Warren hits back

mikey h · Post by **mikey h** » 24 Aug 2005, 08:22

Good reply by FW, maybe i'm completly wrong here but he must think that there is a serious chance of RH leaving him. If he thought that Ricky would definatly re-sign with him them i don't think he would have replied to Ian's quality open letter.

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 24 Aug 2005, 08:28

The BBC did ok showing Woods win the IBF title and showing Hopkins and Eastman .

numpty · Post by **numpty** » 24 Aug 2005, 08:30

You can tell Frank has made hundreds of them calls before! I actually admire him about the way he goes about his business (although I tend not to agree with all of it!) He must be quite a tough person to have a telcon with, very overpowering with his own strong opinions.

It does get my back up listening to what he said about the Kessler and Ottke's of this world! I'd like to know if the offers FW gave to them involved them coming over here to fight Joe though instead of JC going over there.

Very interesting but I did expect an answer along them lines from Frank.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 24 Aug 2005, 08:36

Of course, he's going to know what the counter arguements are, but they are pretty compelling.

Of course, nonbody here is going to swallow 'the gospel according to allegedly' hook line and sinker, but there are two sides to every story, and it's only fair and even-handed to give the guy his chance to put his side of the conversation.

Personally I think that provided that Hatton can get the contract signed in terms which satisfy his demands for fighting abroad and for the figures he knows he can command, that there is no reason he will go elsewhere, but it just depends whether or not Warren can or will accede to those demands.

The bottom line is though, that it's better for Warren to have Hatton on board on terms which may be slightly disagreeable, than not to have him on board at all.

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 24 Aug 2005, 08:49

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Kilburn wrote:Good response from Warren, as expected.

The bloke does the best with the fighters he's got. Okay there's a valid suggestion Hatton has outgrown him but I don't believe we'll get one iffy fight after another if he resigns.

I also don't believe Amir Khan will be going anywhere near a WBU title.
I doubt that Hatton will resign unless the contract is laid out in such a way that he is guaranteed the fights he wants.

Possibly, but as we see all the time you can't physically force 2 boxers to fight eachother. Guarantees are never guarantees in boxing, not when it comes to the actual fights.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 24 Aug 2005, 09:00

No but if offers came from the states for fights, and they were turned down out of hand, then surely there would be an arguement for 'restriction of trade.' Pure conjecture on my part of course, not being a legal eagle.

Bard of Boxrec · Post by **Bard of Boxrec** » 24 Aug 2005, 09:04

hatton will get his chances, he's the 140 lb champ. All frank has to do is prove us wrong by sending him over there, to vegas or wherever, to fight the best. Hopefully he'll be pressured into complying.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 24 Aug 2005, 09:09

For all the sense FW may make in his reply, let's not forget all the abysmal WBU and WBO "defences" he's palmed off on the British viewers as "world title fights" for all these years.

Some real horror shows there.

I saw some US writers critising a recent Don King show - as it only had one or two world title fights on the undercard.

What the hell would they have made of the almost non existant Hatton/Tszyu undercard?!

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 24 Aug 2005, 09:13

I've always said that for all his criticisms, more often that not Don King puts on a quality card.

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 24 Aug 2005, 09:18

The only downside is that many of Don King's undercard world title fights don't make it onto tv.

Great, great cards if you're in attendance.

BubiScholz · Post by **BubiScholz** » 24 Aug 2005, 09:51

Chapeau, Mr. Warren

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 24 Aug 2005, 13:35

Good response. I hope BBN and Sports Network contibue their good terms. It was an interesting double feature and more of that should be encouraged instead of going to the courts.

JimStone · Post by **JimStone** » 24 Aug 2005, 19:15

Call me a skeptic, but I think Frank and Ian set this little 'feud' up.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 25 Aug 2005, 05:20

I know for a fact they didn't. I can assure you also that Warren doesn't work like that.

J · Post by J » 25 Aug 2005, 05:40

FlawedGenius wrote:Call me a skeptic, but I think Frank and Ian set this little 'feud' up.

jeez now ive heard it all.

Gary_V · Post by **Gary_V** » 25 Aug 2005, 06:15

I think that both pieces make interesting reading.

I was pleased that allegedly was ready to offer up his side of things.

A lot of what FW says is debatable but always welcome to hear from the promo side of the fence.

Nice one Ian on getting up the 2 pieces!

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 26 Aug 2005, 05:44

Having thought about this I cant see Hatton renewing with Warren, it would have been done by now.

Excactly what kind of contract is Warren referring to? Is it a promotional contract for a set period or for a single fight? Does it specify which fight and when? Is it a contract between SN and Hatton or just a BBBOC contract?

These are all questions which need answers.

Thing is, I cant see Hatton going abroad either.

Hmmm........................

Bard of Boxrec · Post by **Bard of Boxrec** » 26 Aug 2005, 05:50

hennessey?

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 26 Aug 2005, 05:56

Riddick Blowe wrote:hennessey?

No, I prefer Covousier

Bard of Boxrec · Post by **Bard of Boxrec** » 26 Aug 2005, 06:00

gotta be remy martin

seriously though, cognac feels like someone is pumping pressurized CO2 into your sinuses.

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 26 Aug 2005, 06:13

Yes good reply by Warren, and he makes a very good point in that the public gets what the public wants….

“First of all, do you think the man in the street says to his mate ‘Did you see that IBF fight last night?' Course he doesn't. He simply asks if he saw THE fight.”

This is completely true in my opinion, for around 90% of the public. How many lagered up chav boys at the MEN know who “Miguel Cotto” is, or when watching Calzaghe in Cardiff know who “Jeff Lacy” is? Bloody few I bet. Warren has a point in that it is only in general the kind of people that frequent these forums that actually develop such a insight and passion for the sport as to call into question their opposition.

A guy here at work went to see Calzaghe vs Brewer in Cardiff a while ago, and came back full of tales about how great a fight it was, how the atmosphere is great, how Calzaghe dealt with this top(?) American middleweight to retain his title. The point is… he didn’t know any better, and probably doesn’t wish to. He had a good night.

When millions tuned in to watch Benn vs Eubank, what percentage of the TV audience do you think actually knew what titles they held and so on? It’s beyond the interest of nearly all of them. It was “that dark destroyer Benn, the mean hard bastard, against that knob with a lisp and monocle… Eubank”………

So as I say, you have to give Warren credit for giving the public what they want. 5 pints of stella, 2 pies, and watching their local hero in a bit of a tear up, against “some yank”, whom he ultimately knocks out… good job…

It’s just something to get over if you so happen to be a boxing purist. It won’t change. You cater for the majority not the minority.

Bard of Boxrec · Post by **Bard of Boxrec** » 26 Aug 2005, 06:31

good post. There are probably more boxing purists at american fights so the demand for better fights is higher there.

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 26 Aug 2005, 06:44

Riddick Blowe wrote:good post. There are probably more boxing purists at american fights so the demand for better fights is higher there.

Maybe so but the way many of the Yanks are so quick to boo at fights suggests they're not there because they understand boxing, but because they want to watch 2 blokes smack eachother in the face and fornicate eachother up. You get a damn sight more respect over here.

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 26 Aug 2005, 06:49

Kilburn wrote:
Riddick Blowe wrote:good post. There are probably more boxing purists at american fights so the demand for better fights is higher there.
Maybe so but the way many of the Yanks are so quick to boo at fights suggests they're not there because they understand boxing, but because they want to watch 2 blokes smack eachother in the face and fornicate eachother up. You get a damn sight more respect over here.

Right, you get these Yanks booing after 30 seconds of feelling out.

Most of em have no idea.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 26 Aug 2005, 07:04

Would you believe that the crowd were booing at one point during Marquez v Pacquaio at one point?