Autobarn wrote:DLH v Pac, it's a massive size difference. It's not going to be competitive. Calzaghe-Jones - hardly Leonard-Hearns, or Vazquez-Marquez, is it?
Yes the size difference is a bit too big, but not competetive?
Well lets just see about that one
No it isnt Leonard - Hearns... SO every fight that isnt Leonard - Hearns is "laughable".... blimey, you must watch 4 fights every 100 years as 99.99999999% of fights are "laughable" by your "laughable" standards......
adamwillan wrote:The reason there is a monopoly is that no one wants to fly there. with fuel at $130 a barrel vegas cannot make money due to it being a 15 hour flight and no corporate business travel prop the topline figures
Mate you've got it all wrong, the reason is that Ray Hatton tips off the airlines that there is going to be a fight on that date and then they fix the price so he gets half the money, and then they have the cheek to come on Parkinson and say Ricky is a "man of the people" and then he ducked Jr Witter and Sugar Ray Robinson never ducked anyone and Calzaghe is a JOKE for fighting Jones he should fight Pavlik and Khan should fight Julio Chavez Sr circa 1987 at lightweight and the press are all just biased and Warren gave Nelson step aside money
Chill out son. For one i have never mentioned Ricky's name regarding airlines. Have never said anything about witter. I have never said a bad word about Calzaghe in my life hopkins was the first fight i have missed in years and am going to NY to watch jones fight. Regarding Nelson i only asked if possible because it was discussed on tv, it was not some kind of sensationalist statement but i thought this was a board to discuss boxing!
Regarding the airline bit whether you believe it or not it is true whoever the boxer is, it is not rumour. Not the kind of random thing you can make up . Couldnt care less if you believe me or not i was just using it as a point in a discussion about boxing greed.
There is an old arguement that boxers deserve every penney going in the ring to get punched about. Lots of people do dangerous things because they love doing what they do and some get paid nothing at at all such as mountain rescue teams. The very best fighters earn a fortune and fair enough if we all had their skills we would be making a fortune also. I dont have much of a problem with fighters its a tough game and very few fighters are on top money but footballers are another matter. What they earn enjoying themselves is diabolical, and disgusting. Watched the Hatton documentory the other night and thought they were trying to brainwash me into believing Hatton is just one of the boys. Nobody with millions is just an ordinary bloke, you cant be. I think he tries to be one of the lads but how can you when your mate is just getting by and you can go out and buy a top of the range Merc tomorrow if you decide to. The money top sportsmen get paid these days is obsene when you consider what some people have to live on but it wont change, greed is what drives them. Everybody wants to get as much as they can in these times. Another arguement is that fighters, footballers etc have short careers so they need to make loads of money, but once a sportsman has made millions that arguement is no longer valid. If they have 5 million they want 10 million and so the greed goes on.
adamwillan wrote:i think you have got to have your eyes open when it comes to boxing. i love going to the big fights and have paid a lot over the last few years to enjoy them but i dont think for one minute the fighters actually care about the fans. Yes boxers are greedy when it comes to money but who wouldnt be if they were in the same position.
The whole vegas vs new york argument is silly i work in the airline industry and to say vegas is cheaper is just an outright lie. You can get a flight to New York for 300 quid including taxes due to the amount of competition. I challenge anyone to fly to Vegas for that considering the hefty surcharges that we have all added to flights over the last few months due to the insane price of fuel.
Without naming who i work for and without naming the name of boxers as you can understand. We have a deal with a fighter who tells us when and where is he fighting before it is announced in return for a number of free business seats. We can therefore bump up the price of all the tickets and make a tidy sum more than we would of from the fans. So to say boxers care about the fans is possibly nothing more than PR.
I assume, that being the only UK fighter who regularly fights in the US and has any sort of following you must mean RICKY HATTON. If so, and I fail to see whoi else it could be, this is an absolute scandal and one which should be highlighted to people. Not only are the Hatton clan heavily marking up the tickets to fleece "The ones who made me" but now they are inviting the airlines to rip of their fans so they get comfy seats for their hangers on. This is probably the reason the fight has been switched to Vegas from New York. Absolute disgrace. Shame on Hatton and shame on everyone who suffers it. Hatton openly gets the big paydays, because he brings a large following. After the tanking Mayweather gave him he's fans are the only reason the Yanks still want him. Dennis Hobson hinted that this type of scam was going on with the airlines and tickets and even he thought it was a bit strong and feared it would get out. Now it appears it has.
Last edited by boxingchat on 29 Jul 2008, 09:44, edited 1 time in total.
hitman_hatton1 wrote:tbf some of joe louis title reign opponents were worse than calzaghe's.
the old bum of the month club.
The bum of the month club was not describing the fighters as bums. The bum was a reference to putting bums on seats once per month, fighting 1 man per month and there were some decent names amongst those
WTF??! The term was used to describe the fighters as bums, as in no good bums, the American term bum means hobo, or tramp - the word bum, as in arse, is only used in the UK, or Oz maybe.
Fact is that a lot of Joe's opponents like Johnny Paycheck et all, were seen as "bums".
jamesmcdonnell wrote:This in reality is nothing new, Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey did just the same thing, the difference is, they also faced the best available challengers, as this was where the really massive paydays lay..
Actually Jack Dempsey avoided the best challengers of his day in Harry Wills, Harry Grebb, Godfrey, and the older blk fighters like Jack Johnson, Langford, McVey, Jeanette. There is certainly a reasonable debate that Wills and not Dempsey may have been the best fighter of that era and he was no1 contender for about 7years if not longer
Louis didnt fight the top black fighters for the most part either
Quite right. Jack Dempsey was one of the most overprotected heavyweight champions of all time. He even fought two 10 round fights as defences!
Louis again true, however, he did fight Walcott who was no slouch and Ezzard Charles when he was at the end of his career. He also gave his friend John Henry Lewis a payday by giving him a shot at the heavyweight title. Lewis never got a much deserved shot at the 175 lb title, and was seriously ill by the time he got the shot at Louis.
Joe Louis too didn't risk his title against the top black contenders of his era
