BoxRec

Final round wrote:

jonnyyorkshu wrote:Clarke vs Camacho was fun,poor but fun.

I cant remember the last 50/50 top of the bill fight matchroom put on.

Bute v Froch.

Eddie got given the keys to Sky boxing on the back of that fight.

Wasnt Bute vs Froch a mandatory title fight?
And still in hindsight it wasnt a 50/50 fight hahahaha.

Since the start of the contract, Matchroom's shows have been as follows:

8th September - Bellew vs Miranda
22nd September - Frampton vs Molitor
6th October - Prizefighter (Lightweights)
20th October - Brook vs Saldivia
3rd November - Prizefighter (Light Middleweights)
17th November - Froch vs Mack
8th December - Barker vs Hope
19th January - Prizefighter (Welterweights)
9th February - Frampton vs Martinez
23rd February - Prizefighter (International Heavyweights)
9th March - Barker vs Rotolo

Obviously these are just the main events rather than the whole card, but it shows a worrying trend. Too many one-sided fights. Going down the list, only Frampton has been in with guys who you could say were live underdogs/genuine threats.

The other thing that concerns me - Hearn has a lot of fighters in the same boat, at European/fringe world level who he is trying to guide into world title shots. But, if and when they get shots, will the likes of Bellew, Frampton, Barker, Brook, Groves etc. actually be fighting on Matchroom shows in the UK for said titles. The trend would suggest not.

On a more positive note, the next 3 cards he has lined up are considerable improvements (in my view). Bellew-Chilemba is a very decent world title eliminator, Rose is taking a good step up vs Alcine, and Froch-Kessler II is a block buster (although obviously will cost more as a result).

The talk this week has been about the demise of FW. Looking at the facts, perhaps not. It would be interesting to compare the quality of their shows this season, not looked myself but certainly Burns-Mitchell is better than anything Eddie Hearn has offered.

Poor show last night but they have the potential to improve. Huge stable of fighters they just need to start being more creative with their match making. The Italian last night was awful. Hope they get it right as its the sport what's suffering

what are all the twitter messages that pop up?
"Great performance"
"great entertainment"

I'm not that disappointed. SKY do a good job as far as I'm concerned. Granted the last prizefighter was p@nts and last night was poor. SKY are pretty much reliant on Matchroom, which in itself brings pressure to all concerned. 3 walkovers aren't good enough though, although I think Purdy was starting to struggle a bit.

Us Brits are so good at moaning - Undisputed Champs

But please SKY, stop the propaganda tweets, put a balanced view up...I don't mean "Call me old fashioned" Dan from Kent. But the odd "Purdy is looking one paced" or "Rotolo looks every bit of his 37 years" wouldn't go amiss

otherwise you might as well hire Comical Ali to do your marketing.

Not a big fan of his style but Smith is clearly the fall guy in terms of blame, the real decisions are above his head.

The commentators on SKY are just awful,bias and blinkered.Whenever its Jim Watt I mute,cant stand the man.

Jack B wrote:Since the start of the contract, Matchroom's shows have been as follows:

8th September - Bellew vs Miranda
22nd September - Frampton vs Molitor
6th October - Prizefighter (Lightweights)
20th October - Brook vs Saldivia
3rd November - Prizefighter (Light Middleweights)
17th November - Froch vs Mack
8th December - Barker vs Hope
19th January - Prizefighter (Welterweights)
9th February - Frampton vs Martinez
23rd February - Prizefighter (International Heavyweights)
9th March - Barker vs Rotolo.

That list is an indictment. Could probably pick a 3-month spell in season from few years back where had comparable main events.

Sid-the-hat wrote:

Jack B wrote:Since the start of the contract, Matchroom's shows have been as follows:

8th September - Bellew vs Miranda
22nd September - Frampton vs Molitor
6th October - Prizefighter (Lightweights)
20th October - Brook vs Saldivia
3rd November - Prizefighter (Light Middleweights)
17th November - Froch vs Mack
8th December - Barker vs Hope
19th January - Prizefighter (Welterweights)
9th February - Frampton vs Martinez
23rd February - Prizefighter (International Heavyweights)
9th March - Barker vs Rotolo.

That list is an indictment. Could probably pick a 3-month spell in season from few years back where had comparable main events.

Yep warren and hennessy didnt do better on itv

Well, sky are apparently adding another big name tomorrow.

But what do we all think is better, a mediocre card from the outset or a fantasy card that never even happens or falls apart and descends into a crap card ?

I had little expectations from last night and its just as well. I don't like these constantly ranked Italians in EBU fights (no surprise the EBU HQ is in bloody Italy is it?)

Groves was guest appearance who only signed 6 days ago and to expect him in a big fight is wishful thinking.

I know everyone uses Prizefighter as a stick to hit matchroom with, but their heavyweight show was great fun - and wiped the floor with the fuzzy Price vs Thompson bill which was as lively as an empty bingo hall and only the shock loss took the focus away from how bad it was.

In closing, yes it had no spark last night, it was boring - but I didn't ever see it as more than a marking time event.

What would we prefer, sack all the presenters, cancel all contracts and buy 4am American cards on a feed ? Whilst cancelling homegrown show after show after show and giving you Marco Huck as the booby prize.

Gomez- do you really want to watch Harrison and Rogan over 3x3 ? It's just delivering boxing on the cheap. These Matchroom boxers might be fighting more regularly than they have before but are they making any more money ?

Black Sam Bellamy wrote:Gomez- do you really want to watch Harrison and Rogan over 3x3 ? It's just delivering boxing on the cheap. These Matchroom boxers might be fighting more regularly than they have before but are they making any more money ?

Nobody looked forward to the last prizefighter, but afterwards a lot of people said 'you know what, that was actually pretty good entertainment'

Prizefighter makes no apologies for what it is, it's just boxing fun for the masses - and trust me, Joe Public does tune in for the fun factor and the bite-sized fights.

What's the alternative, Price vs Matt Skelton ? Sorry , but that that wasn't entertainment.

If we're gonna get critical on the sport, lets throw them all out there - cos some are truly taking the p*ss out of fans.

Jeff Thomas wrote:

Boxingcutsman wrote:A lot of you posters and people involved in the sport have been laughing and enjoying the recent downfalls of a certain other big promoter for what ever your own personal reasons, but from a true boxing fans point of view I just hope after tonights yet again appalling show on Sky that these people start to wake up and realise that boxing will be left in a bad way and alienate it's self from the wider audiences appeal if it keeps going the way it's going under Matchroom's monopoly with Sky. Since there monopoly has begun they stage a show every few weeks and they have been consistently poor quality, I can think of only a couple of shows where they have been ok to watch, we need all these promoters, and the Tv companys to show not only the big time promoters but the promoters who struggle to put on IMO better quality fights in the small hall's to give people a wider choice and to keep the non hard core fans interested other wise its only boxing that is going to suffer. Maybe the fickle will start to realise that soon.

Pump some money into VIP, Goodwin and Coldwells shows.

Give them a chance to build some interest in their fighters.

That would make sense now.

I think those guys would let sky show their cards for free on a short term basis to get a bit of exposure for their boxer etc , obviously they'll eventually need to be paid so that they can bring in some higher level guys , but to me i think if sky showed 2 of each of those guys shows and maybe add carl greaves to the list too , spread them over the year so that its 8 shows through the year , i reckon it would benefit us the viewer , sky , and the promoters .

It would be great if Greaves and co got some valuable airtime.

I think it's the production costs, lighting and satellite uplink costs rule it out.

But even if they just dispatch a camera and film the best bits on the fly, then slot them into an extended ringside would certainly be better than nothing for the promoters grafting at grass roots level.

G0mez wrote:

Black Sam Bellamy wrote:Gomez- do you really want to watch Harrison and Rogan over 3x3 ? It's just delivering boxing on the cheap. These Matchroom boxers might be fighting more regularly than they have before but are they making any more money ?

Nobody looked forward to the last prizefighter, but afterwards a lot of people said 'you know what, that was actually pretty good entertainment'

Prizefighter makes no apologies for what it is, it's just boxing fun for the masses - and trust me, Joe Public does tune in for the fun factor and the bite-sized fights.

What's the alternative, Price vs Matt Skelton ? Sorry , but that that wasn't entertainment.

If we're gonna get critical on the sport, lets throw them all out there - cos some are truly taking the p*ss out of fans.

You make some pretty sweeping statements in that post, Mr Gomez.

But you let yourself down with "Price vs Matt Skelton" you should have gone with

"What's the alternative, bringing back Hitler?"

B-

Sky could use their power more wisely in my opinion.
There is no doubt that is where they money and exposure lies.

Instead of giving one promotor all the dates then why dont they rotate them similarly to before but make all promotors sign a deal to say that in order to be showcased on sky they accept the conditions of a joint promotion possibly twice a year so that sky can have two huge PPVs per year. If promotors cant work together on these ocassions to make fights happen then they lose the right to any sky dates for the next boxing season.

May and nov for example each promotor under contract provides a top name in a 50/50 fight and share the ppv revenue. Then it could be a card with 4 or 5 entertaining fights ranging from british right through to world title fights all on one night on one card maybe even ending with a big fight in the states.

I could accept paying PPV for that.

G0mez wrote:It would be great if Greaves and co got some valuable airtime.

I think it's the production costs, lighting and satellite uplink costs rule it out.

But even if they just dispatch a camera and film the best bits on the fly, then slot them into an extended ringside would certainly be better than nothing for the promoters grafting at grass roots level.

In the States it's common practice for boxing, MMA, wrestling etc promotions to pay the broadcaster to be on their network.

It's a pain in the arse tho, as the promotion has to sell the commercial space by themselves.

Emmseegee wrote:Sky could use their power more wisely in my opinion.
There is no doubt that is where they money and exposure lies.

Instead of giving one promotor all the dates then why dont they rotate them similarly to before but make all promotors sign a deal to say that in order to be showcased on sky they accept the conditions of a joint promotion possibly twice a year so that sky can have two huge PPVs per year. If promotors cant work together on these ocassions to make fights happen then they lose the right to any sky dates for the next boxing season.

May and nov for example each promotor under contract provides a top name in a 50/50 fight and share the ppv revenue. Then it could be a card with 4 or 5 entertaining fights ranging from british right through to world title fights all on one night on one card maybe even ending with a big fight in the states.

I could accept paying PPV for that.

May and nov for example each promotor under contract provides a top name in a 50/50 fight

Good luck having that contract stand up in a court case.

Back to the real world, please.

Jeff Thomas wrote:
Pump some money into VIP, Goodwin and Coldwells shows.

Give them a chance to build some interest in their fighters.

That would make sense now.

matchroom have to make better fights

dont like all this ibf eliminators

better opposition needed

That's a piss poor matchroom line up served up on Sky.

It's sad, as the clueless Smith obviously loves boxing, but is also clearly not very bright.

He assumes that boxing fan's dearest wish is not to actually watch any good fights, but to watch Adam and Johnny and an array of "excting" guests, endlessly sit around in a studio and talk about lots of fights that might happen, other that won't ever happen, and a load of crap served up by nice guy Eddie.

Smith was handed the chance to keep boxing alive on Sky, and ended up royally fornicating it up.

earsjohn wrote:

Boxingcutsman wrote:A lot of you posters and people involved in the sport have been laughing and enjoying the recent downfalls of a certain other big promoter for what ever your own personal reasons, but from a true boxing fans point of view I just hope after tonights yet again appalling show on Sky that these people start to wake up and realise that boxing will be left in a bad way and alienate it's self from the wider audiences appeal if it keeps going the way it's going under Matchroom's monopoly with Sky. Since there monopoly has begun they stage a show every few weeks and they have been consistently poor quality, I can think of only a couple of shows where they have been ok to watch, we need all these promoters, and the Tv companys to show not only the big time promoters but the promoters who struggle to put on IMO better quality fights in the small hall's to give people a wider choice and to keep the non hard core fans interested other wise its only boxing that is going to suffer. Maybe the fickle will start to realise that soon.

Remind me if the great shows that were broadcast each and every week when Sky had four promoters?

The 4 promoter situation certainly did not encourage aggressive match making and the shows during that time were consistently weak and uncompetitive.

And please stop calling the situation a monopoly. How can it be a monopoly when boxing is available on Sky, BN, Loaded, C5, ESPN, Eurosport as well as online via you tube channels, coldwell app, etc. the situation is about as far from a monopoly as possible. In fact, it would be more accurate to describe Henessey as having a Terrestrial monopoly as his shows are the only ones available thru non-sub TV.

Listen, like it or not it is a FUC#KING MONOPOLY that Hearn and Sky have got going on, on that Channel, you my friend every time there seems to be some negative towards the for named people/company's jump to there defence, could that be that your blinkered in that you have a association with them in some way ? Because I'm damn sure if your just a boxing fan and you seem to be happy with these consistently Sh#t shows, which is exactly what they are then you obviously have not got a clue.

It's not an outright monoploy but it looks like a cartel. If Adam Smith is the one in charge of the boxing on SKY then he ought to sit down with his advisers, decide how many shows/hours of boxing are available; how much money is in the kitty and which bouts would be the best (most likely to be entertaining on TV). They ought then to offer the bout to the manager/agent of the boxer.

The promoters seem on the whole to come up with what they want most and then take it to the TV company who broadcast it.

If Smith is in charge he ought to be able to work with whoever he wants and not just the fighters contracted to one mans firm.

palooka wrote:It's not an outright monoploy but it looks like a cartel. If Adam Smith is the one in charge of the boxing on SKY then he ought to sit down with his advisers, decide how many shows/hours of boxing are available; how much money is in the kitty and which bouts would be the best (most likely to be entertaining on TV). They ought then to offer the bout to the manager/agent of the boxer.

The promoters seem on the whole to come up with what they want most and then take it to the TV company who broadcast it.

If Smith is in charge he ought to be able to work with whoever he wants and not just the fighters contracted to one mans firm.

So you want Adam Smith to break legally binding contracts to make whatever fights he wants?
That would make him above the law, and I'm not sure Adam Smith should be the only man in the UK who is not subject to the law.






I'm not sure you understand how the world actually works, frankly.

jonnyyorkshu wrote:i would rather watch a even,small hall,domestic fight than a big name fighting a no hope import any day.

The only way for boxing to survive and improve in the UK is for the regular fan to spend their money locally at their local small hall shows for fighters who are domestic level.
This is where the sport needs its fans, where it survives and some are dying on their arse cause regular fans only ever watch on telly. Seeing a fight first hand, the smell, the sounds and the comforting feeling of knowing you are paying to support the sport where it counts, locally is the only way to improve our sport at all levels. Rant over!

Boxingcutsman wrote:

earsjohn wrote:

Boxingcutsman wrote:A lot of you posters and people involved in the sport have been laughing and enjoying the recent downfalls of a certain other big promoter for what ever your own personal reasons, but from a true boxing fans point of view I just hope after tonights yet again appalling show on Sky that these people start to wake up and realise that boxing will be left in a bad way and alienate it's self from the wider audiences appeal if it keeps going the way it's going under Matchroom's monopoly with Sky. Since there monopoly has begun they stage a show every few weeks and they have been consistently poor quality, I can think of only a couple of shows where they have been ok to watch, we need all these promoters, and the Tv companys to show not only the big time promoters but the promoters who struggle to put on IMO better quality fights in the small hall's to give people a wider choice and to keep the non hard core fans interested other wise its only boxing that is going to suffer. Maybe the fickle will start to realise that soon.

Remind me if the great shows that were broadcast each and every week when Sky had four promoters?

The 4 promoter situation certainly did not encourage aggressive match making and the shows during that time were consistently weak and uncompetitive.

And please stop calling the situation a monopoly. How can it be a monopoly when boxing is available on Sky, BN, Loaded, C5, ESPN, Eurosport as well as online via you tube channels, coldwell app, etc. the situation is about as far from a monopoly as possible. In fact, it would be more accurate to describe Henessey as having a Terrestrial monopoly as his shows are the only ones available thru non-sub TV.

Listen, like it or not it is a FUC#KING MONOPOLY that Hearn and Sky have got going on, on that Channel, you my friend every time there seems to be some negative towards the for named people/company's jump to there defence, could that be that your blinkered in that you have a association with them in some way ? Because I'm damn sure if your just a boxing fan and you seem to be happy with these consistently Sh#t shows, which is exactly what they are then you obviously have not got a clue.

It's clear you don't understand what a monopoly is. Someone who subscribes to Sky is not restricted to one supplier of boxing. It really is that simple.

I have nothing to do with boxing, other than being an interested and impartial observer. I don't recall ever saying I was happy with any sky shows.