slapbangwhallop wrote:
Do you think the "exposed" Prescott or the "smaller" Murray would be a "tougher challenge" than McCloskey?
Do you think Lamont Peterson is a "bigger name" than McCloskey or bring more PPV sales?
My mother had a saying, "pennywise, pound stupid". Dependant on who gets brought in to fight Khan this could well be very apt here.
1. I think Prescott has the psychological edge of having sparked Khan in less than 60 seconds, think McCloskey is a bigger challenge than Murray.
2. Peterson would've been a better test and a bigger transatlantic name but PPV's would have probably remained about the same.
I think the psychological edge argument lost a lot of its lustre when when Khan moved up a weight and Mitchell completely outboxed Prescott before going on to get banjod by Katsidas.
Peterson being a bigger test than McCloskey is highly debatable. He looked pretty average against Ortiz. I also don't agree that Peterson is a bigger transatlantic name as very few, even regular SKY Sports viewers wouldn't have heard of him. The Khan fight isn't going to be PPV in the states so the amount of money coming from American TV pales into insignificance when compared to the PPV sales in Ireland and the UK, which undoubtedly McCloskey would boost and not Peterson.
boxingchat wrote:What percentage would Hearn get, he's not he kids manager and isn't the Promoter of the show, if he was wouldn't a cheaper purse for McCloskey be in his interests?
He is just ensuring a kid gets what the fight is worth and what the Khan's are offering is derisory for this fight.
Hearns doing right by McCloskey, percentage or not.
How much did Hearn make from the self-managed Audley Harrison's fight on a Hayemaker show in November? After all, not his show, not the kid's manager. I mean, weekend in Manchester, he'd be lucky to get enough for his hotel room, wouldn't he?
boxingchat wrote:What percentage would Hearn get, he's not he kids manager and isn't the Promoter of the show, if he was wouldn't a cheaper purse for McCloskey be in his interests?
He is just ensuring a kid gets what the fight is worth and what the Khan's are offering is derisory for this fight.
Hearns doing right by McCloskey, percentage or not.
How much did Hearn make from the self-managed Audley Harrison's fight on a Hayemaker show in November? After all, not his show, not the kid's manager. I mean, weekend in Manchester, he'd be lucky to get enough for his hotel room, wouldn't he?
And what are the Khans offering?
Apparently Khan's offer insisted on an immediate rematch if he lost with him again taking the lions share, should McCloskey win both fights then Khan would be entitled to the lions share of the purse for his next 2 fights as well - I'm told that has come from McCloskey's cousin, I've heard its Murray he's fighting
boxingchat wrote:What percentage would Hearn get, he's not he kids manager and isn't the Promoter of the show, if he was wouldn't a cheaper purse for McCloskey be in his interests?
He is just ensuring a kid gets what the fight is worth and what the Khan's are offering is derisory for this fight.
Hearns doing right by McCloskey, percentage or not.
How much did Hearn make from the self-managed Audley Harrison's fight on a Hayemaker show in November? After all, not his show, not the kid's manager. I mean, weekend in Manchester, he'd be lucky to get enough for his hotel room, wouldn't he?
And what are the Khans offering?
Apparently Khan's offer insisted on an immediate rematch if he lost with him again taking the lions share, should McCloskey win both fights then Khan would be entitled to the lions share of the purse for his next 2 fights as well - I'm told that has come from McCloskey's cousin, I've heard its Murray he's fighting
gobbles wrote:
How much did Hearn make from the self-managed Audley Harrison's fight on a Hayemaker show in November? After all, not his show, not the kid's manager. I mean, weekend in Manchester, he'd be lucky to get enough for his hotel room, wouldn't he?
And what are the Khans offering?
Apparently Khan's offer insisted on an immediate rematch if he lost with him again taking the lions share, should McCloskey win both fights then Khan would be entitled to the lions share of the purse for his next 2 fights as well - I'm told that has come from McCloskey's cousin, I've heard its Murray he's fighting
if that is the case then thats appalling
How would he get the lion's share of a fight he isn't in? Promoter asks for options on voluntary defence - shock, horror
Lenny wrote:I can't say I blame them. None of us would give McCloskey much of a chance against Khan and I'm sure in their heart of hearts his team feels the same. At this stage in his career it's back to square one should he lose
Gomez is actually spot on. Khan would be running out of options if the McCloskey fight doesn't work out. He may be forced to go and work with Wazza, which wouldn't go down well. It's actually getting to the point where he should just take that £2m and fight Brook, but Brook is unknown I guess.
My opinions on this fight are well documented. I'm delighted that this fight is not happening. This is a blessing in disguise for Paul.
Had he took this fight he would have lost the fight soundly, been stripped of his European Title and lose his unbeaten record. Paul should stick to fighting those 2 Italians and retaining his belt for this year.
gobbles wrote:but when exactly is McCloskey going to get another chance?
Paul will get this world title shot next year. Kahn will unify the division and move up in weight. And Paul is fantastically positioned to be there for title contention.
McCloskey should continue his European title reign (against Di Rocco, then Lauri)... When the 4 titles are up for grabs, there will be Bradley, Alexander and Maidana all goin for their owb titles and that leaves room ofr one whcih Paul should aim for.
Putting Paul in with Kahn was a ludicrous idea, he would have been soundly beat and it could derail his entire career and world ranking.
Last edited by Crease on 29 Jan 2011, 03:13, edited 1 time in total.
Crease wrote:
Paul will get this world title shot next year. Kahn will unify the division and move up in weight. And Paul is fantastically positioned to be there for title contention.
McCloskey should continue his European title reign (against Di Michelle, then Lauri)... When the 4 titles are up for grabs, there will be Bradley, Alexander and Maidana all goin for their owb titles and that leaves room ofr one whcih Paul should aim for.
Putting Paul in with Kahn was a ludicrous idea, he would have been soundly beat and it could derail his entire career and world ranking.
And there's the sort of attitude that has helped ruin boxing. If McCloskey isn't good enough to beat a 'World Champion' now, why should he hold on to a ranking, beat a few guys who are beneath him and then try to beat another 'World Champion'?
Crease wrote:
Paul will get this world title shot next year. Kahn will unify the division and move up in weight. And Paul is fantastically positioned to be there for title contention.
McCloskey should continue his European title reign (against Di Michelle, then Lauri)... When the 4 titles are up for grabs, there will be Bradley, Alexander and Maidana all goin for their owb titles and that leaves room ofr one whcih Paul should aim for.
Putting Paul in with Kahn was a ludicrous idea, he would have been soundly beat and it could derail his entire career and world ranking.
And there's the sort of attitude that has helped ruin boxing. If McCloskey isn't good enough to beat a 'World Champion' now, why should he hold on to a ranking, beat a few guys who are beneath him and then try to beat another 'World Champion'?
states wrote:If McCloskey isn't good enough to beat a 'World Champion' now, why should he hold on to a ranking
Well now, that's a stupid thing to say, nobody in the Heavyweight division can beat the Klitchskos, so should the top contenders all give yp their high ranking?
slapbangwhallop wrote:
Do you think the "exposed" Prescott or the "smaller" Murray would be a "tougher challenge" than McCloskey?
Do you think Lamont Peterson is a "bigger name" than McCloskey or bring more PPV sales?
My mother had a saying, "pennywise, pound stupid". Dependant on who gets brought in to fight Khan this could well be very apt here.
1. I think Prescott has the psychological edge of having sparked Khan in less than 60 seconds, think McCloskey is a bigger challenge than Murray.
2. Peterson would've been a better test and a bigger transatlantic name but PPV's would have probably remained about the same.
I think the psychological edge argument lost a lot of its lustre when when Khan moved up a weight and Mitchell completely outboxed Prescott before going on to get banjod by Katsidas.
Peterson being a bigger test than McCloskey is highly debatable. He looked pretty average against Ortiz. I also don't agree that Peterson is a bigger transatlantic name as very few, even regular SKY Sports viewers wouldn't have heard of him. The Khan fight isn't going to be PPV in the states so the amount of money coming from American TV pales into insignificance when compared to the PPV sales in Ireland and the UK, which undoubtedly McCloskey would boost and not Peterson.
I don't think it's that debatable as Peterson has at least mixed it with fringe world level. Also I don't recall suggesting that it was going to be ppv in the states. As for who's more well known to the average ss viewer, I'd hazard a guess that 99% of them have heard of neither.
I also fail to see how Mitchell beating Prescott somehow takes away the psychological edge. Mitchell didn't get pancaked by him previously, Khan did.
jtourettes wrote:
1. I think Prescott has the psychological edge of having sparked Khan in less than 60 seconds, think McCloskey is a bigger challenge than Murray.
2. Peterson would've been a better test and a bigger transatlantic name but PPV's would have probably remained about the same.
I think the psychological edge argument lost a lot of its lustre when when Khan moved up a weight and Mitchell completely outboxed Prescott before going on to get banjod by Katsidas.
Peterson being a bigger test than McCloskey is highly debatable. He looked pretty average against Ortiz. I also don't agree that Peterson is a bigger transatlantic name as very few, even regular SKY Sports viewers wouldn't have heard of him. The Khan fight isn't going to be PPV in the states so the amount of money coming from American TV pales into insignificance when compared to the PPV sales in Ireland and the UK, which undoubtedly McCloskey would boost and not Peterson.
I don't think it's that debatable as Peterson has at least mixed it with fringe world level. Also I don't recall suggesting that it was going to be ppv in the states. As for who's more well known to the average ss viewer, I'd hazard a guess that 99% of them have heard of neither.
I also fail to see how Mitchell beating Prescott somehow takes away the psychological edge. Mitchell didn't get pancaked by him previously, Khan did.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on all points then. Good luck!
states wrote:
And there's the sort of attitude that has helped ruin boxing. If McCloskey isn't good enough to beat a 'World Champion' now, why should he hold on to a ranking, beat a few guys who are beneath him and then try to beat another 'World Champion'?
Careful mate, you're talking sense there. We won't tolerate that in this thread, thank you.
