...


Although I have been pro Hearn I have never been one to push this "New Age Promoting" stuff. I have always been quite clear in saying that allot of Hearns success has been down to the failings of other promoters and simply doing what they should have been doing in the first place.

On balance Frank has got a harder time but I think that correlates perfectly to the job they have done. In the past 2 years Eddie Hearn has been a better promoter than Frank Warren. As above, thats more to do with Frank being so shit in the last 2 years than anything else.

I think its been a good 6 months since Hearn got the benefit of the doubt from the general CHB/ESB Brit forum poster. Theres some posters who seem to think there renegades that are vehemently against everything he does at this point in time and seem to justify it by calling anyone that defends Hearn to be ass kissers.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> Because for nearly 18 months you'd have sworn that Hearn was completely rewriting the playbook on how boxing is run. That wasn't entirely Eddie, either. A lot of posters made a lot of noise about how Eddie was doing it for the fans and wouldn't ever put on bad fights - PF was just to get fans in, etc. So, IMO, a lot of the backlash is because many of those fans are disappointed. But Eddie still gets the benefit of the doubt quite a lot.
> 
> Frank, bless him, gets gouged almost all the time. Even when he does something decent, he get splattered (usually because he fucks it up shortly after, of course).
> 
> ...


Of the cards he's put on this year..

Frampton-Martinez was top notch for a domestic card IMO.

Barker card was utter shite.

Bellew-Chilemba was good, the only fight on the card that disappointed was the main event but thats not really Hearns fault, at least it was competitive.Crolla-Matthews II was good, so was Fielding-Reed and Dickens-Fernandes, Yafai also in decent scrap.

Rose-Alcine was an ok card, nothing more. Main event was 50-50 but was boring, Rose isn't a main event fighter. Clarke-Askin and Cardle-Hughes were competitive.

Burns-Gonzalez was really good. Choi-Simpson was quality and Burns-Gonzalez was good.

Froch-Kessler was a huge event and a quality fight, shocking undercard, but I was watching CL final anyway.

Recent Bolton card delivered two of the best domestic fights this year in Rees-Crolla and Smith-Dodson.

It's only the odd card and Prizefighter that's letting him down IMO. When it comes to normal card he more often then not delivers.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> I thought Groves-DeGale was a lot more meaningful to both mens' careers than the Kessler rematch. Sure, it shouldn't have been on PPV, but still, neither should have Kessler-Froch II.
> 
> The Khan PPVs were awful, no debate, but Khan's family had as much to do with that as Warren.


Whats your thoughts on Froch v Kessler III. Allot of posters hate that fight but you scored the last fight to Kessler. Do you think as Kessler has beaten him twice theres not point in a 3rd, or do you think as the 2nd was so close it justifys a rematch?


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

I'm not militant against Eddie Hearn. I actually think he is doing better than some others. However, I see through the bullshit, same with any promoter. He might be doing better than some others, but he still does some things that should be questioned.


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> Why have you requoted me and changed the spelling of one of the words?


Sorry mate I was on my my phone and my fingers slipped and posted that when I was going to write a reply


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Of the cards he's put on this year..
> *
> Frampton-Martinez was top notch for a domestic card IMO.*
> 
> ...


This is the sort of level every Saturday Night card should be.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

- DC - said:


> Eddie Hearn has proved to be great at three things so far:
> 
> 
> *Making B or C level fights for fighters that should be fighting A level
> ...


You clearly are Craney91!


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> I think its been a good 6 months since Hearn got the benefit of the doubt from the general CHB/ESB Brit forum poster. Theres some posters who seem to think there renegades that are vehemently against everything he does at this point in time and seem to justify it by calling anyone that defends Hearn to be ass kissers.


Hearn's done some things well and some things poorly. You may disagree with me still, but Froch-Kessler II had no business on PPV, especially not with the support on offer. He put on some good shows with Frampton (who has now jumped ship, which signifies the end of the Hearn Honeymoon, I guess) and some decent little domestic clashes.

I think it's hard to give him too much praise or defend him right now. He's performing to an acceptable standard, making acceptable fights. The threat of Burns-Crolla is enough to put anyone off Hearn if it happens. Although I would be ok with Froch fighting Bika as a break-of-sorts before facing Ward again.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> You clearly are Craney91!


Are you lot missing him or something?

Is every new "controversial" user that doesnt agree with absolutely everything you say, instantly gonna be labeled craney?

Do me a favor!


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> This is the sort of level every Saturday Night card should be.


That would be fantastic and it should be what Hearn is aiming to do. I'd put the Bolton show in with the three you highlighted, especially since it was put together fairly late. Could have had any competitive fight on the undercard but regardless, the two main fights were brilliant.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Whats your thoughts on Froch v Kessler III. Allot of posters hate that fight but you scored the last fight to Kessler. Do you think as Kessler has beaten him twice theres not point in a 3rd, or do you think as the 2nd was so close it justifys a rematch?


Let me clarify that a wee bit, I felt Kessler could have taken it at the time. He didn't get a huge amount of credit for some really nice work he did in the early rounds, but I had no issue with Froch taking it. I've got a bit of soft spot when it comes to Kessler and maybe because I knew there was one ridiculously wide card against him I over-compensated. Haven't watched the fight since to re-score it and I certainly didn't think Kessler was robbed.

But, I don't think there's much point in a rematch. Kessler looked tired and had slowed considerably from the first fight. Froch got his revenge and I don't think it's likely the fight will go much differently. It'll be competitive and quite fun, but all it allows is for Froch to say he unequivocally beat Mikkel in two out of three. Good for him, but there are more meaningful fights out there for fans.

Do I hate it? If it's on PPV, yes. I don't see it happening on SS1 though, do you?

Do you like it as a fight?


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

- DC - said:


> Are you lot missing him or something?
> 
> Is every new "controversial" user that doesnt agree with absolutely everything you say, instantly gonna be labeled craney?
> 
> Do me a favor!


No just every poster that posts in the exact same mental style.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> Hearn's done some things well and some things poorly. You may disagree with me still, but Froch-Kessler II had no business on PPV, especially not with the support on offer. He put on some good shows with Frampton (who has now jumped ship, which signifies the end of the Hearn Honeymoon, I guess) and some decent little domestic clashes.
> 
> I think it's hard to give him too much praise or defend him right now. He's performing to an acceptable standard, making acceptable fights. The threat of Burns-Crolla is enough to put anyone off Hearn if it happens. Although I would be ok with Froch fighting Bika as a break-of-sorts before facing Ward again.


I agree with all of this.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> No just every poster that posts in the exact same mental style.


Disagree with Rob = Mental
Agree with Rob = Sound


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> 1 - no, I said the card was an average one overall. Bellew-Chilemba was guff the first time around and was just as guff the second. I can't even remember the other fights because they were so turgid.
> 2 - we, as boxing fans, often complain about a great main event supported by a poor card. It was a major issue with the Haye-Chisora card and, if people are being fair, Eddie needs to live by the same standard
> 3 - no it's not. It's the standard Eddie and his fans held him to. For months we had people defending the PPV saying it needed to happen and Hearn would make it worth the money. He didn't, it wasn't. That's the standard and he deserves stick for it.
> 
> Incidentally, did we hear about the final sales for the PPV?


I have read your post again, and it reads,His major card of the year,Froch-Kessler II was an average card for SS1 and downright awful for SBO.We have no idea how well it did on ppv,they never release the figures they only get leaked if they are huge


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Ashedward said:


> I have read your post again, and it reads,His major card of the year,Froch-Kessler II was an average card for SS1 and downright awful for SBO.We have no idea how well it did on ppv,they never release the figures they only get leaked if they are huge


So you read my post again and still don't get what I'm saying, which is quite different to what you're inferring?

Did Bellew-Chilemba II get better? It was another dull fight with one guy that is completely useless when the opponent doesn't walk onto his shots, and another that can't punch for shit.

Froch-Kessler II was good, but a rematch where one of the fighters was clearly on the slide. That, to me, is an average SS1 card. It had no place on SBO.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> Hearn's done some things well and some things poorly. You may disagree with me still, but Froch-Kessler II had no business on PPV, especially not with the support on offer. He put on some good shows with Frampton (who has now jumped ship, which signifies the end of the Hearn Honeymoon, I guess) and some decent little domestic clashes.
> 
> I think it's hard to give him too much praise or defend him right now. He's performing to an acceptable standard, making acceptable fights. The threat of Burns-Crolla is enough to put anyone off Hearn if it happens. Although I would be ok with Froch fighting Bika as a break-of-sorts before facing Ward again.





dftaylor said:


> Let me clarify that a wee bit, I felt Kessler could have taken it at the time. He didn't get a huge amount of credit for some really nice work he did in the early rounds, but I had no issue with Froch taking it. I've got a bit of soft spot when it comes to Kessler and maybe because I knew there was one ridiculously wide card against him I over-compensated. Haven't watched the fight since to re-score it and I certainly didn't think Kessler was robbed.
> 
> But, I don't think there's much point in a rematch. Kessler looked tired and had slowed considerably from the first fight. Froch got his revenge and I don't think it's likely the fight will go much differently. It'll be competitive and quite fun, but all it allows is for Froch to say he unequivocally beat Mikkel in two out of three. Good for him, but there are more meaningful fights out there for fans.
> 
> ...


Most of your argument for Froch v Kessler not being PPV quality was that Froch was not a big enough name and the fight would not be competitive. I think you have been proven wrong on both. I always felt that was more wishful thinking on your part than what you actually believed though.

I think the Frampton case is an isolated incident. It was always clear, and has become even more clear since that McGuigan is the one in control of that career as appose to Hearn or Frampton himself. Other than Frampton, who seems to be a puppet, we have yet to here a bad word about Hearn from a fighter he has worked with.

I have always been clear about this and have always stuck to it. I support PPV but it needs to a certain standard. That means quality main event, which I felt Froch v Kessler II was and Froch v Kessler III/Haye v Fury is, plus a stacked under card. I don't see any reason why Quigg v Salinas, DeGale v Magee, Crolla v Marsilli & Galahad v Dickens could not be the uncercard for Fury v Haye.

I was very local about my dislike for the Froch v Kessler II PPV due to the undercard. If I lived in the UK I would not have purchased the event, and I voiced my discontent to Hearn and didn't back down when he gave excuses.

The more meaningful fight doesn't always mean the best fight. Haye v Klitscko & Froch v Ward 2 are the most meaningful fights in those divisions but I would rather see Froch v Kessler and Haye v Fury for 15quid than those to. You need all the ingredients together plus a great undercard for PPV to be worthwhile in my opinion.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> So you read my post again and still don't get what I'm saying, which is quite different to what you're inferring?
> 
> Did Bellew-Chilemba II get better? It was another dull fight with one guy that is completely useless when the opponent doesn't walk onto his shots, and another that can't punch for shit.
> 
> Froch-Kessler II was good, but a rematch where one of the fighters was clearly on the slide. That, to me, is an average SS1 card. It had no place on SBO.


Sorry DF you are talking complete shit here. Froch v Kessler II would have been a top TOP quality Sky card. This cannot even be debated.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

- DC - said:


> Disagree with Rob = Mental
> Agree with Rob = Sound


Its not about agreeing or disagreeing. I agree with allot of what you say and think your Craney91 and think you have serious mental issues. I disagree with allot of what others have to say and don't think there mental.

I disagree with DFTaylor all the time. We just look at boxing and allot of the time life from a completely different place as were almost opposites in every single way. Pretty much the only thing we have in common is boxing and we disagree on almost ever aspect of it lol. But I still think he is completely sane and with it upstairs unlike yourself.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Sorry DF you are talking complete shit here. Froch v Kessler II would have been a top TOP quality Sky card. This cannot even be debated.


No, it would have been if it hadn't been paired with a dog of a fight like Bellew-Chilemba. With that it was merely average. Names don't make a good card, good fights do and one fight alone doesn't justify it.


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> So you read my post again and still don't get what I'm saying, which is quite different to what you're inferring?
> 
> Did Bellew-Chilemba II get better? It was another dull fight with one guy that is completely useless when the opponent doesn't walk onto his shots, and another that can't punch for shit.
> 
> Froch-Kessler II was good, but a rematch where one of the fighters was clearly on the slide. That, to me, is an average SS1 card. It had no place on SBO.


So you do think Froch-KesslerII on paper was an average SS1 show.I hate to think what you think would make a good SS1 show.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Most of your argument for Froch v Kessler not being PPV quality was that *Froch was not a big enough name* and the fight would not be competitive. I think you have been proven wrong on both. I always felt that was more wishful thinking on your part than what you actually believed though.
> 
> The more meaningful fight doesn't always mean the best fight. Haye v Klitscko & Froch v Ward 2 are the most meaningful fights in those divisions but I would rather see Froch v Kessler and Haye v Fury for 15quid than those to. You need all the ingredients together plus a great undercard for PPV to be worthwhile in my opinion.


Don't speak for me, Rob. Facts speak for themselves: Sky and Hearn have been silent about the PPV, which tells me everything. It was a moderate success at best. I haven't heard a single thing in the mainstream about Froch since the fight, completely different to Haye when he fought Valuev. Froch just isn't a star.

I agree with the last sentence you wrote, but I've no interest in watching Froch taking a victory lap while claiming he's a champion. At least Haye-Fury doesn't have a form book, so there's some intrigue.


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> No, it would have been if it hadn't been paired with a dog of a fight like Bellew-Chilemba. With that it was merely average. Names don't make a good card, good fights do and one fight alone doesn't justify it.


Your setting a higher standard for SS1 shows then I can remember us ever having


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> No, it would have been if it hadn't been paired with a dog of a fight like Bellew-Chilemba. With that it was merely average. Names don't make a good card, good fights do and one fight alone doesn't justify it.


You seem to be changing your mind based on the circumstances. You want meaningful and competitive fights which Bellew v Chileba was but now its not good enough and you need action fights which Groves fight on the card was?


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> Don't speak for me, Rob. Facts speak for themselves: Sky and Hearn have been silent about the PPV, which tells me everything. It was a moderate success at best. I haven't heard a single thing in the mainstream about Froch since the fight, completely different to Haye when he fought Valuev. Froch just isn't a star.
> 
> I agree with the last sentence you wrote, but I've no interest in watching Froch taking a victory lap while claiming he's a champion. At least Haye-Fury doesn't have a form book, so there's some intrigue.


Hearn has been quite vocal about the event being a success and again I think you are under estimating Froch's appeal nowdays.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Most of your argument for Froch v Kessler not being PPV quality was that Froch was not a big enough name and the fight would not be competitive. I think you have been proven wrong on both. I always felt that was more wishful thinking on your part than what you actually believed though.
> 
> I think the Frampton case is an isolated incident. It was always clear, and has become even more clear since that McGuigan is the one in control of that career as appose to Hearn or Frampton himself. Other than Frampton, who seems to be a puppet, we have yet to here a bad word about Hearn from a fighter he has worked with.
> 
> ...


Which won't happen with PPVs over here. The cost of paying the headliners, who are the reason punters buy the card, mean promoters don't see it as being necessary to shell out for a good undercard. We'd get more of the same if Froch/Kessler III happened. We'd have either Bellew or Brook in a support bout against someone that is either a decent opponent but one that doesn't match up stylistically for an entertaining bout, or a complete no-hoper.

The absolute best you can hope for is Froch/Kessler III and Stieglitz/Groves in some sort of split site deal and, to be frank, I'd still say that's not worth the money PPV wise. I don't think Froch/Kessler III is even a fight that has to happen, and Stieglitz/Groves isn't something that really screams out "PPV" to me.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> Which won't happen with PPVs over here. The cost of paying the headliners, who are the reason punters buy the card, mean promoters don't see it as being necessary to shell out for a good undercard. We'd get more of the same if Froch/Kessler III happened. We'd have either Bellew or Brook in a support bout against someone that is either a decent opponent but one that doesn't match up stylistically for an entertaining bout, or a complete no-hoper.
> 
> The absolute best you can hope for is Froch/Kessler III and Stieglitz/Groves in some sort of split site deal and, to be frank, I'd still say that's not worth the money PPV wise. I don't think Froch/Kessler III is even a fight that has to happen, and Stieglitz/Groves isn't something that really screams out "PPV" to me.


I think you have to look at things long term. Groves became a big name in British Boxing because of his exposure fighting on Haye undercards in exciting, meaningful and competitive fights. They could have done that with another 2/3 fighters if they had bothered.

Disagree with your last point. would be very happy with that card.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> You seem to be changing your mind based on the circumstances. You want meaningful and competitive fights which Bellew v Chileba was but now its not good enough and you need action fights which Groves fight on the card was?


No, i'm judging it on the basis we were all judging it. Not a person was jumping for joy at that rematch - it was a crap fight the first time out. Why put it on on your first major PPV card as lead promoter?


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> No, i'm judging it on the basis we were all judging it. Not a person was jumping for joy at that rematch - it was a crap fight the first time out. Why put it on on your first major PPV card as lead promoter?


I think had it been lower down the card it wouldn't have been an issue, or even if Groves fight was a good one.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> I think you have to look at things long term. Groves became a big name in British Boxing because of his exposure fighting on Haye undercards in exciting, meaningful and competitive fights. They could have done that with another 2/3 fighters if they had bothered.
> 
> Disagree with your last point. would be very happy with that card.


How could they have? Hayemaker only had any interest in Price and Groves, specifically because they didn't want an undercard full of future PPV headliners that would eat into the cost of the show. (I'm aware they had the likes of Rhodes and Matthews, but they were never going to be headlining PPVs themselves.)The promoters and guys in the main event want as much money as possible, which leaves less money for meaningful undercard fights. Bellew/Chilemba would have been a good support bout if the card was on Sky Sports; when the only other meaningful fight was Groves blasting out a no-hoper, it's weak sauce.

Personally I wouldn't pay for Grove/Stieglitz on PPV. It shouldn't be PPV, but I wouldn't be surprised if they look for a way to make it so. I'd fancy Groves against Stieglitz or Bika after he's had a few more meaningful tests, but I wouldn't be happy with paying any more for those fights than I already do through my Sky Sports package. And as I don't have that much interest in Froch/Kessler III, and they'd not likely have Bellew, Brook or anyone else in a really meaningful fight - as a split side PPV, even with Sauerland as partners, would be expensive to promote as it is - I'd likely just wait a week for it on Sky. Definitely wouldn't watch it illegally, obviously. :hey


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> How could they have? Hayemaker only had any interest in Price and Groves, specifically because they didn't want an undercard full of future PPV headliners that would eat into the cost of the show. (I'm aware they had the likes of Rhodes and Matthews, but they were never going to be headlining PPVs themselves.)The promoters and guys in the main event want as much money as possible, which leaves less money for meaningful undercard fights. Bellew/Chilemba would have been a good support bout if the card was on Sky Sports; when the only other meaningful fight was Groves blasting out a no-hoper, it's weak sauce.
> 
> Personally I wouldn't pay for Grove/Stieglitz on PPV. It shouldn't be PPV, but I wouldn't be surprised if they look for a way to make it so. I'd fancy Groves against Stieglitz or Bika after he's had a few more meaningful tests, but I wouldn't be happy with paying any more for those fights than I already do through my Sky Sports package. And as I don't have that much interest in Froch/Kessler III, and they'd not likely have Bellew, Brook or anyone else in a really meaningful fight - as a split side PPV, even with Sauerland as partners, would be expensive to promote as it is - I'd likely just wait a week for it on Sky. Definitely wouldn't watch it illegally, obviously. :hey


If Hayemaker has wanted to make waves as a promoter long term they would have invested in the uncerdards. Hearn does have those interests so he should invest.

Just because thats the way its done doesn't make it right. Boxing is not a thriving sport in this country or anywhere in the world right now and lack of investment in undercards is part of the problem.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

I know you agree with me Rob, because what I speak is the truth. If you didnt agree with me you'd be living a lie. 98.5% of the worlds population is living a lie, why?

Because they dont listen to me!


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> I think had it been lower down the card it wouldn't have been an issue, or even if Groves fight was a good one.


I agree with the first point, not the second. If Bellew-Chilemba had been 2 or 3 fights down the card then fair enough, it had to happen somewhere but cheif support on a PPV wasn't the right place.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> If Hayemaker has wanted to make waves as a promoter long term they would have invested in the uncerdards. Hearn does have those interests so he should invest.
> 
> Just because thats the way its done doesn't make it right. Boxing is not a thriving sport in this country or anywhere in the world right now and lack of investment in undercards is part of the problem.


Hayemaker _didn't_ want to make long term waves though. It was a company set up to promote Haye. Groves and Price were signed with a view to bringing them along on Haye's cards in Setanta and building them up. They never had any grand designs to have a schedule like Warren has/had or Matchroom has. They intended to work on promoting Haye and a few other fighters.

I'm not saying it's right btw - just that it is. If you can put a card that would otherwise be on Sky Sports and charge even more for it through Sky Box Office, would you? Most promoters would, and that's just the way shit goes. At least it's not as bad as the PPV crazy schedule HBO had a few years ago.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> Hayemaker _didn't_ want to make long term waves though. It was a company set up to promote Haye. Groves and Price were signed with a view to bringing them along on Haye's cards in Setanta and building them up. They never had any grand designs to have a schedule like Warren has/had or Matchroom has. They intended to work on promoting Haye and a few other fighters.
> 
> I'm not saying it's right btw - just that it is. If you can put a card that would otherwise be on Sky Sports and charge even more for it through Sky Box Office, would you? Most promoters would, and that's just the way shit goes. At least it's not as bad as the PPV crazy schedule HBO had a few years ago.


Sky Sports and Hearn are taking a long term approach to Boxing though. "Things needed to change" is the line we have been fed. Froch v Kessler was more of the same as far as I am concerned. On its own I thought it was a great fight and I would happily watch a 3rd but in terms of the PPV is was garbage.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

It's crazy to say that froch Kessler 2 is an average skysports1 card

The one argument I would have is that froch bute was as big a fight so it shows that kesslers demands made ppv necessary
But froch bute was a sensational skysports1 bill,these 2 fights were in Britain and are 2 of the biggest fights to have been made in this country in the last ten years so how could it have been average

One point which grates me is unrealistic punters,good opponents and shows cost big money
People say there are not enough shows but then complain about opponents,the fact is more shows would unfortunately mean more of the same
I want more shows,better fights and great shows but I'm also realistic
The likes of burns crolla is an attempt to make a fight that fans would like to watch and would sell without smashing the budget,the alternative is burns going away but Hearn has stated he wants to build Ricky in Scotland
This is the key making good competitive fights with names if possible within a strict budget.then you have to tie in governing bodies,ticket sales,making a stylistically pleasing fight,available opponents,dates and so on

You would think that this promoting lark would be easy listening to these posts

Froch Kessler,burns Gonzalez,frampton Martinez,brook Carson jones,brook Matthew hatton,froch bute,frampton molitor off the top of my head were all very good shows.he has also provided some great undercards choi Simpson,Rees Matthews,selby Lindsay,mcdonnels eliminator,crolla Matthews 2,ryder o'kane and more
The best show in my opinion fell apart which was Rees j Murray,purdy Carson jones,barker hope
That ain't bad form
In fact if I looked up the last 18 months I'm sure there's lots I have simply forgotten
And I'm not a Hearn fanboy in the slightest


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Sky Sports and Hearn are taking a long term approach to Boxing though. "Things needed to change" is the line we have been fed. Froch v Kessler was more of the same as far as I am concerned. On its own I thought it was a great fight and I would happily watch a 3rd but in terms of the PPV is was garbage.


Sky Sports didn't ever cancel boxing on PPV - they shelved it due to the backlash Haye's performance against Wladimir got, as a lot of the buyers were convinced that Haye was going to fight the exact way he had claimed he would while selling the fight. If they'd had another PPV quality main event lined up then they would still have went with it. Hell, if Froch's entire Super Six run been televised by them then they may still have been tempted to put his fight with Bute on PPV, even though he was coming off of a loss.

Hearn can say "things need to change," all he wants - but when Joe Gallagher and Hearn both seem to agree that he promised the winner of Crolla/Rees a shot at Burns, it's no different to any other promoter. Not even Nelson in the Sky studio was trying to convince us that Crolla is a world class contender, and Burns didn't seem too impressed. It's also not the "big fight by the end of the year," that Hearn had been talking about a few months ago. Am I surprised? No. I'm expecting him to want to promote it in Lancashire and make money off the gate, and justify it as "it'll be a good scrap". If Warren had done the same, I'd criticise him for it.

Hearn is no different from any other promoter, apart from Sky would rather work exclusively with him so that they have more fluidity/consistency in their dealings with boxing folk.

(I'm aware that's off-topic from the PPV discussion a bit, but in general I don't see how there's going to be any massive shift in how things are done - just who does them.)


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

"Things needed to change"

So they went for "new age" but decided to keep all the old age fart kingpins at Sky?

Adam Smith, Johnny Nelson, Watt, McRory etc etc

It makes no sense with the new approach to keep these grandad has beens. F*ck em of! Get Ed Robinson on the TV and people who actually know a bit about boxing today, not 15/20+ years ago!!!!!


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> Hearn is no different from any other promoter, apart from Sky would rather work exclusively with him so that they have more fluidity/consistency in their dealings with boxing folk.


There are obvious difference which I have already outlined in this thread.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

I said at the time, the decision by Sky to knock PPV on the head was easy to make because there were no PPV worthy fights out there in any case. Haye had lost, Froch was in the Super 6 and had never been in PPV, a Khan was fighting in America.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

GazOC said:


> I said at the time, the decision by Sky to knock PPV on the head was easy to make because there were no PPV worthy fights out there in any case. Haye had lost, Froch was in the Super 6 and had never been in PPV, a Khan was fighting in America.


It was also a way to push a certain promoter that push for more PPV out of the door!


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

- DC - said:


> "Things needed to change"
> 
> So they went for "new age" but decided to keep all the old age fart kingpins at Sky?
> 
> ...


Thats the difference between Sky and Boxnation. Love them or hate them at least you might find out something you didn't already know when Bunce and Lillis are covering a fight. That never, ever happens with the Sky team.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> It was also a way to push a certain promoter that push for more PPV out of the door!


And let the promoter who gave us Harrison-Haye PPV in through the back door.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> There are obvious difference which I have already outlined in this thread.














GazOC said:


> And let the promoter who gave us Harrison-Haye PPV in through the back door.


:deal


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

GazOC said:


> And let the promoter who gave us Harrison-Haye PPV in through the back door.


Yep. Just ignore the fact there were many other parties involved in making that fight and the great cards that Hearn put together in the 8 months following.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

GazOC said:


> Thats the difference between Sky and Boxnation. Love them or hate them at least you might find out something you didn't already know when Bunce and Lillis are covering a fight. That never, ever happens with the Sky team.


They are destroying the broadcast and product. To the point where its not even funny anymore. The joke has worn of. I dont find Watt's bias even funny anymore. I find it cringe worthy and embarrassing that a former boxer is being influenced by Sky to the point where he looks like he dont know shit about boxing.....when he does! They need to move these clowns on, thanks for everything but no thanks, boxing has evolved and changed, they need to get with the times and get some fresh blood on the screens with a more modern approach. They did it with the footy and G-Nev, its time to shake boxing up a bit! I'm sick of seeing the same faces, and the only reason Smith is even on the TV commentating is because of his position. Whats he done in boxing, who is he? Its not what you know its *who you know* and Smith is about as deserving for the job as me and you are. But he dont know shit about boxing and I'd like to think some of us do, so in fact we are more deserving of his position.

...and yet he is making the decisions at Sky regarding boxing. :lol:


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

- DC - said:


> They are destroying the broadcast and product. To the point where its not even funny anymore. The joke has worn of. I dont find Watt's bias even funny anymore. I find it cringe worthy and embarrassing that a former boxer is being influenced by Sky to the point where he looks like he dont know shit about boxing.....when he does! They need to move these clowns on, thanks for everything but no thanks, boxing has evolved and changed, they need to get with the times and get some fresh blood on the screens with a more modern approach. They did it with the footy and G-Nev, its time to shake boxing up a bit! I'm sick of seeing the same faces, and the only reason Smith is even on the TV commentating is because of his position. Whats he done in boxing, who is he? Its not what you know its *who you know* and Smith is about as deserving for the job as me and you are. But he dont know shit about boxing and I'd like to think some of us do, so in fact we are more deserving of his position.
> 
> ...and yet he is making the decisions at Sky regarding boxing. :lol:


Yeah Adam smith is too gay for a boxing show,I'm sorry it's true it's actually embarrassing for our country when the likes of Leonard and Tyson meet Tory boy smith

Max kellermans probaly worse though


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

One to watch said:


> Yeah Adam smith is too gay for a boxing show,I'm sorry it's true it's actually embarrassing for our country when the likes of Leonard and Tyson meet Tory boy smith
> 
> Max kellermans probaly worse though


Always laugh to myself when I see people refereed to as Tory Boys especially with Ed Milliband who is the defenition of one running the Labour party.

Max Kellerman is good. He knows his stuff. But you are right about Smith. He shouldn't be presenting but his work in the background should not be under estimated!


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

- DC - said:


> They are destroying the broadcast and product. To the point where its not even funny anymore. The joke has worn of. I dont find Watt's bias even funny anymore. I find it cringe worthy and embarrassing that a former boxer is being influenced by Sky to the point where he looks like he dont know shit about boxing.....when he does! They need to move these clowns on, thanks for everything but no thanks, boxing has evolved and changed, they need to get with the times and get some fresh blood on the screens with a more modern approach. They did it with the footy and G-Nev, its time to shake boxing up a bit! I'm sick of seeing the same faces, and the only reason Smith is even on the TV commentating is because of his position. Whats he done in boxing, who is he? Its not what you know its *who you know* and Smith is about as deserving for the job as me and you are. But he dont know shit about boxing and I'd like to think some of us do, so in fact we are more deserving of his position.
> 
> ...and yet he is making the decisions at Sky regarding boxing. :lol:


I would be interested to know what you have done to be as deserving as Smith off that job.

Seriously post your CV of STFU!


----------



## Duffy (Jun 13, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> as if he wouldn't make Kessler 3!!!


Nobody wants to watch that shit again.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Always laugh to myself when I see people refereed to as Tory Boys especially with Ed Milliband who is the defenition of one running the Labour party.


Doesn't make it any less true though. Blair was the same. A lot of the mainstream politicians vying for leadership of the main parties aren't there out of principal - it's a career choice, and they go with the party they feel they're most likely to have a chance at leading.

Blair might have been a Labour Prime Minister, but he was a Thatcherite.



robpalmer135 said:


> Max Kellerman is good. He knows his stuff. But you are right about Smith. He shouldn't be presenting but his work in the background should not be under estimated!


Kellerman is Marmite; some people love him, some people hate him.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> I would be interested to know what you have done to be as deserving as Smith off that job.
> 
> Seriously post your CV of STFU!


I'm a highly successful business women in the porn industry and have shot over 1000 films. I also went to school with Eddie Hearn so I have plenty of contacts inside the game. I know more about boxing than Adam Smith and I am the lost and forgotten daughter of Frank Warren. He left me when I breached contract and refused to wash up. I can proudly say that day changed my life, and I wouldnt be where I am now if Frank was in my life.


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

Duffy said:


> Nobody wants to watch that shit again.


If you thought the second fight was shit you should find another sport to follow, if you are saying that the third fight would be shit then I disagree and I wouldn't mind seeing it again


----------



## Scorpio78 (Jun 10, 2012)

Dc are you some disturbed teenager


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

Scorpio78 said:


> Dc are you some disturbed teenager


Several scenes were done inside a boxing ring........I know more about boxing than Adam Smith.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

- DC - said:


> Several scenes were done inside a boxing ring........I know more about boxing than Adam Smith.


That's debatable. In fact no it isn't. Adam Smith>>>>Craney.


----------



## Duffy (Jun 13, 2013)

Ashedward said:


> If you thought the second fight was shit you should find another sport to follow, if you are saying that the third fight would be shit then I disagree and I wouldn't mind seeing it again


Mate i'm bored senseless seeing Froch eck out narrow victories by the skin of his teeth against old shot fighters that were considered well past their best last decade when Calzaghe was in his pomp. I want to see Froch in a real fight against a proper young buck hungry fighter like this GGG guy or even groves.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> That's debatable. In fact no it isn't. Adam Smith>>>>Craney.


Well I'm not craney, sorry.

I'm DC and I know more about boxing than Adam Smith. I know more about boxing than 99% on this forum and on ESB. I think Rob knows more about boxing than Adam Smith, so thats saying something right there!

Adam Smith does one thing well and thats giving the camera pervert looks. Me and Adam Smith should swap jobs. He can do porn and I'll do the boxing. Waddya say Adam?


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

Duffy said:


> Mate i'm bored senseless seeing Froch eck out narrow victories by the skin of his teeth against old shot fighters that were considered well past their best last decade when Calzaghe was in his pomp. I want to see Froch in a real fight against a proper young buck hungry fighter like this GGG guy or even groves.


Fair enough mate if you think that way, To be fair though many people thought bute would finish his career and was considered a real fight at the time.If he ends up fighting Bika I bet you won't be a happy chappy but he could fight Groves soon but if Kessler is available that is fight they will try to make for sure


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

GazOC said:


> And let the promoter who gave us Harrison-Haye PPV in through the back door.


Hearn wouldn't have had any say in that. Haye was a PPV fighter and Sky wanted him on PPV, so it was on PPV. It had very little to do with Hearn.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

Duffy said:


> Nobody wants to watch that shit again.


Explain to me why it's shit?


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

Scorpio78 said:


> Dc are you some disturbed teenager


He is Craney91


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Jack said:


> Hearn wouldn't have had any say in that. Haye was a PPV fighter and Sky wanted him on PPV, so it was on PPV. It had very little to do with Hearn.


Nice way of looking at it. Did Warren get so much slack for his PPVs?


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

GazOC said:


> Nice way of looking at it. Did Warren get so much slack for his PPVs?


Warren was the lead promoter. Hearn was not for Haye v Hearn, infact he wasn't even the promoter. If you listen back to the entrances it doesn't even say "In association with Matchroom Sport" and the poster doesn't list them. Thats not to say he is free from blame, theres just allot of other people that deserve more.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Warren was the lead promoter. Hearn was not for *Haye v Hearn*, infact he wasn't even the promoter. If you listen back to the entrances it doesn't even say "In association with Matchroom Sport" and the poster doesn't list them. Thats not to say he is free from blame, theres just allot of other people that deserve more.


That'd be PPV worthy.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Haye v Hearn


Now THATS a fight I would pay £15 for! Fuck the undercard! :deal


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

I am not craney.

I left ESB because of that cunt!!!


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

GazOC said:


> Nice way of looking at it. Did Warren get so much slack for his PPVs?


Hearn had very little to do with the Haye PPV. Has he ever regularly promoted Harrison? It's entirely different when you're talking about Warren PPVs.

Blame Sky for that one happening, not Haye and certainly not Hearn. What is he meant to do? Say "nah, you're alright" when a massive opportunity comes his way?


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

- DC - said:


> I am not craney.
> 
> I left ESB because of that cunt!!!


And several people think you are him or at least just like him........so think about that.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

GazOC said:


> I agree with the first point, not the second. If Bellew-Chilemba had been 2 or 3 fights down the card then fair enough, it had to happen somewhere but cheif support on a PPV wasn't the right place.


It's worth noting that Hearn paid for the rights to show Bute/Pascal, which would have been part of the PPV and would have been co-main event with Froch/Kessler II. Had that fight not been cancelled through injury, we'd have had Froch/Kessler in the main event, Bute/Pascal as co-main and then Bellew/Chilemba are the third biggest fight on the card. Obviously that didn't happen because of injury but the PPV card, on paper, was very strong.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> And several people think you are him or at least just like him........so think about that.


There are several people on ESB and on here that are just like you.

Oh I forgot! They ARE you.

How many accounts are you gonna limit yourself to on here Rob? 10?

I am not craney, if you must know I had the same username on ESB as on here, I just didnt post that much at all because of how the forum went, but I checked it daily. Mainly because of pricks like that craney on the British forum. So I left and came here which seems better. Then I heard craney had been perma-banned shortly after I came here, but to be honest the whole forum had died at that point, so I aint going back to it. Hopefully pricks like him dont turn up on this forum, but TBH mate I think they are already here. I'm talking with one right now.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

- DC - said:


> There are several people on ESB and on here that are just like you.
> 
> Oh I forgot! They ARE you.
> 
> ...


I couldn't give a single fuck less if you're Craney or not, to be honest. I imagine most of the posters on here probably feel the same way.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Jack said:


> Hearn had very little to do with the Haye PPV. Has he ever regularly promoted Harrison? It's entirely different when you're talking about Warren PPVs.
> 
> Blame Sky for that one happening, not Haye and certainly not Hearn. What is he meant to do? Say "nah, you're alright" when a massive opportunity comes his way?


Hearn was instrumental in pushing Sky to demand that fight from Haye. He carries a fair share of the weight and made a nice chunk of cash as a result. But don't let that get in the way of your gigantic crush.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

- DC - said:


> There are several people on ESB and on here that are just like you.
> 
> Oh I forgot! They ARE you.
> 
> ...


1 account on here. Always has been always will be....and I never once his my identity unlike most people on here.

What name did you post under on ESB?


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Of the cards he's put on this year..
> 
> Frampton-Martinez was top notch for a domestic card IMO.
> 
> ...


Very good post, mate.

I can't understand where people are coming from when they criticise Hearn's cards. Compare the ones you listed to the Warren shows this year. The undercard for Gavin/Vassell and Gavin/Welborn was terrible. The Cleverly/Krasniqi card was headlined by a mismatch and only had one slightly intriguing fight on the undercard, in Walsh/Harrison, which was hardly competitive itself.

Look at the horrendous DeGale/Bozic card. I bet not one of the undercards in the main fights would be given a 20/1 shot. Three absolutely horrible fights headlining that card, yet Hennessy doesn't get an ounce of the stick Hearn does. Why? After all, he has the biggest platform because he's on national TV so surely he should want to put on the best shows? The Fury/Johnson card was a joke too.

I genuinely don't think Hearn puts on bad shows. He just doesn't. They're a similar set up to the Top Rank and Golden Boy shows, where you have a good main event, a good co-main and then a couple of filler bouts on the udnercard, usually with prospects. That's fine by me, I don't expect any more than Hearn, I just don't want the absolutely shite which plagues British boxing from the likes of Warren and Hennessy.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> Hearn was instrumental in pushing Sky to demand that fight from Haye. He carries a fair share of the weight and made a nice chunk of cash as a result. But don't let that get in the way of your gigantic crush.


Hearn wasn't in a position to push for anything. Sky wanted the fight to happen, so it did. Saying otherwise is just bullshit.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Jack said:


> Hearn wasn't in a position to push for anything. Sky wanted the fight to happen, so it did. Saying otherwise is just bullshit.


You clearly don't remember the history. Haye beats Ruiz and starts the call for the Wlad fight. All of a sudden, Matchroom starts putting out press releases that Haye is ignoring an offer for the Harrison fight. Most people dismiss it as nonsense and then Sky starts talking about the grudge between the two. And throughout, Hearn is in the press, putting out statements and pushing the fight.

So at what point did he NOT have a hand in pushing Sky to make that fight?

I know it hurts to realise Eddie's not the white knight you hoped for.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> You clearly don't remember the history. Haye beats Ruiz and starts the call for the Wlad fight. All of a sudden, Matchroom starts putting out press releases that Haye is ignoring an offer for the Harrison fight. Most people dismiss it as nonsense and then Sky starts talking about the grudge between the two. And throughout, Hearn is in the press, putting out statements and pushing the fight.
> 
> So at what point did he NOT have a hand in pushing Sky to make that fight?
> 
> I know it hurts to realise Eddie's not the white knight you hoped for.


Of course Hearn wanted the fight. Who wouldn't? It's a promoters job to get the biggest fights possible for his fighters. Are you suggesting it's a bad thing that Hearn got fucking Audley Harrison a world title shot? If Hearn could get Lee Purdy a fight with Mayweather, he would, and it'd be the absolute right thing to do for his fighter.

The fault for the fight being on PPV is Sky's and, to a elsser extent, Haye's. That fight shouldn't have been PPV and you could argue it shouldn't have happened at all. Does Hearn deserve criticism for that though? No. He just did his job as a promoter.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Jack said:


> Of course Hearn wanted the fight. Who wouldn't? It's a promoters job to get the biggest fights possible for his fighters. Are you suggesting it's a bad thing that Hearn got fucking Audley Harrison a world title shot? If Hearn could get Lee Purdy a fight with Mayweather, he would, and it'd be the absolute right thing to do for his fighter.
> 
> The fault for the fight being on PPV is Sky's and, to a elsser extent, Haye's. That fight shouldn't have been PPV and you could argue it shouldn't have happened at all. Does Hearn deserve criticism for that though? No. He just did his job as a promoter.


You're being a bit selective in your blame. So, it was wrong for Haye to make a huge sum of money for himself, his family and his team, but ok for Hearn to do it for Harrison?

My whole point is don't hold Hearn in some special esteem. He's just like every other promoter when it comes down to it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> You're being a bit selective in your blame. So, it was wrong for Haye to make a huge sum of money for himself, his family and his team, but ok for Hearn to do it for Harrison?
> 
> My whole point is don't hold Hearn in some special esteem. He's just like every other promoter when it comes down to it.


Except in the UK he does a better job.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Except in the UK he does a better job.


Being the best of a truly pitiful bunch is like being the only virgin in a room full of prostitutes.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> Being the best of a truly pitiful bunch is like being the only virgin in a room full of prostitutes.


I would say a better analogy would be the only one that doesn't offer anal and water sports......not as much of a slag but still is one!


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> I would say a better analogy would be the only one that doesn't offer anal and water sports......not as much of a slag but still is one!


You're right, that's a much better analogy. :lol:


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> I would say a better analogy would be the only one that doesn't offer anal and water sports......not as much of a slag but still is one!


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> You're being a bit selective in your blame. So, it was wrong for Haye to make a huge sum of money for himself, his family and his team, but ok for Hearn to do it for Harrison?
> 
> My whole point is don't hold Hearn in some special esteem. He's just like every other promoter when it comes down to it.


Haye was in a position where he could have made much better fights than the Harrison one, so it's completely different. Like I said, if Hearn was offered a Mayweather fight for Purdy, he should take it because it's a fantastic opportunity for his fighter. Purdy would deserve no criticism for taking a bout whereas Mayweather would face enormous criticism for offering it.

To be fair though, I don't think Haye was the driving force behind the PPV either. Sky knew it'd sell, so they probably insisted on PPV. They're the ones who make the final call on PPV or not, so they should be criticised, not Haye and definitely not Hearn.


----------

