How does W4rren get it all so wrong?

[mickey1975]

Sky Sports News ignored Barcelona's amazing comeback last night for Man City and Stokes goalless draw, which they covered... Says it all, really.

But they've not ignored it. Top headline on Sky Sports today: 'History boys Barca stun PSG.'

It wasn't at the final whistle or all night last night. Are they allowed to show the goals now?

[mickey1975]

You say the use it 'as much as anyone.' Hearn tweets and followers? 51.2k - 477k. Warren? 17.8k - 109k. So Hearn uses that platform more than three times as much and ends up with a far larger audience. Same with his fighters. Crolla genuinely has more than ten times the people following him on Twitter and has nearly ten times as much activity.

Is say FW and BN are more active on FB.

And even if they are, (Matchroom have over twice the 'likes' than FW) this shows the lack of understanding around this sort of thing. Twitter is instantly accessible, snappy, to the point. 'So and so has just tweeted' is a standard line in sports reporting. Not 'so and so stuck something on their Facebook page.'

I'd say FB was much more popular. I don't know anyone who really bothers with Twitter.

[dirk2686]

I'd say FB was much more popular. I don't know anyone who really bothers with Twitter.

There are more people on Facebook for certain, but as a platform to promote something it's nowhere near Twitter. Indeed, you don't need a Twitter account, (I don't have one), to be aware of information sent out on it. Everyone uses it for things like big announcements, (Tyson Fury the other day for example.)

[mickey1975]

I've just watched Sky Sports News, if that's what you call headline news...

[dirk2686]

I've just watched Sky Sports News, if that's what you call headline news...

It's genuinely the top story on their website. As with a lot of these things, what broadcasters can and can't show is integral. The BBC don't lead on football scores bar a cursory mention because they can't show any of the footage, hence 'if you don't want to know the scores, now on to the rugby.'

I think what this discussion shows is that people can moan about levels of coverage but it's up to the promoter to maximise the way fighters almost self-promote themselves and get their names known. Terry Flanagan has got barely more than fifteen hundred people following his Twitter feed and what do those people see when they do? 'A few weeks until Turbo Time' with Terry in another fight he'll probably win easily. Why are they not going absolutely berserk for the Crolla fight? What is he doing or saying that is even remotely newsworthy?

It's not all Sky Sports either. David Haye, one of the most recognised fighters in the country, has fought on one Matchroom card in his life, and that was days ago. He said he recognised his profile went seriously through the roof not after the Mormeck fight, or even the Valuev fight, or even, seriously, the Klitschko fight; but after he went on I'm a celebrity.

[maverick23]

The Hearns are good promoters. Their shows have a buzz. Look what they have done with the darts making it a big event when its just a pub game.

I've been to some FW shows and been sat around for ages between fights and the atmosphere has been as flat as a week old can of coke. Matchroom know how to keep the show moving.
Having said all that I think Sky have made a huge mistake in tieing themselves to one promoter as once you get beyond the hype the actual fight quality has gone way downhill on Sky Sports in the last couple of years.
I think the sport needs competition of rival promotional companies to keep the big players on their game.

I think we sometimes look back on pre-Matchroom exclusivity boxing with rose tinted glasses. I actually think the overall quality of shows is an awful lot better now than it was then. There were some good shows and great fights but there were an awful lot of poor and thin cards (from all promoters).

Khan v Prescott PPV with a poor undercard, plenty of mismatch cards headlined by Hatton/Calzaghe, some awful Matchroom cards in front of less than 1,000 people and many of the Maloney shows were poor. I just had a look at some of the Haye cards (against Rositto, Gurov, Johansen, Abdoul) and they were in random leisure centres with woeful undercards.

Hearn's output could still be much improved but, as a sky sports boxing viewer, I'm a lot happier now than I was 10/5 years ago.

[Autobarn]

Exactly!

And let's not forget that FW got the majority of the Sky Sports dates, when he was #1, and that he wouldn't make fights with rival promoters unless he promoted.

Great fights still did happen, can't forget Kevin Mitchell v Carl Johanesson on a Wazza show or Dean Francis v Tony Oakey- a rarity when the FW fighter went on another pro oter's show, the exception to the rule.

So it's not a radically different situation now. The shows do seem thinner with Matchroom now but I can't complain because in the main events we are seeing people fight to their full potential, often winning or losing memorable - or at least difficult - fights versus international opponents. Whereas I recall people hiding behind WBO and lesser baubles in the days when FW was at his most conservative. I always felt Matchroom getting the monopoly was kind of part of a backlash against the "good" old FW days.

Nowadays, for better or worse, the big networks and corporations seem to crack down on the hardcase old promoters and work with the more pleasant business types. Of course, the danger is Eddie becomes that, down the line.

[dirk2686]

Exactly!

And let's not forget that FW got the majority of the Sky Sports dates, when he was #1, and that he wouldn't make fights with rival promoters unless he promoted.

Great fights still did happen, can't forget Kevin Mitchell v Carl Johanesson on a Wazza show or Dean Francis v Tony Oakey- a rarity when the FW fighter went on another pro oter's show, the exception to the rule.

So it's not a radically different situation now. The shows do seem thinner with Matchroom now but I can't complain because in the main events we are seeing people fight to their full potential, often winning or losing memorable - or at least difficult - fights versus international opponents. Whereas I recall people hiding behind WBO and lesser baubles in the days when FW was at his most conservative. I always felt Matchroom getting the monopoly was kind of part of a backlash against the "good" old FW days.

Absolutely. Calzaghe didn't fight another reigning world champion for a decade or so after he beat Eubank. Can you imagine the reaction if Joshua ended up not fighting any of Wlad, Fury, Wilder or indeed anyone else who managed to pick up a belt in ten years?! No disrespect at all but Calzaghe had dozens of fights over a long period and didn't fight anyone better than Robin Reid.

Look at Hatton as well. He spent ages fighting for a meaningless belt against average opposition and was 38-0 when he got the Tszyu fight.

[mickey1975]

Mitchell-Johannessonn wasn't on Sky Sports.

[maverick23]

Exactly!

And let's not forget that FW got the majority of the Sky Sports dates, when he was #1, and that he wouldn't make fights with rival promoters unless he promoted.

Great fights still did happen, can't forget Kevin Mitchell v Carl Johanesson on a Wazza show or Dean Francis v Tony Oakey- a rarity when the FW fighter went on another pro oter's show, the exception to the rule.

So it's not a radically different situation now. The shows do seem thinner with Matchroom now but I can't complain because in the main events we are seeing people fight to their full potential, often winning or losing memorable - or at least difficult - fights versus international opponents. Whereas I recall people hiding behind WBO and lesser baubles in the days when FW was at his most conservative. I always felt Matchroom getting the monopoly was kind of part of a backlash against the "good" old FW days.

Nowadays, for better or worse, the big networks and corporations seem to crack down on the hardcase old promoters and work with the more pleasant business types. Of course, the danger is Eddie becomes that, down the line.

I think as boxing fans we would always want more 50:50, 60:40 fights on shows but I'd disagree that shows are thinner with Matchroom than before their exclusivity. Some shows are too thin but I'd say, on average, we are in a much better position than when there were various promoters on Sky.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Exactly!

And let's not forget that FW got the majority of the Sky Sports dates, when he was #1, and that he wouldn't make fights with rival promoters unless he promoted.

Great fights still did happen, can't forget Kevin Mitchell v Carl Johanesson on a Wazza show or Dean Francis v Tony Oakey- a rarity when the FW fighter went on another pro oter's show, the exception to the rule.

So it's not a radically different situation now. The shows do seem thinner with Matchroom now but I can't complain because in the main events we are seeing people fight to their full potential, often winning or losing memorable - or at least difficult - fights versus international opponents. Whereas I recall people hiding behind WBO and lesser baubles in the days when FW was at his most conservative. I always felt Matchroom getting the monopoly was kind of part of a backlash against the "good" old FW days.

Absolutely. Calzaghe didn't fight another reigning world champion for a decade or so after he beat Eubank. Can you imagine the reaction if Joshua ended up not fighting any of Wlad, Fury, Wilder or indeed anyone else who managed to pick up a belt in ten years?! No disrespect at all but Calzaghe had dozens of fights over a long period and didn't fight anyone better than Robin Reid.

Look at Hatton as well. He spent ages fighting for a meaningless belt against average opposition and was 38-0 when he got the Tszyu fight.

It seems that's always been the Warren model, build an impressive record up, fighting pretty poor opposition, then cash out near the end of your career with really big fights. I'd say Calzaghe and Hatton did well financially from it, but arguably, Calzaghe could have been a much bigger star. In truth I think Calzaghe was always happy to just have home town advantage, all that tripe about being afraid to fly stopping him going to the US. If he hadn't been so paranoid about losing, he could have been in Vegas years before, and made a huge name for himself.

[Autobarn]

Mitchell-Johannessonn wasn't on Sky Sports.

Setanta, you're right

[Autobarn]

Exactly!

And let's not forget that FW got the majority of the Sky Sports dates, when he was #1, and that he wouldn't make fights with rival promoters unless he promoted.

Great fights still did happen, can't forget Kevin Mitchell v Carl Johanesson on a Wazza show or Dean Francis v Tony Oakey- a rarity when the FW fighter went on another pro oter's show, the exception to the rule.

So it's not a radically different situation now. The shows do seem thinner with Matchroom now but I can't complain because in the main events we are seeing people fight to their full potential, often winning or losing memorable - or at least difficult - fights versus international opponents. Whereas I recall people hiding behind WBO and lesser baubles in the days when FW was at his most conservative. I always felt Matchroom getting the monopoly was kind of part of a backlash against the "good" old FW days.

Absolutely. Calzaghe didn't fight another reigning world champion for a decade or so after he beat Eubank. Can you imagine the reaction if Joshua ended up not fighting any of Wlad, Fury, Wilder or indeed anyone else who managed to pick up a belt in ten years?! No disrespect at all but Calzaghe had dozens of fights over a long period and didn't fight anyone better than Robin Reid.

Look at Hatton as well. He spent ages fighting for a meaningless belt against average opposition and was 38-0 when he got the Tszyu fight.

It seems that's always been the Warren model, build an impressive record up, fighting pretty poor opposition, then cash out near the end of your career with really big fights. I'd say Calzaghe and Hatton did well financially from it, but arguably, Calzaghe could have been a much bigger star. In truth I think Calzaghe was always happy to just have home town advantage, all that tripe about being afraid to fly stopping him going to the US. If he hadn't been so paranoid about losing, he could have been in Vegas years before, and made a huge name for himself.

apart from Benn - who'd get stuck in with anyone - and Naz.

Always felt after Naz left him FW perhaps didn't want any of his fighters to get too big and leave him. That this applied to the cautious career matchmaking of Calzaghe, before the two unifications and the Hopkins fight, who even did leave FW once he'd crossed over to America...

[jamesmcdonnell]

Absolutely. Calzaghe didn't fight another reigning world champion for a decade or so after he beat Eubank. Can you imagine the reaction if Joshua ended up not fighting any of Wlad, Fury, Wilder or indeed anyone else who managed to pick up a belt in ten years?! No disrespect at all but Calzaghe had dozens of fights over a long period and didn't fight anyone better than Robin Reid.

Look at Hatton as well. He spent ages fighting for a meaningless belt against average opposition and was 38-0 when he got the Tszyu fight.

It seems that's always been the Warren model, build an impressive record up, fighting pretty poor opposition, then cash out near the end of your career with really big fights. I'd say Calzaghe and Hatton did well financially from it, but arguably, Calzaghe could have been a much bigger star. In truth I think Calzaghe was always happy to just have home town advantage, all that tripe about being afraid to fly stopping him going to the US. If he hadn't been so paranoid about losing, he could have been in Vegas years before, and made a huge name for himself.

apart from Benn - who'd get stuck in with anyone - and Naz.

Always felt after Naz left him FW perhaps didn't want any of his fighters to get too big and leave him. That this applied to the cautious career matchmaking of Calzaghe, before the two unifications and the Hopkins fight, who even did leave FW once he'd crossed over to America...

WIth Calzaghe I think he was content that way. It was only right at the end of his career when he figured he only had a few fights left he went to the states. Calzaghe wasn't a coward in the ring, but he was terrified of losing and was not a natural risk taker.

[TheCobra]

Warren definitely comes across as an old school promoter nowadays. Hearn/Matchroom just seem to be a younger, more modern outfit with younger staff who know about modern PR, how to play social media, how to build a fight and of course they have the Sky TV platform but that's definitely not the reason why they are light years ahead of Warren in terms of promotions. Warren just hasn't moved on and it's really showing now, he's got a poor reputation for not paying people and then suing people, a control freak from a bygone era.

[Andrew]

Warren just doesn't have any interesting fighters. The last show he did with buzz was the Fury/Chisora, Saunders/Eubank bill. Of those four fighters, the only one he has on his books these days in Saunders who is not an exciting fighter and doesn't have a likeable personality.

said this for a while. Yet the fights started late. Chisora v Fury started at 1:15 am from what I remember. My cousin went and told me people were weeing on floors because there were no where near enough toilets.

Interesting to see how the Manchester show goes. No fights cancelled yet so if it stays that way I'll probably end up going.

[Andrew]

The Hearns are good promoters. Their shows have a buzz. Look what they have done with the darts making it a big event when its just a pub game.

I've been to some FW shows and been sat around for ages between fights and the atmosphere has been as flat as a week old can of coke. Matchroom know how to keep the show moving.
Having said all that I think Sky have made a huge mistake in tieing themselves to one promoter as once you get beyond the hype the actual fight quality has gone way downhill on Sky Sports in the last couple of years.
I think the sport needs competition of rival promotional companies to keep the big players on their game.

I was at Crolla v Barroso and that put me off live boxing for a long time. That was torture waiting for fights.

Same for Quigg v Frampton. Apart from Isaac lowe that undercard sent me to sleep.

[Counter-puncher]

Warren just doesn't have any interesting fighters. The last show he did with buzz was the Fury/Chisora, Saunders/Eubank bill. Of those four fighters, the only one he has on his books these days in Saunders who is not an exciting fighter and doesn't have a likeable personality.

said this for a while. Yet the fights started late. Chisora v Fury started at 1:15 am from what I remember. My cousin went and told me people were weeing on floors because there were no where near enough toilets.

Interesting to see how the Manchester show goes. No fights cancelled yet so if it stays that way I'll probably end up going.

A good mate of mine went to his first show that night (Fury-Chisora)

He won't be going again

[Autobarn]

It seems that's always been the Warren model, build an impressive record up, fighting pretty poor opposition, then cash out near the end of your career with really big fights. I'd say Calzaghe and Hatton did well financially from it, but arguably, Calzaghe could have been a much bigger star. In truth I think Calzaghe was always happy to just have home town advantage, all that tripe about being afraid to fly stopping him going to the US. If he hadn't been so paranoid about losing, he could have been in Vegas years before, and made a huge name for himself.

apart from Benn - who'd get stuck in with anyone - and Naz.

Always felt after Naz left him FW perhaps didn't want any of his fighters to get too big and leave him. That this applied to the cautious career matchmaking of Calzaghe, before the two unifications and the Hopkins fight, who even did leave FW once he'd crossed over to America...

WIth Calzaghe I think he was content that way. It was only right at the end of his career when he figured he only had a few fights left he went to the states. Calzaghe wasn't a coward in the ring, but he was terrified of losing and was not a natural risk taker.

definitely Calzaghe had a temperament that FW could maybe take advantage of for a long steady title run with the odd dangerous name thrown in now and again. Worked a treat I guess, from '97-was it 2006 or '07.

Whereas say Benn would just get stuck in and have big fights like Eubank II & McClellan. Benn seemed to think the blame was with Calzaghe, in the comments that I read. I'm paraphrasing but it was on the lines of, well, I wanted big fights and he got me them so...