BoxRec

DaveBoyMorrison wrote:BTW Dan, I dont want to get into a daft argument over opinions that ultimately mean very little.

Lets agree to disagree and leave it at that?

Yeah, that's fine - i dont think we even disagree because i dont think it's the most glorious tactic in the world. However, it's important that Hayemaker dont get slagged for doing the exact same thing that others have done when no-one (including governing bodies) even batted an eyelid at the tactic!

The reason i have wondered about whether or not you have an agenda is that, as Ian has said, you have posted with some frequency about one topic from a POV that i considered to be a little bit selective. But if you say you're just a fan with your own views then that's good enough for me mate - i know a few people who post on here and all of them will confirm that i am not someone that goes around looking to fall out with people (like you, i actually post under my real name!)

DaveBoyMorrison wrote: With that in mind I asked the question "What is the thinking behind this". I had hoped someone such as yourself would have given me an answer or offered their thoughts but no, I had to start the thread and contact the board (who have not got back to me at all)...

Boo f**king hoo. Sorry that you had to start a thread and contact the board to get answers to questions YOU were asking.

You were asking questions about rules and regs to do with Board policy which ONLY THEY can definitively answer - never mind what another poster said, even if it is the paragon of truth and accuracy that is 'boxingchat'.

I could have given you my 'thoughts' but seeing as the Board's rules on this matter aren't (to my knowledge) publicly available, I might not have been accurate...so to give you a start I provided you with the Board's contact details to save you looking them up.

Jesus.

danfoster wrote:

goldenears wrote:
Interesting that you are selecting Hayemaker for anger here. Can you think of any other promotor for whom the same could be said?

Well I think the one thing that's got to be said for FW's last few shows is that he's tried to put a string of bouts together that make the night worthwhile. He's used his stable to give relative value for money - the Mitchell v Katisidis fight had a lot of good fighters on the undercard, The Mag 7 was excellent, the Smigga v DeGale fight had a lot of decent fighters but some very poor opponents/matchups admittedly but plenty of fighters that people want to see. I'm hoping that the Clev world title bout has a number of quality fights on the bill - maybe Bomber v McKenzie can go there now, maybe Murray and Mitchell will both fight different opponents in preparation for them doing battle at some point, although it's sickening that that fight has fallen through after being announced somewhat against the odds.

Both Haye's MAJOR fights at the MEN have had awful undercards for big fights. It's true that the Americans tend to do that too and just focus on the Main Event, but they've made very little effort for people going to those fights to provide us with very much (i paid good money for both - yep i'm a mug!!!)

I suppose a similar criticism could be made of FW in the case of Macklin v Barker not happening at this point, although fighting Winky Wright, a big name on US TV on a MAJOR undercard is a little bit of an understandable swerve in career terms, although risky.

As has been said, the constant barely hidden avoidance of the Klitschkos, Groves' of DeGale - and that's Hayemakers two main fighters so it's hard not to feel disappointed as a fan, especially when as an organisation they're very fond of self-publicity and chatting about what they're going to do to this and that fighter.

Boxing lets us down too many times with fights that should be made not happening, all these heavyweight prospects around at the moment yet none of them can find an opponent?

But if you don't think that Hayemaker should be prioritising a Klitschko bout for Haye and a DeGale bout for Groves then we're just on different pages - each to their own