BoxRec

Some very good posts.

The decline of Boxing in the UK lies squarely with the Promoters.

Promoters dont actually really care about the popularity of the sport, as such. For them, its making themselves and their fighter the most money. Whether the masses get to see it or not doesn't really enter the equation.

Broadcasters have tried to accomodate boxing but, as stated in posts, if they are losing money, they will simly pull the plug.

Fwank Warren and Co dont really care about that as they can move to the likes of SKY, slap on PPV shows and althought the number of viewers are greatly reduced, there is still enough meat on the bone so they all go home happy.

This attitude will further render boxing redundant and push it further behind the likes of UFC or MMA (or whatever god awful rubbish it is) until such time as Promoters, such as Fwank Warren deem it no longer a vialable option and then dump it by the waysideand move onto something else - whether thats in 5yrs, 10yrs not sure.

You look back over the years and the media coverage for Boxing was immense, back pages, tabloids reporting up and coming events in detail etc.....Mickey Duff, Terry Lawless, Jarvis Astaire etc....it worked very well then. So why not now?

Too much greed in Promoters, not enough forsight on their part. THAT'S the reason why Boxing is dying here in the UK and will continue to do so.

Next up Khan v Salita on SKY PPV - Dire match, punters expected to pay through the nose for this mismatch and yet another nail in the coffin.

bengulnaci1 wrote:Some very good posts.

The decline of Boxing in the UK lies squarely with the Promoters.

Promoters dont actually really care about the popularity of the sport, as such. For them, its making themselves and their fighter the most money. Whether the masses get to see it or not doesn't really enter the equation.

Broadcasters have tried to accomodate boxing but, as stated in posts, if they are losing money, they will simly pull the plug.

Fwank Warren and Co dont really care about that as they can move to the likes of SKY, slap on PPV shows and althought the number of viewers are greatly reduced, there is still enough meat on the bone so they all go home happy.

This attitude will further render boxing redundant and push it further behind the likes of UFC or MMA (or whatever god awful rubbish it is) until such time as Promoters, such as Fwank Warren deem it no longer a vialable option and then dump it by the waysideand move onto something else - whether thats in 5yrs, 10yrs not sure.

You look back over the years and the media coverage for Boxing was immense, back pages, tabloids reporting up and coming events in detail etc.....Mickey Duff, Terry Lawless, Jarvis Astaire etc....it worked very well then. So why not now?

Too much greed in Promoters, not enough forsight on their part. THAT'S the reason why Boxing is dying here in the UK and will continue to do so.

Next up Khan v Salita on SKY PPV - Dire match, punters expected to pay through the nose for this mismatch and yet another nail in the coffin.

Those days cannot be compared to these to be fair. For a start there were only three channels - boxing is competing with so many other sports on other channels. Also, we've moved from a blue-collar world to one where most people are now white-collar workers, and boxing does I think struggle as a result.

Look how football has changed, they have refined the game, removing hard tackling and physical contact to beautify the game and focus more on the skills rather than the brute physicality of the game. With boxing, that doesn't work and I think there are far fewer people around who are prepared to watch two men hitting eachother as entertainment. Boxing has also lost the younger demographic that is now being taken over by UFC, which is far more visceral and bloodsoaked, but has nicked a lot of the people who would have watched boxing.

Admittedly, I think boxing hasn't got it's act together the way that other sports did to capitalise on the TV age, which doesn't help.

Boxing is the super-model which self-harms, takes drugs and generally fkks up her marketability. Hence the only time the mainstream is interested is if its falling on its arse in a drunken stupor.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I think there are far fewer people around who are prepared to watch two men hitting eachother as entertainment. Boxing has also lost the younger demographic that is now being taken over by UFC, which is far more visceral and bloodsoaked, but has nicked a lot of the people who would have watched boxing.

Admittedly, I think boxing hasn't got it's act together the way that other sports did to capitalise on the TV age, which doesn't help.

Not sure how fewer people are interested in 2 men hitting each is any different to the popularity of UFC or MMA, to be honest?

The reason boxing is less popular is that it is less visable. And that lays with the Promoters.

As i said, putting on PPV shows on SKY - removes the majority of the population. When Boxing was broadcasted on terrestial TV, the viewing figures have always been good. However to due Promoters being overly greedy, its understandable why the networks deem Boxing as uneconomical.

And thats the facts, in my opinion. Greed, as it does with most things, is killing boxing. There is a difference between making money and fleecing, which the likes of Fwank W etc...now do.

Another contributing factor, albeit, probably a small one, is that the torch hasn't been passed by the guys who did have mainstream profiles. Hatton and Calzaghe should have fought Froch and Khan respectively, and if they'd beaten them they should've continued to box.

I know it's fashionable to praise those who go out at the top of their game, or at least those still in the public eye in Hatton's case, but it does the sport more of a disservice than it would by perpetuating the stereotype of the fighter who goes on for too long.

Khan doesn't necessarily need the attention a win over Hatton would bring, but it would serve as a connection to joe public, and if not Khan, there're others with almost no profile who deserve the opportunity to gain the public recognition fighting him would bring.

I've always been opposed to wheeling out an aging name for a young upstart to get some recognition on the back of, but right now there seems to be a gulf between the known names exiting and the guys still in the mix, who collectively have almost no profile.

I'm only saying the above half-heartedly, but maybe it's another minor contributor to the sport's ongoing downfall.

DavidPayne wrote:Boxing is the super-model which self-harms, takes drugs and generally fkks up her marketability. Hence the only time the mainstream is interested is if its falling on its arse in a drunken stupor.

I hate to agree with you more than once a day - although your statement is extremely cynical - it is also painfully true!!!

Ant Evans wrote: It's not just your opinion, Spud, it is the case. In the last few months we've seen Tyson Fury no-show a Maloney presser and then that farce with Rhodes no-showing presser because of some crap with different managers I don't have the energy or interest to even try to understand. Pathetic all around. And as ever Wazza talks up all the best UK fighters - Haye and Froch - and that gets printed in papers.

And, please, no more "it is the economy, the economy" excuses for any poor gates. It is totally incorrect. Khan v Barrera did very well literally a couple of months after the recession hit, back when Sky News et al were all scaring everyone silly with claims this downturn was gonna be worse than early 1980s. But Khan v Barrera was a fight people wanted to see, so they paid to see it.

Mayweather has just done 1million PPV buys for a fight against a guy casual fans don't know and most hardcores thought had no chance. But people wanted to see it so they bought it. And, despite what I was told a week ago, I understand tickets for Froch v Dirrell are selling very well. Again, it is something people want to see so they are paying for it.

During the Great Depression, boxing had a golden age. There are examples from other sports, too, including football, F1 etc who all doing very well, thank you, despite this recession which seemingly only affects boxing (and only boxing when it suits promoters to use this as an excuse).

Blaming poor ticket sales on people having no money like Boxingchat tries does not add up.

What did that voice say to Kevin Coster in the cornfield? "If you build a good card, they will come!"?

So that was the opposite you said a week ago about the undercard needing to be great. Froch vs Dirrel doesn't have an undercard.

Have to say, I know we are talking a different league of fighter here - but the fighters didn't help that much in the "golden age" of the mid 90's. Nigel Benn no showed a few of his press conferences.... Bruno had a number of farcical matches.... but the people came in their thousands - and that was during a recession.

stujones wrote: So that was the opposite you said a week ago about the undercard needing to be great. Froch vs Dirrel doesn't have an undercard.

Have to say, I know we are talking a different league of fighter here - but the fighters didn't help that much in the "golden age" of the mid 90's. Nigel Benn no showed a few of his press conferences.... Bruno had a number of farcical matches.... but the people came in their thousands - and that was during a recession.

Stu,

In the Nigel Benn etc etc days we had the promoters and boxers doing a good job hyping the fights - they played the game to capture the publics imagination - in addition we also had Terrestrial TV doing their bit too and of course there was them horrible chaps called the journalists who also had boxing in the papers too.

If a fight is not in the newspapers or on the TV channels getting hyped then it wont capture the publics imagination - simple but true.

So whilst the promoter might be happy because he has put big ticket sellers on his show to fill out the arena that the main fighters have not managed to sell - the armchair punter is the one who is f*cked because TV and the press have f*ck all interest in boxing.

Controversial - sad - but true and trust me - I would love all of you to come on here and tell me yet again I am wrong.

The only way we are going to get the media on side is the promoters putting on decent quality shows or certain the headliner that gets people talking - then they have to get the newspapers on side and if they dont tell them to f*ck off when they come begging for their ringside seat!!!

The promoters simply have to wake up and smell the coffee and get their fingers out - the ones who are prepared to put the big fights on or the ones prepared to take the risks are the ones who will survive.

Finally when we get two fighters slagging each other or the promoters slagging a fighter - nowadays I am going to be delighted even if the slaggings are bullsh*t to me it will mean the promoters and fighters are doing their bit to stir up the controversy and somehow capture the publics imagination.

Whats more - the more controversy we can stir up on here and other places that will be good news too!!!

A

I can see me being shot down in flames for what I am about to say - but would like to hear peoples view.

I'm just wondering what are peoples views on why Froch cannot get a TV deal in the UK (except PPV) for his two biggest fights. Jermain Taylor is a name, and I am sure the PR boys can do a good job with Dirrell (Olympics... skilfull etc). So the question we have asked time and time again is, why aren't these on UK TV - not even on Sky.

I'm sure economics plays a huge part, but I am just wondering if Carl's fighting style has a part also. He's exciting, but he's not the typically athletically fluid fighter you associate with the #1 in your devision. I think sometimes on here we don't give the lay fan that much credit, and I've been one very much critical of the Welsh lay fans when it comes to proclaiming Calzaghe as the GOAT. However, even though Roy Jones was in stinkers he would still attract the non hardcore fan cause most could see, by his balance and hand speed that he "could" be devastating. Froch doesn't possess these qualities, even though most of his fights are far more exiting and I wonder if TV execs have seen this and thought he might not be a ratings winner. Jay Larkin was all for analysis everything about a fighter before signing him up... his style and his opposition.

I have to say, the general reaction I have had from my mates in the pub about Froch is "he's a bit crap, only a champion cause Calzaghe is retired". Ask them about Bruno and they would say "he was useless" but Bruno had the "trier" tag which really adhered him to the public. When he actually succeeded, the popularity wained a tad (he didn't win sports personality). From my mates, the public perception of Froch is, not as bad as Bruno, but still a bit crap.

I just wonder if that plays a part in the TV execs decisions. Froch is exciting to watch, but not pretty to watch.

Stu,

Sometimes to get the TV to take the bait the promoter may have to drop his price - it might be Meaty Mick wanted to much - or it might be he wanted a longer term deal that TV werent prepared to sign up to.

The promoters may not only have to drop their price but also drop the demands for a long term contract and take a punt at one off shows and then maybe if they consistently put on good shows which gets the ratings in - TV might just regain their interest.

Spud wrote:

stujones wrote: So that was the opposite you said a week ago about the undercard needing to be great. Froch vs Dirrel doesn't have an undercard.

Have to say, I know we are talking a different league of fighter here - but the fighters didn't help that much in the "golden age" of the mid 90's. Nigel Benn no showed a few of his press conferences.... Bruno had a number of farcical matches.... but the people came in their thousands - and that was during a recession.

Stu,

In the Nigel Benn etc etc days we had the promoters and boxers doing a good job hyping the fights - they played the game to capture the publics imagination - in addition we also had Terrestrial TV doing their bit too and of course there was them horrible chaps called the journalists who also had boxing in the papers too.

If a fight is not in the newspapers or on the TV channels getting hyped then it wont capture the publics imagination - simple but true.

So whilst the promoter might be happy because he has put big ticket sellers on his show to fill out the arena that the main fighters have not managed to sell - the armchair punter is the one who is f*cked because TV and the press have f*ck all interest in boxing.

Controversial - sad - but true and trust me - I would love all of you to come on here and tell me yet again I am wrong.

The only way we are going to get the media on side is the promoters putting on decent quality shows or certain the headliner that gets people talking - then they have to get the newspapers on side and if they dont tell them to f*ck off when they come begging for their ringside seat!!!

The promoters simply have to wake up and smell the coffee and get their fingers out - the ones who are prepared to put the big fights on or the ones prepared to take the risks are the ones who will survive.

Finally when we get two fighters slagging each other or the promoters slagging a fighter - nowadays I am going to be delighted even if the slaggings are bullsh*t to me it will mean the promoters and fighters are doing their bit to stir up the controversy and somehow capture the publics imagination.

Spud,

Agree with your points only thing I can add that.... recently (after the so called glory days) - Boxing was "back". Indeed, less than a year ago we were all asking if Boxing has been anybetter. Setanta were often filling 2 shows a Saturday, Sky was on every friday and we had ITV, Five (with the ESPN stuff) and Eurosport regular - even the Beeb would show delayed coverage of Joe Calzaghe fights.

But I am on about between that time and the glory days. When Warren was back on ITV.

Audley Harrison vs Danny Williams made the very back page of the newspapers, made the TV news and pulled in the viewers comparable to the xfactor.

Hatton vs Mayweather, made good PPV buys here and pulled in the lay fans... again made front and back page news with the tabloids in the build up. Had pullouts in the papers for the first time since Lewis vs Ruddock... again made TV news.

Amir Khan's - gold medal, everyone knows him... and his fights on ITV in the early days generated a buzz.

I was in Ireland for when Wales played them in Rugby, it was the day after Williams vs Skelton 1... Williams vs Skelton 1 was the talk of the town on Saturday night.

So there have been moments.... why or why haven't TV execs captalised on them, seen them as the ratings winners they have been.

Stu,

You state we have had our moments - there is no reason why we cant have more of them!!! - its up to the promoters to stop being egotistical ****s and get the fights on!!

Spud wrote:Stu,

You state we have had our moments - there is no reason why we cant have more of them!!! - its up to the promoters to stop being egotistical ****s and get the fights on!!

Agree, but I think Mick has done a great job since being on ITV. He's delivered the fights, up untill he knew his contract was being terminated (or not renewed) he delivered good undercards. Even when fighters have pulled out, he's found something to not let ITV down.

Stu,

Meaty Mick has done a good job in a lot of ways - but he has made some errors of judgement on the way - havn't we all!!!

I will be stunned if someone doesnt pick his stable up - good fighters - but how long does he hang onto Murray for??

stujones wrote: I have to say, the general reaction I have had from my mates in the pub about Froch is "he's a bit crap, only a champion cause Calzaghe is retired". Ask them about Bruno and they would say "he was useless" but Bruno had the "trier" tag which really adhered him to the public. When he actually succeeded, the popularity wained a tad (he didn't win sports personality). From my mates, the public perception of Froch is, not as bad as Bruno, but still a bit crap.

I just wonder if that plays a part in the TV execs decisions. Froch is exciting to watch, but not pretty to watch.

I genuinely don't think the latter is true but both that and the former touch on one of the key issues - Hennessey is a PROMOTER. In other words, his job is not just to stage fights, but also to deliver really strong marketing and PR campaigns around his fighters and the events themselves.
The reality is that Fwank is the best of a bad bunch - the average standard of PR and marketing, whether that applies to individual boxers or boxing events, is overwhelmingly shambolic... absolutely light years behind other sports in its level of sophistication and application.
The fact that your mates have that opinion of Froch is indicative of this - if he's been marketed more effectively, casual fans like that could have been convinced he's the 'second coming'. As it stands, a negative perception of him has been allowed to develop.
Yet again it's indicative of the lack of forward thinking and investment back into the sport. I hate to mention it as I know it winds people up, but you only have to look at UFC to understand the difference PR and marketing can make - the buzz they create around fighters and events is absolutely integral to their success. Have our promoters learnt from that? No, they've adopted a defensive posture and remain in denial about the issues affecting the sport and their own culpability in it.

Deserter wrote: I hate to mention it as I know it winds people up, but you only have to look at UFC to understand the difference PR and marketing can make - the buzz they create around fighters and events is absolutely integral to their success. Have our promoters learnt from that? No, they've adopted a defensive posture and remain in denial about the issues affecting the sport and their own culpability in it.

Exactly right - but boxing will be resigned to the small halls if a promoter is not willing to take a financial gamble and plough some money into advertising.

Deserter wrote:

stujones wrote: I have to say, the general reaction I have had from my mates in the pub about Froch is "he's a bit crap, only a champion cause Calzaghe is retired". Ask them about Bruno and they would say "he was useless" but Bruno had the "trier" tag which really adhered him to the public. When he actually succeeded, the popularity wained a tad (he didn't win sports personality). From my mates, the public perception of Froch is, not as bad as Bruno, but still a bit crap.

I just wonder if that plays a part in the TV execs decisions. Froch is exciting to watch, but not pretty to watch.

I genuinely don't think the latter is true but both that and the former touch on one of the key issues - Hennessey is a PROMOTER. In other words, his job is not just to stage fights, but also to deliver really strong marketing and PR campaigns around his fighters and the events themselves.
The reality is that Fwank is the best of a bad bunch - the average standard of PR and marketing, whether that applies to individual boxers or boxing events, is overwhelmingly shambolic... absolutely light years behind other sports in its level of sophistication and application.
The fact that your mates have that opinion of Froch is indicative of this - if he's been marketed more effectively, casual fans like that could have been convinced he's the 'second coming'. As it stands, a negative perception of him has been allowed to develop.
Yet again it's indicative of the lack of forward thinking and investment back into the sport. I hate to mention it as I know it winds people up, but you only have to look at UFC to understand the difference PR and marketing can make - the buzz they create around fighters and events is absolutely integral to their success. Have our promoters learnt from that? No, they've adopted a defensive posture and remain in denial about the issues affecting the sport and their own culpability in it.

I don't follow the UFC so I cannot really comment. I completely agree with your points. However, I think boxing is quite different to most other sports (I'm talking football, Rugby etc) in that people, even ones who just watched the odd Bruno fight on TV, forge a strong opinion on it. I've had hours of debates in the pub with people who have only ever watched boxing on ITV and BBC - really know nothing about the sport, let alone the politics etc... but like to think they do. Whereas if people just watch the odd England football match, or just watch the ashes in Cricket or Wimbledone at tennis - it doesn't generate any conversation... they will simply say "I know nothing".

Maybe its because of the way it is broadcast on TV, but I would say (from my experiences of pub chats) that the ones who just watch on terrestial are more hard on the fighters than us lot. We can see that Froch has a bad defence, doesn't have a particularly great variety in his shots - but we also see his chin, heart, stamina etc... and know that awkard doesn't mean bad.

In my view, although we get critcised by the likes of Dean Powell for being hyper critical... we are saints compared to the non-hardcore fans. Only really Joe Calzaghe is where the opinion differed, in which us hardcore fans were more critical.

Even Don King had a job to promote those 80's heavyweights.... because the average fan could see they were no Ali. I think Froch has a similar problem. He's gangly, he awkard, he's effective - but its going to be hard to promote him as the second coming.... cause he isn't fluid.

You don't have to be a back foot bouncer with lightening hands to be popular, Mike Tyson and even Ricky Hatton were beautiful to watch using a different style. You could see them, with their shot selection, movement, balance that they COULD be the real deal. With Froch, his style is exciting but not pretty. Selling him as the second coming, would be like remaking Die Hard with Dudley Moore - a pretty hard sell.

Oh come on Stu, you're taking in too far.

You tell me more people would gravitate to a Mayweather v Whittaker spectacle or a Gatti v Ward type barn-burner.

Froch is always in a tough fight, in part that's his problem, but he all but guarantees excitement.

Calzaghe never did that. He was terrifically gifted and usually, very attackminded but I doubt there were many of the casual fans you try to describe who watched him in the aftermath of Benn and Eubank who though anything other than "I miss Benn, he'd have sparked this pretty boy in 3".

Its just a natural progression, I wrote something about this a while ago.

We chastise current fighters, the idolise them, then when they're getting beat and/ore retire we mock them once more, then over time they reach a tipping point where it become fashionable to lionise their abilities.

Even Bruno has gone through this evolution.

Loved. Mocked. And now begrdugingly respected, because place him in the current heavyweight mix and he would a very live contender. Very live.

But at his best he was laughed at.

Spud wrote:boxing will be resigned to the small halls if a promoter is not willing to take a financial gamble and plough some money into advertising.

The thing that frustrates me though Spud is that effective PR and marketing doesn’t even require spending a lot of money in advertising. I’ll give you an example – a friend of mine does a club night here and has set up a Facebook page to promote the night, but in a funky, clever way that gets people engaged with it. The result is that he’s now got over 2,500 ‘friends’ on Facebook. What does he do when he’s got his next club night coming up? Does his spend 2,000 quid on advertising in magazines, or does he just send a Facebook message to his 2,500+ friends and sit back and wait for them all to roll in? I bet you can guess.
So you’re a boxing promoter – why don’t you set up a website regarding your events and incentivize fans to register by offering opportunities to win tickets, backstage visits to meet the fighters, VIP ‘night’ with ringside seats and hotel package. Over time you have a database of thousands of boxing fans. You then set up a Facebook site and as well as inviting these guys to join, you also are suddenly reaching others as well who may not have heard of your website or been to your shows. So you’ve now got thousands of ‘friends’ or ‘fans’ on Facebook. The crucial thing with these guys is that your communications to them are two things. Firstly, they’re targeted, as you already know they’re fans. Secondly, they’re with their ‘permission’ – the fact they’ve signed up means they’ve wanted to hear from you. It’s not ‘interruption’ advertising like a TV commercial and it’s not spam, so your response rate is going to be so much higher.
So, the next show you’re doing, you have bespoke offers for these loyal followers – this could range from 10% off tickets through to a special ‘Meet and Greet’ with the fighters that is only open to people registered online – it gives genuine value to those who’ve already formed a ‘relationship’ with you while also incentivizing yet more people to sign up.
Moving forwards, you’re in a situation where before you even spend a penny on advertising, you can automatically reach thousands of fans who want to hear from you – and probably have most of your tickets sold before you even have to think about trying to reach the wider public.
That model can be replicated for individual fighters as well to build up a following – if fans or Facebook friends get invited to things like a training day with a fighter like Froch (in between fights), where it’s only open to them exclusively but they get to see how he trains and then meet the man himself, how many of those people do you think are going to buy tickets for his next fight?!
My frustration is that it’s taken me 10 minutes to write that topline strategy – it’s not rocket science and it’s being done successfully elsewhere by other businesses. Now how many of our ‘top’ promoters have even dreamt of seizing the amazing opportunities that digital media has opened up in terms of the ability to reach a huge audience at minimal cost?
We all know the answer to that.

They all do this Des. Perhaps without any flair, but they have facebook, youtube memberships.

Fight - they would rather see Ward vs Gatti... but I don't know if they would have caught up with the hype to watch two "streetfighters" slug it out. They would have rathered tuned in to see Mayweather vs DLH - two more skilful opperators. Mayweather vs Marquez - possibly percieved to much as a mismatch.

Yes, your right about Joe... but we have to remember the period when he was eeking out wins (on big cards). He hardly looked like P4P material against Reid and Starie, Starie on the undercard of a Mike Tyson fight. Coming through people thought he was the "best ever", and by the time he got to the Brewer fight he was back again the best ever.

But its not just about each Fight for Froch... its about his profile as the "next" Calzaghe. Audley was a ratings winner for the BBC... yes his Gold medal had a shit load to raise his profile... but I was getting a lot of text messages saying "I hate him, but he looks good do you think he will beat this Danny fella" - after his pro debut.

I remember the comments that Jay Larkin used to say about Witter, and just wondering if it rang true to Froch a little. Remember after the Judah fight - Witter went on a run looking scintalating KO'ing a string of fighters in a couple of rounds. Larkin was still not convinced, even though he was convinced of his power - he didn't like his awkardness.

i just do't see the froch / witter connection, personally. apart from both having a couple of WBC title wins and being promoted by mick hennessy

based on recent fights, one you'd watch, one you wouldn't

DavidPayne wrote:They all do this Des. Perhaps without any flair, but they have facebook, youtube memberships.

But my whole point is they don't David - on paper they have the tools but crucially they don't know how to use them properly. Not one of them is doing any of the initiatives I came up with in just 10 mins - it's like having a Rolls Royce, but not having a driving licence. The failing isn't with the car, it's with your ability to drive it.
They just put up a token site and leave it at that, it's a token offering and a reactive one, and they think that's it, whereas that's just 5% of what you could potentially do.
There's an American marketeer called Seth Godin who explains this brilliantly in a book called 'Meatball Sundae' which basically explains how you have to use digital media effectively (which is what the promoters aren't doing) and not just treat it as a 'topping' to your traditional output. It's explained better here for those who are geeks like me:
http://www.stonetemple.com/articles/int ... 2007.shtml

Autobarn wrote:i just do't see the froch / witter connection, personally. apart from both having a couple of WBC title wins and being promoted by mick hennessy

based on recent fights, one you'd watch, one you wouldn't

As I said, its just me "thinking out loud" and I knew it would get criticised. I aint comparing Froch to Witter recently, but when Witter had a run of being quite exiting. After Judah and before Ndou.

I think both have this similar "unorthdoxness" about them. Low guard, chin in the air (without the balance, footwork of Naz). Witter during this period was aggressive (and I was really championing him to beat most at 140 at this time), but neither work over a man in a "traditional" way. You don't that often see a classy jab, or working to the body. Its mainly these lunges and corkscrew uppercuts. Neither have a traditional style, neither did Naz... but Naz had chilling 1 punch KO power and wonderful balance and reflexes, also had a greater variety and, on a number of occasions, demonstrated he could box in a traditional way very very well.