Haye over 30,000 tickets sold

[dondada]

Well with all due respect to that particular fan do we want them to be dripping down to the grass roots? Probably not, that particular type of fan will be interested when they have developed and are the finished article and are stepping into big fights. If we want to get people into the small hall environment there needs to be a fundamental shift in how that is promoted, the money in the sport, altering the business model. Is there a time in the history of the sport when large crowds or a significantly amount of people have gone to sports halls to watch six-twos or four-three's?

Probably not. I'm just merely countering the spurious argument that this bout will be good for the sport because it will attract a load of new fans who will then go and watch grass roots boxing.

[DavidPayne]

I don't think it will. This whole event is so far removed from small hall boxing it's untrue - even some kind of trickle-down factor which simply won't happen.

It will 'bring in new fans' who buy into the hype caused by a couple of daft c*nts showing themselves up. They are being attracted by a mirage of utter shitness. These 'new fans' aren't going because of boxing - they're going because of the needle. If they went to a small hall show, they would be sadly disappointed because it's so far removed from this. It's much better value though.

I guess the difference being in what you like in boxing. I have always thought that there are two sides to boxing there is the anticipation and the fight. There are those who enjoy the nuances of two men colliding in battle putting their bodies on the line in fistic exchange. There are those who like the anticipation of a fight the "Who's the biggest in the playground" type of atmosphere.

I think both play their respective parts. Nobody can deny that they didnt enjoy and as many where swept up by the Hatton Mayweather press tour and the anticipation of the fight, of the event. That said I will happily sit and watch small hall undercard fights all night long. To attract big attention and big crowds and that means headlines and everything that goes with it needs there needs to be interest in the fight outside of what happens in the ring. That doesnt necassarily mean trash talk or fights etc etc but events for events sake.

Agreed. But given your logic (which I agree with) those 'new fans' who are attracted to the event aspect won't give a monkey's about seeing six-twos featuring novices in a half-empty sports hall, i.e. grass roots professional boxing.

No, in the same way fans of Avengers wont wont to watch Dustin Hoffman in Death of a Salesman. they still like films.

I've precious little fkking interest in 6x2's to be honest.

We're in danger of disappearing up our own fundiment if thats the benchmark.

[dondada]

I guess the difference being in what you like in boxing. I have always thought that there are two sides to boxing there is the anticipation and the fight. There are those who enjoy the nuances of two men colliding in battle putting their bodies on the line in fistic exchange. There are those who like the anticipation of a fight the "Who's the biggest in the playground" type of atmosphere.

I think both play their respective parts. Nobody can deny that they didnt enjoy and as many where swept up by the Hatton Mayweather press tour and the anticipation of the fight, of the event. That said I will happily sit and watch small hall undercard fights all night long. To attract big attention and big crowds and that means headlines and everything that goes with it needs there needs to be interest in the fight outside of what happens in the ring. That doesnt necassarily mean trash talk or fights etc etc but events for events sake.

Agreed. But given your logic (which I agree with) those 'new fans' who are attracted to the event aspect won't give a monkey's about seeing six-twos featuring novices in a half-empty sports hall, i.e. grass roots professional boxing.

No, in the same way fans of Avengers wont wont to watch Dustin Hoffman in Death of a Salesman. they still like films.

I've precious little fkking interest in 6x2's to be honest.

We're in danger of disappearing up our own fundiment if thats the benchmark.

I didn't say it was the benchmark. Some chap said this event was good for boxing because it would introduce new fans who would support grass roots boxing. I disagree.

That is all.

[DavidPayne]

Did the 27,000 or whatever it was at Loftus Road in 85 subsequently go to small hall shows before or after or were they attracted by the big event.

Were 25,000 for Hatton v Danish Pastry keen followers of the 6x2's?

Benn and Eubank sold on needle and their attributes.

What did Bruno v Bugner sell on?

Did Hagler v Minter in the good old days just attract personable, informed boxing fans who also came to see the 4 x 3's at twenty past six?

Anyway, I'm bored of listening to myself, so I'll save you all and remove myself for a while.

At every fight I've ever been too at least 50% of the crowd dont turn up til the chief support bout.

[dondada]

Did the 27,000 or whatever it was at Loftus Road in 85 subsequently go to small hall shows before or after or were they attracted by the big event.

Were 25,000 for Hatton v Danish Pastry keen followers of the 6x2's?

Benn and Eubank sold on needle and their attributes.

What did Bruno v Bugner sell on?

Did Hagler v Minter in the good old days just attract personable, informed boxing fans who also came to see the 4 x 3's at twenty past six?

Anyway, I'm bored of listening to myself, so I'll save you all and remove myself for a while.

At every fight I've ever been too at least 50% of the crowd dont turn up til the chief support bout.

Yes, you're supporting my argument. A worrying state of affairs.

[Finn]

Agreed. But given your logic (which I agree with) those 'new fans' who are attracted to the event aspect won't give a monkey's about seeing six-twos featuring novices in a half-empty sports hall, i.e. grass roots professional boxing.

No, in the same way fans of Avengers wont wont to watch Dustin Hoffman in Death of a Salesman. they still like films.

I've precious little fkking interest in 6x2's to be honest.

We're in danger of disappearing up our own fundiment if thats the benchmark.

I didn't say it was the benchmark. Some chap said this event was good for boxing because it would introduce new fans who would support grass roots boxing. I disagree.

That is all.

I think its more that some of you guys have limited vision, the bigger the interest in the sport the greater the chance of kids deciding to take up boxing, the more kids taking up boxing the bigger the pool of talent, the bigger the pool of talent the better the shows, the better the shows the more people that go to watch them.

I became a boxing fan through Benn and Eubank i pay a lot of money into the sport and go and watch events including small hall ones. People will become fans from haye v chisora and do the same, the sport doesnt need all of the people who watch the event to become hardcore fans, it needs a tiny fraction of people to become hardcore fans.

Some people who claim to be boxing fans havent even been to live events and watch all the boxing for free on streams, they're fans that boxing doesnt need. How does someone watching a pirated stream all the time help keep the sport alive or put money back into the sport. Its like having a favourite band never going to see them live, pirating their album and then being suprised when they give up the music business and go back to their day jobs.

People saying stupid stuff like "im going to watch the fight for free because i wont pay to see this out of principle" but then labeling people who are going to the fight chavs and not true boxing fans. Its a joke.

[Deserter]

I think its more that some of you guys have limited vision, the bigger the interest in the sport the greater the chance of kids deciding to take up boxing, the more kids taking up boxing the bigger the pool of talent, the bigger the pool of talent the better the shows, the better the shows the more people that go to watch them.

Sorry, but this is far too simplistic. If that's the case, how do you account for the fact that despite the halcyon days of Benn, Eubank etc, participation at a grass-roots level has witnessed a steady decline?
Better shows are also not solely dependent on a better pool of talent (if only!). There are a host of variables that impact, ranging from all-important TV deals through to the ability of the promoters to invest in their product effectively.

[Dan Dares]

No, in the same way fans of Avengers wont wont to watch Dustin Hoffman in Death of a Salesman. they still like films.

I've precious little fkking interest in 6x2's to be honest.

We're in danger of disappearing up our own fundiment if thats the benchmark.

I didn't say it was the benchmark. Some chap said this event was good for boxing because it would introduce new fans who would support grass roots boxing. I disagree.

That is all.

I think its more that some of you guys have limited vision, the bigger the interest in the sport the greater the chance of kids deciding to take up boxing, the more kids taking up boxing the bigger the pool of talent, the bigger the pool of talent the better the shows, the better the shows the more people that go to watch them.

I became a boxing fan through Benn and Eubank i pay a lot of money into the sport and go and watch events including small hall ones. People will become fans from haye v chisora and do the same, the sport doesnt need all of the people who watch the event to become hardcore fans, it needs a tiny fraction of people to become hardcore fans.

Some people who claim to be boxing fans havent even been to live events and watch all the boxing for free on streams, they're fans that boxing doesnt need. How does someone watching a pirated stream all the time help keep the sport alive or put money back into the sport. Its like having a favourite band never going to see them live, pirating their album and then being suprised when they give up the music business and go back to their day jobs.

People saying stupid stuff like "im going to watch the fight for free because i wont pay to see this out of principle" but then labeling people who are going to the fight chavs and not true boxing fans. Its a joke.

I appreciate some of what you're trying to say, but it's a simplistic view and it doesn't hold much water.

Some fans shell out huge amounts of cash to follow it, some can't. In my eyes, it doesn't make them any more or less of a fan, just a different kind of fan.

How did you see first see Benn and Eubank? On the (terrestrial) telly, which we don't get much of anymore. As a boxing fan, would you deny a person the chance to see a fight because they genuinely couldn't afford it? Or would you rather they watch it, and become part of the interest group? As you say, the bigger the interest in the sport the greater the chance of kids deciding to take up boxing, the talent pool, etc.

No-one is saying 'people that go to this fight are chavs and are not true boxing fans'. What some, including myself, are predicting is that there will be a high percentage of 'chavs' at the fight, coked and pissed up, in rucking mode. Pound to a pinch of shit if the fight does happen, there's crowd violence.

[gobbles]

Does anyone really think this will even be a good fight? Haye will just bash the shit out of Chisora - he's so slow

[jessi]

Does anyone really think this will even be a good fight? Haye will just bash the shit out of Chisora - he's so slow

I think it will be a good scrap ! The faster smarter man will win and that's haye IMO, but it won't be easy !

[Cyclops]

I didn't say it was the benchmark. Some chap said this event was good for boxing because it would introduce new fans who would support grass roots boxing. I disagree.

That is all.

I think its more that some of you guys have limited vision, the bigger the interest in the sport the greater the chance of kids deciding to take up boxing, the more kids taking up boxing the bigger the pool of talent, the bigger the pool of talent the better the shows, the better the shows the more people that go to watch them.

I became a boxing fan through Benn and Eubank i pay a lot of money into the sport and go and watch events including small hall ones. People will become fans from haye v chisora and do the same, the sport doesnt need all of the people who watch the event to become hardcore fans, it needs a tiny fraction of people to become hardcore fans.

Some people who claim to be boxing fans havent even been to live events and watch all the boxing for free on streams, they're fans that boxing doesnt need. How does someone watching a pirated stream all the time help keep the sport alive or put money back into the sport. Its like having a favourite band never going to see them live, pirating their album and then being suprised when they give up the music business and go back to their day jobs.

People saying stupid stuff like "im going to watch the fight for free because i wont pay to see this out of principle" but then labeling people who are going to the fight chavs and not true boxing fans. Its a joke.

I appreciate some of what you're trying to say, but it's a simplistic view and it doesn't hold much water.

Some fans shell out huge amounts of cash to follow it, some can't. In my eyes, it doesn't make them any more or less of a fan, just a different kind of fan.

How did you see first see Benn and Eubank? On the (terrestrial) telly, which we don't get much of anymore. As a boxing fan, would you deny a person the chance to see a fight because they genuinely couldn't afford it? Or would you rather they watch it, and become part of the interest group? As you say, the bigger the interest in the sport the greater the chance of kids deciding to take up boxing, the talent pool, etc.

No-one is saying 'people that go to this fight are chavs and are not true boxing fans'. What some, including myself, are predicting is that there will be a high percentage of 'chavs' at the fight, coked and pissed up, in rucking mode. Pound to a pinch of shit if the fight does happen, there's crowd violence.

There's always crowd violence at big boxing shows you idiot.

It just shows you never go.

[Finn]

I think its more that some of you guys have limited vision, the bigger the interest in the sport the greater the chance of kids deciding to take up boxing, the more kids taking up boxing the bigger the pool of talent, the bigger the pool of talent the better the shows, the better the shows the more people that go to watch them.

Sorry, but this is far too simplistic. If that's the case, how do you account for the fact that despite the halcyon days of Benn, Eubank etc, participation at a grass-roots level has witnessed a steady decline?
Better shows are also not solely dependent on a better pool of talent (if only!). There are a host of variables that impact, ranging from all-important TV deals through to the ability of the promoters to invest in their product effectively.

Its not simplistic at all its common sense and the model all other popular sports are based on.

[Adamj1987]

i do watch some of these streams for free but its because i cant afford the normal subscription price let alone extra for PPV's or a dedicated boxing channel but have paid for some streams, but i do go to live events, it will be 3 so far this year unless something comes up at the end of this year.

for what its worth i think the intrest in the sport relates to how many people get involved but there is so much coverage in football that its hard for kids to see much about boxing unless they really look

[Finn]

I didn't say it was the benchmark. Some chap said this event was good for boxing because it would introduce new fans who would support grass roots boxing. I disagree.

That is all.

I think its more that some of you guys have limited vision, the bigger the interest in the sport the greater the chance of kids deciding to take up boxing, the more kids taking up boxing the bigger the pool of talent, the bigger the pool of talent the better the shows, the better the shows the more people that go to watch them.

I became a boxing fan through Benn and Eubank i pay a lot of money into the sport and go and watch events including small hall ones. People will become fans from haye v chisora and do the same, the sport doesnt need all of the people who watch the event to become hardcore fans, it needs a tiny fraction of people to become hardcore fans.

Some people who claim to be boxing fans havent even been to live events and watch all the boxing for free on streams, they're fans that boxing doesnt need. How does someone watching a pirated stream all the time help keep the sport alive or put money back into the sport. Its like having a favourite band never going to see them live, pirating their album and then being suprised when they give up the music business and go back to their day jobs.

People saying stupid stuff like "im going to watch the fight for free because i wont pay to see this out of principle" but then labeling people who are going to the fight chavs and not true boxing fans. Its a joke.

I appreciate some of what you're trying to say, but it's a simplistic view and it doesn't hold much water.

Some fans shell out huge amounts of cash to follow it, some can't. In my eyes, it doesn't make them any more or less of a fan, just a different kind of fan.

How did you see first see Benn and Eubank? On the (terrestrial) telly, which we don't get much of anymore. As a boxing fan, would you deny a person the chance to see a fight because they genuinely couldn't afford it? Or would you rather they watch it, and become part of the interest group? As you say, the bigger the interest in the sport the greater the chance of kids deciding to take up boxing, the talent pool, etc.

No-one is saying 'people that go to this fight are chavs and are not true boxing fans'. What some, including myself, are predicting is that there will be a high percentage of 'chavs' at the fight, coked and pissed up, in rucking mode. Pound to a pinch of shit if the fight does happen, there's crowd violence.

Maybe you should read through the posts on the forum more.

People who dont support something they claim to be fans of arent fans - they are called free loaders. I've got no issue with people who cant afford a sky sports subscription, ppvs, £10 a month for allegedly, and to go to live events all in one go, but people who claim they cant afford to do any are just people who want the luxury of enjoying something at others expense.

[Deserter]

I think its more that some of you guys have limited vision, the bigger the interest in the sport the greater the chance of kids deciding to take up boxing, the more kids taking up boxing the bigger the pool of talent, the bigger the pool of talent the better the shows, the better the shows the more people that go to watch them.

Sorry, but this is far too simplistic. If that's the case, how do you account for the fact that despite the halcyon days of Benn, Eubank etc, participation at a grass-roots level has witnessed a steady decline?
Better shows are also not solely dependent on a better pool of talent (if only!). There are a host of variables that impact, ranging from all-important TV deals through to the ability of the promoters to invest in their product effectively.

Its not simplistic at all its common sense and the model all other popular sports are based on.

If it's common sense how have you managed to completely avoid addressing the two proof points I raised?
And if you believe that it's just about the pool of talent and not about marketing effectively you're incredibly naive.

[Finn]

Sorry, but this is far too simplistic. If that's the case, how do you account for the fact that despite the halcyon days of Benn, Eubank etc, participation at a grass-roots level has witnessed a steady decline?
Better shows are also not solely dependent on a better pool of talent (if only!). There are a host of variables that impact, ranging from all-important TV deals through to the ability of the promoters to invest in their product effectively.

Its not simplistic at all its common sense and the model all other popular sports are based on.

If it's common sense how have you managed to completely avoid addressing the two proof points I raised?
And if you believe that it's just about the pool of talent and not about marketing effectively you're incredibly naive.

You didnt raise any proof points, they are only proof points in your head. At no point did i say it is only down to the pool of talent but theres a famous saying "you cant polish a turd".

[Dan Dares]

I think its more that some of you guys have limited vision, the bigger the interest in the sport the greater the chance of kids deciding to take up boxing, the more kids taking up boxing the bigger the pool of talent, the bigger the pool of talent the better the shows, the better the shows the more people that go to watch them.

I became a boxing fan through Benn and Eubank i pay a lot of money into the sport and go and watch events including small hall ones. People will become fans from haye v chisora and do the same, the sport doesnt need all of the people who watch the event to become hardcore fans, it needs a tiny fraction of people to become hardcore fans.

Some people who claim to be boxing fans havent even been to live events and watch all the boxing for free on streams, they're fans that boxing doesnt need. How does someone watching a pirated stream all the time help keep the sport alive or put money back into the sport. Its like having a favourite band never going to see them live, pirating their album and then being suprised when they give up the music business and go back to their day jobs.

People saying stupid stuff like "im going to watch the fight for free because i wont pay to see this out of principle" but then labeling people who are going to the fight chavs and not true boxing fans. Its a joke.

I appreciate some of what you're trying to say, but it's a simplistic view and it doesn't hold much water.

Some fans shell out huge amounts of cash to follow it, some can't. In my eyes, it doesn't make them any more or less of a fan, just a different kind of fan.

How did you see first see Benn and Eubank? On the (terrestrial) telly, which we don't get much of anymore. As a boxing fan, would you deny a person the chance to see a fight because they genuinely couldn't afford it? Or would you rather they watch it, and become part of the interest group? As you say, the bigger the interest in the sport the greater the chance of kids deciding to take up boxing, the talent pool, etc.

No-one is saying 'people that go to this fight are chavs and are not true boxing fans'. What some, including myself, are predicting is that there will be a high percentage of 'chavs' at the fight, coked and pissed up, in rucking mode. Pound to a pinch of shit if the fight does happen, there's crowd violence.

There's always crowd violence at big boxing shows you idiot.

It just shows you never go.

I go to plenty of boxing shows, thanks. Twat.

[Deserter]

Its not simplistic at all its common sense and the model all other popular sports are based on.

If it's common sense how have you managed to completely avoid addressing the two proof points I raised?
And if you believe that it's just about the pool of talent and not about marketing effectively you're incredibly naive.

You didnt raise any proof points, they are only proof points in your head. At no point did i say it is only down to the pool of talent but theres a famous saying "you cant polish a turd".

Dear oh dear... let's go back to your original statement shall we. "The bigger the pool of talent the better the shows". This assumption is not only too simplistic, it's also assuming a cause and effect that is by no means proven. Better shows are determined by a host of variables in any sport, of which talent is one part.. and talent alone is rarely enough in today's world - it's about the level of investment, it's about the marketing etc. If you're saying that's only a proof point in my head you clearly know nothing about professional sport as a business.

[Cyclops]

I appreciate some of what you're trying to say, but it's a simplistic view and it doesn't hold much water.

Some fans shell out huge amounts of cash to follow it, some can't. In my eyes, it doesn't make them any more or less of a fan, just a different kind of fan.

How did you see first see Benn and Eubank? On the (terrestrial) telly, which we don't get much of anymore. As a boxing fan, would you deny a person the chance to see a fight because they genuinely couldn't afford it? Or would you rather they watch it, and become part of the interest group? As you say, the bigger the interest in the sport the greater the chance of kids deciding to take up boxing, the talent pool, etc.

No-one is saying 'people that go to this fight are chavs and are not true boxing fans'. What some, including myself, are predicting is that there will be a high percentage of 'chavs' at the fight, coked and pissed up, in rucking mode. Pound to a pinch of shit if the fight does happen, there's crowd violence.

There's always crowd violence at big boxing shows you idiot.

It just shows you never go.

I go to plenty of boxing shows, thanks. Twat.

Whatever, old man. Your mum.

[dondada]

If it's common sense how have you managed to completely avoid addressing the two proof points I raised?
And if you believe that it's just about the pool of talent and not about marketing effectively you're incredibly naive.

You didnt raise any proof points, they are only proof points in your head. At no point did i say it is only down to the pool of talent but theres a famous saying "you cant polish a turd".

Dear oh dear... let's go back to your original statement shall we. "The bigger the pool of talent the better the shows". This assumption is not only too simplistic, it's also assuming a cause and effect that is by no means proven. Better shows are determined by a host of variables in any sport, of which talent is one part.. and talent alone is rarely enough in today's world - it's about the level of investment, it's about the marketing etc. If you're saying that's only a proof point in my head you clearly know nothing about professional sport as a business.

Not only that, he can't conduct a simple back and forth of opinions.

I strongly suspect you are wasting your time in this case.

[Deserter]

Not only that, he can't conduct a simple back and forth of opinions.

I strongly suspect you are wasting your time in this case.

Agreed.

[veriton]

kingfinn seems to be making a good point though.

why did everyone on here get interested in boxing? watching ali, benn, tyson etc etc

they were people to look up to and some fans translated that into going to the gym and becoming boxers. nobody thought - boxing looks like a well organised sport with plenty of good promotions, i wouldnt mind a bit of that.

plenty of kids will know about haye v chisora, so it is bound to have a knock on effect

[Finn]

If it's common sense how have you managed to completely avoid addressing the two proof points I raised?
And if you believe that it's just about the pool of talent and not about marketing effectively you're incredibly naive.

You didnt raise any proof points, they are only proof points in your head. At no point did i say it is only down to the pool of talent but theres a famous saying "you cant polish a turd".

Dear oh dear... let's go back to your original statement shall we. "The bigger the pool of talent the better the shows". This assumption is not only too simplistic, it's also assuming a cause and effect that is by no means proven. Better shows are determined by a host of variables in any sport, of which talent is one part.. and talent alone is rarely enough in today's world - it's about the level of investment, it's about the marketing etc. If you're saying that's only a proof point in my head you clearly know nothing about professional sport as a business.

i dont really want to go down the route of debating with someone who clearly doesnt know what they are talking about, im not even sure what point you are trying to make. You come across as someone pretending to be intelligent rather than someone who actually is.

It sounds like your argument is - better talent wont result better shows and that a hightened interest in the sport and larger fan base wont filter down to the lower levels. If that is your conclusion i'd advise you to do some research into business and marketing. The oldest marketing model which has been revised is the Marketing Funnel http://newsroom.cisco.com/feature-conte ... webcontent this one is for social media by the looks of it but if you are clever enough (big if) you can amend it to sports business.

Probably would be an idea not to debate with someone who actually has academic qualifications in business and knows how a product based business works, its like me trying to argue with a mechanic about the best way to fix a car.

The first part of selling any product is the product itself (in principle the better the product the easier it is to sell) providing there is a market for that product. Boxing is already established so the problem we have is that the previously established market has shrunk there are two ways to remedy this (not the only two ways, before you add ONLY to whatever i write):
1. Increase the quality of the product to be sold ie better talent - yes you can market a small hall event without the talent but you wont get a repeat customer.
2. Jump start the market with a surge of new customers ie a marketing campaign OR a massive high profile all UK fight and the media circus that comes with it.

[Deserter]

i dont really want to go down the route of debating with someone who clearly doesnt know what they are talking about, im not even sure what point you are trying to make. You come across as someone pretending to be intelligent rather than someone who actually is.

It sounds like your argument is - better talent wont result better shows and that a hightened interest in the sport and larger fan base wont filter down to the lower levels. If that is your conclusion i'd advise you to do some research into business and marketing. The oldest marketing model which has been revised is the Marketing Funnel http://newsroom.cisco.com/feature-conte ... webcontent this one is for social media by the looks of it but if you are clever enough (big if) you can amend it to sports business.

Probably would be an idea not to debate with someone who actually has academic qualifications in business and knows how a product based business works, its like me trying to argue with a mechanic about the best way to fix a car.

The first part of selling any product is the product itself (in principle the better the product the easier it is to sell) providing there is a market for that product. Boxing is already established so the problem we have is that the previously established market has shrunk there are two ways to remedy this (not the only two ways, before you add ONLY to whatever i write):
1. Increase the quality of the product to be sold ie better talent - yes you can market a small hall event without the talent but you wont get a repeat customer.
2. Jump start the market with a surge of new customers ie a marketing campaign OR a massive high profile all UK fight and the media circus that comes with it.

Congratulations on being both patronising and stupid enough to completely miss my point. And I'll give you a pat on the back for your academic qualifications but given I actually run a business and liaise with marketers on a daily basis, not to mention the fact that one of my closest friends runs his own sporks marketing business (so it's a space I'm very familiar with) you'll have to excuse me for laughing at your mechanic analogy and the inference that I'm somehow out of my depth on this one.
Now I'll indulge you by breaking it down for you in the vain hope you'll grasp what I'm saying. NOWHERE have I said talent isn't a part of the equation. What I took issue with is the simplistic notion that you yourself stated that talent automatically equals better shows. As I clearly stated (to those who can grasp these things), there are other critical variables that impact on this such as marketing. The irony is that in point 2 you seem to be finally acknowledging the point I was making in the first place!
If you want to talk tangible examples, look at the UFC - you think the success of that promotion has been based purely on talent? Or do you actually acknowledge that effective marketing and promotion has been the key to its success relative to other promotions. As per my original point, talent has played a part, but the UFC has been driven by its marketing - allowing it to overcome the fact that significant talent such as Fedor, didn't operate within its promotion.
Let's bring it back to boxing, to make it as relevant as possible. How do you think a show full of fighters such as Ajose Olusejun would do? All the talent's there as per your claim, but they can't shift tickets and they aren't interesting to either the media or the casual fan (and let's not forget that outside the hardcore, very few fans can actually determine levels of talent - most of those attending Haye-Chisora won't be able to comment with authority on nuances of footwork, distancing, parrying etc).
Let me say one final time in a bid to get my point across - talent/product is undoubtedly an important part, as I've clearly stated earlier. However, to say, as you clearly did earlier, that is all that is needed for better shows, is to ignore other key elements. Hence it is too simplistic an equation. End of.

[Deserter]

kingfinn seems to be making a good point though.

why did everyone on here get interested in boxing? watching ali, benn, tyson etc etc

they were people to look up to and some fans translated that into going to the gym and becoming boxers. nobody thought - boxing looks like a well organised sport with plenty of good promotions, i wouldnt mind a bit of that.

plenty of kids will know about haye v chisora, so it is bound to have a knock on effect

The point I and others are making is simply that his original premise was too simplistic and ignored other variables. I'll try and give you one example to bring it home - look at the golden era of British middle distance running in the 80s... Coe, Ovett, Cram etc. Loads of kids, including me, watched those amazing rivalries avidly. In the simplistic equation, that should equal an amazing new generation of runners emerging in the 90s who'd been inspired by those guys. The reality? British middle distance running talent has been simply noticeable by its utter absence ever since. Now again, there are a whole range of factors at play that have led to this, but my point is simply that if 'A' happens, you can't automatically assume this will lead to 'B'.