Put it on another thread about 20 minutes in for about 20 minutes. I found it quite enjoyable.Crease wrote:I haven't seen that but I'll be looking for it.chad wrote:In his latest IFilm interview Eddie Hearn, for once, agreed with what Frank had to say 100%. I found it funny when Eddie said he was watching the allegedly interview, about Eubanks conning the British public, and found himself sitting there agreeing with Frank saying "Go on my son, go on"
F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
Re: F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
Re: F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
I spent a few hours watching the 2 allegedly interviews, then the 70+ minute one with Eddie Hearn.Naandrew wrote:Put it on another thread about 20 minutes in for about 20 minutes. I found it quite enjoyable.
I'm not even sure I want to hear Eubank senior's 50 minute interview.
Apparently Daniel Geale is a former 3 weight World Champion?
Re: F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
And the IBF stripped Fury because he was obliged to give Wladimir the rematch. Yet their 2 top contenders were Glasgow & Charles Martin...Naandrew wrote:Oscar Valdez won the title against an absolute waster. And defended against someone well out of their depth.
Zou shining got it vacant against a guy he had dominated about a year before
And how's about the WBC Heavyweight scene? Who is Wilder fighting, bums. And what about Poverkin, I thought he was the mandatory.
And he'll, the WBA is even worse.
WBA Super Champ - winner of AJ vs Wlad
WBA Regular Champ - Lucy's Browne? Or winner of Briggs vs Osquendo
WBA Interim Champ - Louis Ortiz
WBA Champ in Recess - Tyson Fury
Looking at all of that, no one body is maintaining credibility these days.
-
Ruthless-RKO
- Welterweight
- Posts: 103427
- Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59
Re: F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
I was referring to the bigger names like Crawford, Loma, Crawford, Pacman, but you're still right, Top Rank and Queensberry are the same!Naandrew wrote:Oscar Valdez won the title against an absolute waster. And defended against someone well out of their depth.Ruthless-RKO wrote:He still doing it. Calzaghe was the last big name to do so. He had Liam Smith challenge for a vacant WBO title. Made 3 shitty defences until a big noney fight came alone. At least with Top Rank (who also hog the WBO) have their fighters in there with decent names.Crease wrote: Maybe once but not anymore. These days the WBO is a World Championship & some of the best names of the sport have championed them.
Wladimir Klitchsco, David Haye, Joe Calzaghe, Bernard Hopkins, Oscar De La Hoya, Mandy Pacquaio.
Zou shining got it vacant against a guy he had dominated about a year before
Re: F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
It's easy to punch holes in all the organisations, but realistically there are four world titles and everyone knows who they are.Crease wrote:And the IBF stripped Fury because he was obliged to give Wladimir the rematch. Yet their 2 top contenders were Glasgow & Charles Martin...Naandrew wrote:Oscar Valdez won the title against an absolute waster. And defended against someone well out of their depth.
Zou shining got it vacant against a guy he had dominated about a year before
And how's about the WBC Heavyweight scene? Who is Wilder fighting, bums. And what about Poverkin, I thought he was the mandatory.
And he'll, the WBA is even worse.
WBA Super Champ - winner of AJ vs Wlad
WBA Regular Champ - Lucy's Browne? Or winner of Briggs vs Osquendo
WBA Interim Champ - Louis Ortiz
WBA Champ in Recess - Tyson Fury
Looking at all of that, no one body is maintaining credibility these days.
The biggest evidence of this was Hatton's reaction to becoming IBF champion having spent years with the WBU belt. All the promotion for the Tszyu fight was that it was Hatton's first world title fight. I agree Warren can appear a little hypocritical here with his views on the IBO but he's right in fairness.
The debate about crappy defences for the WBO title is something else entirely.
-
Ruthless-RKO
- Welterweight
- Posts: 103427
- Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59
Re: F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
The point was that the WBO is smothered by Top Rank and Warren and has been for ages. The other orgs aren't hogged by promoters, although WBA favour European fighters and WBC don'tCrease wrote:And the IBF stripped Fury because he was obliged to give Wladimir the rematch. Yet their 2 top contenders were Glasgow & Charles Martin...Naandrew wrote:Oscar Valdez won the title against an absolute waster. And defended against someone well out of their depth.
Zou shining got it vacant against a guy he had dominated about a year before
And how's about the WBC Heavyweight scene? Who is Wilder fighting, bums. And what about Poverkin, I thought he was the mandatory.
And he'll, the WBA is even worse.
WBA Super Champ - winner of AJ vs Wlad
WBA Regular Champ - Lucy's Browne? Or winner of Briggs vs Osquendo
WBA Interim Champ - Louis Ortiz
WBA Champ in Recess - Tyson Fury
Looking at all of that, no one body is maintaining credibility these days.
-
freddydoesdallas
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 9436
- Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 13:48
Re: F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
£20 to watch Eubank jnr fight for the IBO title?
I want what they are smoking
I want what they are smoking
Re: F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
How many will they get at Earls Court letting alone paying 20 quid at home ?
Re: F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
Ruthless-RKO wrote:The point was that the WBO is smothered by Top Rank and Warren and has been for ages. The other orgs aren't hogged by promoters, although WBA favour European fighters and WBC don'tCrease wrote:And the IBF stripped Fury because he was obliged to give Wladimir the rematch. Yet their 2 top contenders were Glasgow & Charles Martin...Naandrew wrote:Oscar Valdez won the title against an absolute waster. And defended against someone well out of their depth.
Zou shining got it vacant against a guy he had dominated about a year before
And how's about the WBC Heavyweight scene? Who is Wilder fighting, bums. And what about Poverkin, I thought he was the mandatory.
And he'll, the WBA is even worse.
WBA Super Champ - winner of AJ vs Wlad
WBA Regular Champ - Lucy's Browne? Or winner of Briggs vs Osquendo
WBA Interim Champ - Louis Ortiz
WBA Champ in Recess - Tyson Fury
Looking at all of that, no one body is maintaining credibility these days.
As bad as each other I could rant all day about the WBA thought they are scum.
-
CaptainSpacerod
- Welterweight
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: 15 Dec 2015, 03:21
Re: F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
Yeah but his dad was doing it on the back of having built a huge national profile having been involved in some epic fights broadcast on terrestrial tv watched by millions and millions of people.Crease wrote:You'd think so but his dad was doing the same thing 20 years ago.CaptainSpacerod wrote:But surely the guys at ITV who are dealing with this know their boxing and are fully aware of how few people will buy this.
People like Roy Jones Jr, Michael Nunn & James Toney consistently called him out yet he'd rather face the likrs of Dan Schommer & Gary Stretch.
And the earned over £10 million doing it & telling the public that he was "Simply The Best"...
Your average sports fan today has barely heard of Eubank Jr and even then probably only because of the Blackwell fight
-
mickey1975
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 23134
- Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 12:54
Re: F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
Hasn't Earls Court been knocked down?tony1234 wrote:How many will they get at Earls Court letting alone paying 20 quid at home ?
-
jameswilson
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 13438
- Joined: 08 Jan 2004, 18:01
Re: F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
The leisure centre there hasn't.mickey1975 wrote:Hasn't Earls Court been knocked down?tony1234 wrote:How many will they get at Earls Court letting alone paying 20 quid at home ?
Re: F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
I agree entirely about recognising the four World titles (WBC, WBA, WBO, IBF) and none other.dirk2686 wrote:It's easy to punch holes in all the organisations, but realistically there are four world titles and everyone knows who they are.
The debate about crappy defences for the WBO title is something else entirely.
My point specifically was that none of the 4 bodies can be considered any greater than the others these days. All of them have questionable rankings & dubious sanctionings of title defenses.
Re: F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
Agreed £20 is a lot of money to be asking for compared to rival PPV broadcasters.freddydoesdallas wrote:£20 to watch Eubank jnr fight for the IBO title?
I want what they are smoking
It might have been worth consideration if it was against a top-notch opponent (Golovkin, Canelo, DeGale).
-
freddydoesdallas
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 9436
- Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 13:48
Re: F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
Even then that will seem a lot to people who are used to getting all itv content for free. The general public aren't used to ppv and I doubt they'd be OK with forking out £20 for it on a terrestrial tv channel. I've already heard my in-laws moan about 'if I wanted to pay for TV, I'd get sky'.Crease wrote:Agreed £20 is a lot of money to be asking for compared to rival PPV broadcasters.freddydoesdallas wrote:£20 to watch Eubank jnr fight for the IBO title?
I want what they are smoking
It might have been worth consideration if it was against a top-notch opponent (Golovkin, Canelo, DeGale).
Re: F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
No, I agree with you sir. I just said that it may be worth "considering"...freddydoesdallas wrote:Even then that will seem a lot to people who are used to getting all itv content for free. The general public aren't used to ppv and I doubt they'd be OK with forking out £20 for it on a terrestrial tv channel. I've already heard my in-laws moan about 'if I wanted to pay for TV, I'd get sky'.
I fully suspect that the whole episode will be a "car crash" - as Eddie Hearn has already predicted.
Re: F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
Who is "general public" that are not used to PPV? Are there different people who watch BBC, ITV, CH4 and CH5 than those that have Sky TV? Are they all trapped in 1988?freddydoesdallas wrote:Even then that will seem a lot to people who are used to getting all itv content for free. The general public aren't used to ppv and I doubt they'd be OK with forking out £20 for it on a terrestrial tv channel. I've already heard my in-laws moan about 'if I wanted to pay for TV, I'd get sky'.Crease wrote:Agreed £20 is a lot of money to be asking for compared to rival PPV broadcasters.freddydoesdallas wrote:£20 to watch Eubank jnr fight for the IBO title?
I want what they are smoking
It might have been worth consideration if it was against a top-notch opponent (Golovkin, Canelo, DeGale).
Is your son aware that there is now a thing called digital TV and the internet which offers a big ole choice of paid services?
-
freddydoesdallas
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 9436
- Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 13:48
Re: F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
Nearly 50% of the UK still only has access to terrestrial or free view tv. They will not be used to paying for TV.tobyh5 wrote:Who is "general public" that are not used to PPV? Are there different people who watch BBC, ITV, CH4 and CH5 than those that have Sky TV? Are they all trapped in 1988?freddydoesdallas wrote:Even then that will seem a lot to people who are used to getting all itv content for free. The general public aren't used to ppv and I doubt they'd be OK with forking out £20 for it on a terrestrial tv channel. I've already heard my in-laws moan about 'if I wanted to pay for TV, I'd get sky'.Crease wrote: Agreed £20 is a lot of money to be asking for compared to rival PPV broadcasters.
It might have been worth consideration if it was against a top-notch opponent (Golovkin, Canelo, DeGale).
Is your son aware that there is now a thing called digital TV and the internet which offers a big ole choice of paid services?
I don't have a son and just because there is that option available and you and I may use it, it doesn't mean the majority of the country uses it. I have 4 brother in laws that go from my age to 10 years older who you would assume are similar to me but 3 of these don't have Sky, don't use netflix etc and only use the Internet to buy clothes and white goods.
Re: F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
I apologise, I did not know that many people still only have just free TV. I am surprised hugely!freddydoesdallas wrote:Nearly 50% of the UK still only has access to terrestrial or free view tv. They will not be used to paying for TV.tobyh5 wrote:Who is "general public" that are not used to PPV? Are there different people who watch BBC, ITV, CH4 and CH5 than those that have Sky TV? Are they all trapped in 1988?freddydoesdallas wrote:
Even then that will seem a lot to people who are used to getting all itv content for free. The general public aren't used to ppv and I doubt they'd be OK with forking out £20 for it on a terrestrial tv channel. I've already heard my in-laws moan about 'if I wanted to pay for TV, I'd get sky'.
Is your son aware that there is now a thing called digital TV and the internet which offers a big ole choice of paid services?
I don't have a son and just because there is that option available and you and I may use it, it doesn't mean the majority of the country uses it. I have 4 brother in laws that go from my age to 10 years older who you would assume are similar to me but 3 of these don't have Sky, don't use netflix etc and only use the Internet to buy clothes and white goods.
-
handsofstone
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 23227
- Joined: 11 Jan 2011, 17:28
Re: F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
Boxing fans being fleeced again,PPV is an absolute con and its getting worse by the year,ive always forked out for it because I don't want to miss it and truth be told,i spend a lot more than the say £30 i'll spend on a night in with a PPV(including cans and a take away) but TBH its starting to take the piss,seems every channel will be looking to outdo each other with big fights,meaning more PPV
Re: F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
Doesn't Warren criticise anyone who won't sign with him, or who's left him, or who is a rival fighter or promoter?
This guy have promoted Herbie Hide getting stopped for the WBO title when Lennox Lewis was champion.
And promoted WBU world title fights of Ricky Hatton, Enzo Maccarinelli and Gary Lockett, bloody hell.
Eubank Jr, PPV, IBO title, that said is poor. Wouldn't have paid that to watch his dad fight, in his prime, on TV.
Can see why the Eubanks were being difficult with Hearn because otherwise Jr would be Golovkin roadkill by now. All I can see for Jr is a Saunders rematch so maybe they should've gone the FW way in this case.
This guy have promoted Herbie Hide getting stopped for the WBO title when Lennox Lewis was champion.
And promoted WBU world title fights of Ricky Hatton, Enzo Maccarinelli and Gary Lockett, bloody hell.
Eubank Jr, PPV, IBO title, that said is poor. Wouldn't have paid that to watch his dad fight, in his prime, on TV.
Can see why the Eubanks were being difficult with Hearn because otherwise Jr would be Golovkin roadkill by now. All I can see for Jr is a Saunders rematch so maybe they should've gone the FW way in this case.
Re: F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
Well according the Eubanks, Jr would make mince meat out of GGG. "We don't own towels", they say.Autobarn wrote:Can see why the Eubanks were being difficult with Hearn because otherwise Jr would be Golovkin roadkill by now. All I can see for Jr is a Saunders rematch so maybe they should've gone the FW way in this case.
He's already burned his bridge with W@arren, so what else can he do? He needs to sacrifice a bit of pride, make a public apology to either Hearn/W@rren, but let's be honest here, that is not happening.
Re: F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
Not sure it's necessarily getting worse. I think most of the Matchroom PPV cards aren't bad. You have to remember that Warren was putting on some very ropy PPV's when Box Office was putting on his fights: Khan in particular - he's a PPV fighter when facing someone like Brook, but Salita? Prescott? Even Kotelnik? I'm not sure they are really any bigger than the likes of Brook v Porter or Crolla v Linares, both of which were on normal Sky.handsofstone wrote:Boxing fans being fleeced again,PPV is an absolute con and its getting worse by the year,ive always forked out for it because I don't want to miss it and truth be told,i spend a lot more than the say £30 i'll spend on a night in with a PPV(including cans and a take away) but TBH its starting to take the piss,seems every channel will be looking to outdo each other with big fights,meaning more PPV
Re: F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
Though Warren's point is valid, it's hypocritical when made by him. Warren has spent his entire career pulling stuff like this.
It's pretty much what the 'sport' of boxing has come. Fleecing as much money out of low-risk fights as possible.
It's pretty much what the 'sport' of boxing has come. Fleecing as much money out of low-risk fights as possible.
Re: F. Warren believes the Eubanks are conning the public with this IBO crap
I also don't have NetFlix. And hardly ever download TV, films etc to watch in any way. By hardly ever, I mean I have legitimately downloaded about five films to watch my entire life. I still buy DVDs, for the most part.tobyh5 wrote:
I apologise, I did not know that many people still only have just free TV. I am surprised hugely!
Saying that, I have Virgin Media and get more channels than are just available on Freeview. (But Sky Sports, I'll point out, are not amongst them.)