Is Eddie Hearn any better than allegedly?

[mickey1975]

You know what i meant. Its a lot eaasier to drop FTM, Ricky etc than someone whose Dad provides a very profitable Sport/s for them. He is in a far more powerful position than any other Promoter. He even bragged on Youtube his company was so big they dont even need to make money tfrom our sport.

[ashedward]

Hearn having the other sports that rate very well for sure meant he was in a much better position the the other promoters,however if he delivers poor fights and viewing figures thay would drop him.

[palooka]

There are too many Prizefighters on and not enough good quality shows. If it weren't for allegedly boxing fans in Britain would be screwed.

[robpalmer135]

The article misses a big point imo,that Sky have had a change of thinking regarding boxing,they have already ditched two promoters and Hearn will be next if he does not deliver the quality fights and viewing figures Sky want so that will be the motivation to make the best fights possible and make shows like the London one a blip.
If Hearn fails that would be the end of boxing on Sky for the forseeable, so i hope as hell that he gets it right

Your missing the point. Hearn runs the Darts etc and does what he wants. Boxing is just his passion.

Sky pays Hearn, Mickey, not the other way round.

Boxing could have been f**ked off completely by Sky, so it might very well have been Matchroom's good relationship with them which persuaded them to keep going.

Dog racing and speedway used to be on regularly. Now they aren't at all (I don't think). Boxing could have been in their position.

So for all the complaints about the 'monopoly' (which I understand) - if the choice was Sky showing Matchroom only (on the premise that Sky trusts them and believes they can deliver, unlike their experience of other promoters in recent years perhaps) or getting rid altogether...what would people choose?

Unbelievable to me that people don't recognise this mate. There is this myth that Hearn just throws his daddys money at fighters, and only got the Sky deal because of the darts. He got the Sky deal because Warren left, Hatton and Maloney couldn't put on a show at a venue that held more than 4,000 people and there shows were crap, and as companies they kept losing money, while at the same time Hearn made Brook vs Hatton and Froch vs Bute.

Is one dominant promoter good for british boxing? NO
Are Hearn and Sky delivering on what they promised? NO

But that doesn't mean that Sky and other channels can artificially back promoters by giving them dates for bad shows, which get bad viewing figures, poor ticket sales and the promoter still loses money.

I wan't Hearn to have competition but I don't want that competition to be Warren, Hennesey or Maloney. They have been given the opportunity and they haven't delivered.

Re. the OP question on who is better. Based on the last 3 years when Hearn entered the game, if you look at the position Hearn/Matchroom was in compared to Warren, Warren was in a much stronger place. He had a bigger Sky contract, was doing PPV shows, had the biggest and strongest stable of boxers in the UK, whereas Matchroom were effectively a TV broker with two fighters signed up, Paul McCloskey & Chris Evangelou.

It was Frank's choice to try and lump all his fighters together in PPV's. It was Frank's choice to do a British title fight as a PPV. It was Frank's choice to leave Sky and setup allegedly. Frank could have kept Kell Brook. He could have signed Carl Froch, Darren Barker and Carl Frampton but he didn't.

My view on Warren is that he is out of touch now and behind the times. If you go to one of his shows, its like something out of the 90's. The music thats played, the pyros, the announcing everything about it. This is a guy who himself says "I am old school, I don't need twitter".....which just happens to be the single greatest marketing tool of this decade, even the Pope and Obama have twitter accounts!!!!

Frank is a guy that always has an excuse when something goes wrong, there is always somebody else to blame and in business you cannot work that way. You have to look at yourself and say this is what I done wrong, this is why the other side are having so much success .

The biggest difference between Hearn and Warren, and this is the reason why he is now 1st choice for all fighters, is because Hearn works for the promoter, on the other side the fighter works for Frank.

[robpalmer135]

In response to Kevin Robertsons article;


I don't think anybody is calling for the demise of all other promoters and TV deals to give Hearn a "monopoly". They just don't want to see the promoters that have failed in the past given another go. Personally I think the sport would be better off without Frank, Hennesey and Maloney. I want to see conpetition for Hearn but I would like to see the new breed like Coldwell, Fearon & Woods given a shot. If Hearn ends up putting on crappu shows and mismatches once he has been established, I would want him out of the sport aswell.

Tony Bellew has improved as a fighter. Thats why the Miranda & Bolonti matches were one sided. Those fighters would beat McEznzie and Ajisafe and the Bellew that stuggled in those fights would have lost Bolonti and Miranda.

Same as Bellew, Brook needed to be built up towards a world title challenge. Theres nothing marinable about Brook's level of opponent being better, they have been 100x better opponents. Add to the fact that those fights, which were eliminators and for minor alphabet belts, have lead to genuine 50-50 fights which could propell both men into world class.

Not sure where the Ringside has become advertising for Matchroom has come from. They cover cards from around the country and promote all fights. In 2013 there have only been 3 major promotions and 2 of them were Marchroom. I think Ringside do more to cover Frank than allegedly do to cover Matchroom.

[lefty]

Sky pays Hearn, Mickey, not the other way round.

Boxing could have been f**ked off completely by Sky, so it might very well have been Matchroom's good relationship with them which persuaded them to keep going.

Dog racing and speedway used to be on regularly. Now they aren't at all (I don't think). Boxing could have been in their position.

So for all the complaints about the 'monopoly' (which I understand) - if the choice was Sky showing Matchroom only (on the premise that Sky trusts them and believes they can deliver, unlike their experience of other promoters in recent years perhaps) or getting rid altogether...what would people choose?[/quote]

Unbelievable to me that people don't recognise this mate. There is this myth that Hearn just throws his daddys money at fighters, and only got the Sky deal because of the darts. He got the Sky deal because Warren left, Hatton and Maloney couldn't put on a show at a venue that held more than 4,000 people and there shows were crap, and as companies they kept losing money, while at the same time Hearn made Brook vs Hatton and Froch vs Bute.

Is one dominant promoter good for british boxing? NO
Are Hearn and Sky delivering on what they promised? NO

But that doesn't mean that Sky and other channels can artificially back promoters by giving them dates for bad shows, which get bad viewing figures, poor ticket sales and the promoter still loses money.

I wan't Hearn to have competition but I don't want that competition to be Warren, Hennesey or Maloney. They have been given the opportunity and they haven't delivered.

Re. the OP question on who is better. Based on the last 3 years when Hearn entered the game, if you look at the position Hearn/Matchroom was in compared to Warren, Warren was in a much stronger place. He had a bigger Sky contract, was doing PPV shows, had the biggest and strongest stable of boxers in the UK, whereas Matchroom were effectively a TV broker with two fighters signed up, Paul McCloskey & Chris Evangelou.

It was Frank's choice to try and lump all his fighters together in PPV's. It was Frank's choice to do a British title fight as a PPV. It was Frank's choice to leave Sky and setup Allegedly channel. Frank could have kept Kell Brook. He could have signed Carl Froch, Darren Barker and Carl Frampton but he didn't.

My view on Warren is that he is out of touch now and behind the times. If you go to one of his shows, its like something out of the 90's. The music thats played, the pyros, the announcing everything about it. This is a guy who himself says "I am old school, I don't need twitter".....which just happens to be the single greatest marketing tool of this decade, even the Pope and Obama have twitter accounts!!!!

Frank is a guy that always has an excuse when something goes wrong, there is always somebody else to blame and in business you cannot work that way. You have to look at yourself and say this is what I done wrong, this is why the other side are having so much success .

The biggest difference between Hearn and Warren, and this is the reason why he is now 1st choice for all fighters, is because Hearn works for the promoter, on the other side the fighter works for Frank.[/quote]
A lot of the shows that Hatton and Maloney put on were pretty shit it has to be said!

[leforge]

In an idea world sky up the dates to 30. 6 prizefighters have them midweek, other promotors then could work with matchroom to get on tv. allegedly with have W. stable plus all the overseas boxing.