Is Eddie Hearn any better than allegedly?

[palooka]

Eddie has only been going a couple of years so there are not as many [edited by Mod]. Though Mr Hearn is in the ascendency I imagine that the astute Mr Warren has not retired just yet. If he chooses to then I imagine that in 20 or so years Mr Hearn will be as disrespected, derided and disliked as Mr warren seems to be by boxing fans.

Thank you Mod

[JC]

Business-wise the Hearns seem to have their house in order a lot better than W@rren.

[magnus]

I know Saldivia was an official eliminator ordered by the IBF and im sure both Jones and Bolonti were ranked above Brook and Bellew respectively

Well thats quite like FW though, he seems to be becoming the promoter of the IBF like FW has been with the WBO over the years.

Not really, Bellew is fighting a WBC eliminator next. Rees fought for the WBC title against Broner. At the moment Matchroom are having to make matches which push their fighters up the various alphabet rankings, rather than them inexplicably arriving at no.1 - Locket/Jennings etc.

I'm not saying I thought Brook or Bellew's bouts against Argentnians were great on paper or reality btw, just trying to suggest the reason behind them.

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

I just saw the thread for Ricky burns next opponent and its got me thinking, is Hearn any better than FW than when it comes to matching his fighters? He has this big deal with sky and has a lot of dates but I think he's put on a lot of mismatches already to be honest! Froch vs Mack , Bellew vs Miranda *yes miranda was a dangerous fighter but I think he's pretty shot now*, Bellew vs Bolonti, Brook vs Jones, Brook vs Saldivia and so forth. Anyway, the point im making is FW has gotten a lot of stick over time for the matches he's made and I agree in a fair few instances but is Hearn actually in reality any better? To me Hearn just seems better in front of a camera and in the PR department and portraying the image of an ordinary fella *excluding the designer suits he wears*. Yeah so anyone have a similar feeling regarding Hearn?

He is cleverer than FW in one way, he is very good a getting the message over that he's the good guy promoter, giving the fans the big fights they want to see.
Some people fall for it, others can see through it.

FW can make stars, which is really what people really want to see. No other British promoter has made a real star in 30 years.


And thats boxings problem

[Bob & Weave]

FW can make stars, which is really what people really want to see. No other British promoter has made a real star in 30 years.


And thats boxings problem

I keep seeing this warren makes stars etc, but don't you feel that is a bit disrespectful to the star fighters

Take Audley for example, had no serious promoter ever, and although he isn't very likeable he's still a star so to speak again David Haye, neither had anything to do with warren but both pretty big stars i would say, and I believe Hatton and Calzaghe would have been equally as big as they where with or without Warren.

Not to mention Lewis who was Maloneys

Basically it's down to each individual boxer who becomes a star... take tyson fury for example two or three decent win's and we'll have another star on our hands.

[banjo]

I don't believe Hatton would have been anywhere near as popular without Warren, Warren matched and marketed him perfectly. It was one of the greatest career builds seen in this country, everything happened at the right time.

[mickey1975]

FW can make stars, which is really what people really want to see. No other British promoter has made a real star in 30 years.


And thats boxings problem

I keep seeing this warren makes stars etc, but don't you feel that is a bit disrespectful to the star fighters

Take Audley for example, had no serious promoter ever, and although he isn't very likeable he's still a star so to speak again David Haye, neither had anything to do with warren but both pretty big stars i would say, and I believe Hatton and Calzaghe would have been equally as big as they where with or without Warren.

Not to mention Lewis who was Maloneys

Basically it's down to each individual boxer who becomes a star... take tyson fury for example two or three decent win's and we'll have another star on our hands.

Audley and Haye would have been huge with FW behind them from the start.

[dondada]

A piece on this subject by Kevin 'Wrists' Roberts.

http://news.boxrec.com/news/2013/all-gl ... bad-boxing

[ashedward]

A piece on this subject by Kevin 'Wrists' Roberts.

http://news.boxrec.com/news/2013/all-gl ... bad-boxing

Interesting piece,with Matchroom being the only promoter on Sky sports ringside will always feature Matchroom fighters heavily however with the news round up featuring all the news and the small hall reports and the other features i don`t think has been to much about matchroom, they did feature on David Price which was quality the other week.It seems to me that allegedly fights get more of a mention on Ringside then Sky fights get talked about on the Bunce hour.

The show the other week wasn`t the best but people forget that there were 5 live fights, the old ffn format was 1 live fight and then some taped stuff over 2 hours,I know it was every week but for every Moore-Rhodes there were about 3 Haskins-Broadhurst type fights and Commonwealth title fights featuring fighter from Africa with padded records.It had to change because it was not getting the viewing figures,i think Hearn can pull it off,getting record viewings for Brook and Froch meant that Sky had to give him a chace to see if he can get it right.I think that Hatton promtions were unlucky to lose out,if it ws up to me i would of had 30 dates on sky with 13 to Hearn and 13 to Hatton and 4 open to anybody including the smaller hall promoters to bid for and see what they could do

[Wrists]

Last weeks show was Shit. Not a crime in isolation but let's be truthful, you can't polish a turd and that was a shit show. I hope this isn't a sign of what's to come. In fairness Matchroom have put on some cracking shows so hopefully not.

I think we need to be fair and say things how they are. The quality of Hearns show are a similar level to FW's at present. Let's see how it goes.

[lefty]

A piece on this subject by Kevin 'Wrists' Roberts.

http://news.boxrec.com/news/2013/all-gl ... bad-boxing

Really good piece, I thouroughly enjoyed reading that.

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

A piece on this subject by Kevin 'Wrists' Roberts.

http://news.boxrec.com/news/2013/all-gl ... bad-boxing

Yes not bad at all,

The upshot eventually is that a dominant promotional figure in this sport invariably leads to complacency and poor fights for the viewing public.

Depends what you mean by "poor fights"

Hatton - Lazcano was considered by many to be a "poor fight" yet it sold 50,000 tickets. Same with a lot of those Hatton WBU fights.

Hamed and Eubank were in a lots of "poor fights" but they did record business.

A poor fight is one that nobody wants to see, in my opinion.

[ashedward]

Last weeks show was Shit. Not a crime in isolation but let's be truthful, you can't polish a turd and that was a shit show. I hope this isn't a sign of what's to come. In fairness Matchroom have put on some cracking shows so hopefully not.

I think we need to be fair and say things how they are. The quality of Hearns show are a similar level to FW's at present. Let's see how it goes.

I was at the show and it was average no more no less.The Groves fight was added late and the Jones pullout hurt the show bad,the mistake Hearn made was with the Barkers opponent,that was never good enough for the main event at Wembley.However Shinkin-Taylor was fun.FW has only put on one show this year to Matchrooms 4 also Rees got a shot at the best in the world at his weight.The Belfast show and the upcoming Liverpool show is the standerd we want.We will see how it goes and i expect Hearn to deliver more often then not but i will agree with saturdays show not being good enough even though some people have gone overboard to knock Hearn down a peg or two after the couple of weeks he`s just had and the fighters he has signed.

[Wrists]

Last weeks show was Shit. Not a crime in isolation but let's be truthful, you can't polish a turd and that was a shit show. I hope this isn't a sign of what's to come. In fairness Matchroom have put on some cracking shows so hopefully not.

I think we need to be fair and say things how they are. The quality of Hearns show are a similar level to FW's at present. Let's see how it goes.

I was at the show and it was average no more no less.The Groves fight was added late and the Jones pullout hurt the show bad,the mistake Hearn made was with the Barkers opponent,that was never good enough for the main event at Wembley.However Shinkin-Taylor was fun.FW has only put on one show this year to Matchrooms 4 also Rees got a shot at the best in the world at his weight.The Belfast show and the upcoming Liverpool show is the standerd we want.We will see how it goes and i expect Hearn to deliver more often then not but i will agree with saturdays show not being good enough even though some people have gone overboard to knock Hearn down a peg or two after the couple of weeks he`s just had and the fighters he has signed.

Yes the Liverpool and Belfast shows are/were good. Last week was dogshit. No-one's going overboard , people are just offering an alternative point to the love in. I hope it goes well and Hearn certainly seems to be treating his fighters well so thats a good thing. It will be interesting to see it all unfold.

[ashedward]

Last weeks show was Shit. Not a crime in isolation but let's be truthful, you can't polish a turd and that was a shit show. I hope this isn't a sign of what's to come. In fairness Matchroom have put on some cracking shows so hopefully not.

I think we need to be fair and say things how they are. The quality of Hearns show are a similar level to FW's at present. Let's see how it goes.

I was at the show and it was average no more no less.The Groves fight was added late and the Jones pullout hurt the show bad,the mistake Hearn made was with the Barkers opponent,that was never good enough for the main event at Wembley.However Shinkin-Taylor was fun.FW has only put on one show this year to Matchrooms 4 also Rees got a shot at the best in the world at his weight.The Belfast show and the upcoming Liverpool show is the standerd we want.We will see how it goes and i expect Hearn to deliver more often then not but i will agree with saturdays show not being good enough even though some people have gone overboard to knock Hearn down a peg or two after the couple of weeks he`s just had and the fighters he has signed.

Yes the Liverpool and Belfast shows are/were good. Last week was dogshit. No-one's going overboard , people are just offering an alternative point to the love in. I hope it goes well and Hearn certainly seems to be treating his fighters well so thats a good thing. It will be interesting to see it all unfold.

To say it was dogshit is an overreaction imo.There has been people on other sites/twitter who couldn`t wait to have a pop and go overboard because they percieve Hearn is getting all the love as you put it and want to knock him down peg or two.The show was average and he should do better but for the most part he`s making the right moves but he`s put peoples nose out of joint by getting all the sky dates and as he`s now the number 1 promoter in the Uk he will get plenty of stick.I hope he does better then Gonzalez for the Burns fight through

[banjo]

Depends what you mean by "poor fights"

Hatton - Lazcano was considered by many to be a "poor fight" yet it sold 50,000 tickets. Same with a lot of those Hatton WBU fights.

Hamed and Eubank were in a lots of "poor fights" but they did record business.

A poor fight is one that nobody wants to see, in my opinion.

Not quite sure about that, the fight did so much business because of Hattons popularity as with the WBU fights, Hatton was promoted extremely well by Warren, he could have filled out the MEN against anyone at that time. Lazcano was a good solid opponent for a comeback fight - seemed lacking in ability to beat the best but not likely to fall apart like a cheap watch - it did what it did because Hatton was a major star at the time and he would likely have sold out the stadium against Colin Lynes at the time(no disrespect to Colin of course just using an example) but just because something makes a lot of money doesn't mean it's good, Transformers 3 took over 1 billion dollars at the box office world wide it doesn't stop it being a load of shite.

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

Depends what you mean by "poor fights"

Hatton - Lazcano was considered by many to be a "poor fight" yet it sold 50,000 tickets. Same with a lot of those Hatton WBU fights.

Hamed and Eubank were in a lots of "poor fights" but they did record business.

A poor fight is one that nobody wants to see, in my opinion.

Not quite sure about that, the fight did so much business because of Hattons popularity as with the WBU fights, Hatton was promoted extremely well by Warren, he could have filled out the MEN against anyone at that time. Lazcano was a good solid opponent for a comeback fight - seemed lacking in ability to beat the best but not likely to fall apart like a cheap watch - it did what it did because Hatton was a major star at the time and he would likely have sold out the stadium against Colin Lynes at the time(no disrespect to Colin of course just using an example) but just because something makes a lot of money doesn't mean it's good, Transformers 3 took over 1 billion dollars at the box office world wide it doesn't stop it being a load of shite.

Disagreeing with me banjo?

After all these years? *sigh*

I keep having the same augment about music etc with other people.

What I would say is that in very broad terms, the only way to objectively measure how "good" an event is, is to count now many people actually went and paid money to see it.

If nobody cares about a fight, how can it be considered "good?"

I explain this better after a few pints, to be honest.

[winkveron]

With boxing matches, films, music etc. I guess the best way to consider it great is if it stands the test of time, rather than how many muppets throw money at it. What fights do we talk about 10 years later for example? Rather than ones that did well in terms of ticket sales.

One of the greatest hip-hop albums of all time (Nas' Illmatic) took 10 years to reach 1 million sales, whereas Justin Bieber does that in a few weeks I'm guessing. Does that mean the latter is better musically? No, it just means there are more clueless idiots out there buying his stuff.

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

With boxing matches, films, music etc. I guess the best way to consider it great is if it stands the test of time, rather than how many muppets throw money at it. What fights do we talk about 10 years later for example? Rather than ones that did well in terms of ticket sales.

One of the greatest hip-hop albums of all time (Nas' Illmatic) took 10 years to reach 1 million sales, whereas Justin Bieber does that in a few weeks I'm guessing. Does that mean the latter is better musically? No, it just means there are more clueless idiots out there buying his stuff.

Do you know what the difference between "Objective" and "Subjective" is?

It's not the same as "Active" and "Passive" by the way. That's something else.

[lefty]

Depends what you mean by "poor fights"

Hatton - Lazcano was considered by many to be a "poor fight" yet it sold 50,000 tickets. Same with a lot of those Hatton WBU fights.

Hamed and Eubank were in a lots of "poor fights" but they did record business.

A poor fight is one that nobody wants to see, in my opinion.

Not quite sure about that, the fight did so much business because of Hattons popularity as with the WBU fights, Hatton was promoted extremely well by Warren, he could have filled out the MEN against anyone at that time. Lazcano was a good solid opponent for a comeback fight - seemed lacking in ability to beat the best but not likely to fall apart like a cheap watch - it did what it did because Hatton was a major star at the time and he would likely have sold out the stadium against Colin Lynes at the time(no disrespect to Colin of course just using an example) but just because something makes a lot of money doesn't mean it's good, Transformers 3 took over 1 billion dollars at the box office world wide it doesn't stop it being a load of shite.

Disagreeing with me banjo?

After all these years? *sigh*

I keep having the same augment about music etc with other people.

What I would say is that in very broad terms, the only way to objectively measure how "good" an event is, is to count now many people actually went and paid money to see it.

If nobody cares about a fight, how can it be considered "good?"

I explain this better after a few pints, to be honest.

Do you work in business by any chance Khaosai?

[jamesmcdonnell]

Depends what you mean by "poor fights"

Hatton - Lazcano was considered by many to be a "poor fight" yet it sold 50,000 tickets. Same with a lot of those Hatton WBU fights.

Hamed and Eubank were in a lots of "poor fights" but they did record business.

A poor fight is one that nobody wants to see, in my opinion.

Not quite sure about that, the fight did so much business because of Hattons popularity as with the WBU fights, Hatton was promoted extremely well by Warren, he could have filled out the MEN against anyone at that time. Lazcano was a good solid opponent for a comeback fight - seemed lacking in ability to beat the best but not likely to fall apart like a cheap watch - it did what it did because Hatton was a major star at the time and he would likely have sold out the stadium against Colin Lynes at the time(no disrespect to Colin of course just using an example) but just because something makes a lot of money doesn't mean it's good, Transformers 3 took over 1 billion dollars at the box office world wide it doesn't stop it being a load of shite.

The faithful of Manchester would have turned up to watch Hatton erect a deck chair at that point in time.

[palooka]

The faithful of Manchester would have turned up to watch Hatton erect...

You wrote "erect"!!

Beavis

[ashedward]

The article misses a big point imo,that Sky have had a change of thinking regarding boxing,they have already ditched two promoters and Hearn will be next if he does not deliver the quality fights and viewing figures Sky want so that will be the motivation to make the best fights possible and make shows like the London one a blip.
If Hearn fails that would be the end of boxing on Sky for the forseeable, so i hope as hell that he gets it right

[mickey1975]

The article misses a big point imo,that Sky have had a change of thinking regarding boxing,they have already ditched two promoters and Hearn will be next if he does not deliver the quality fights and viewing figures Sky want so that will be the motivation to make the best fights possible and make shows like the London one a blip.
If Hearn fails that would be the end of boxing on Sky for the forseeable, so i hope as hell that he gets it right

Your missing the point. Hearn runs the Darts etc and does what he wants. Boxing is just his passion.

[dondada]

The article misses a big point imo,that Sky have had a change of thinking regarding boxing,they have already ditched two promoters and Hearn will be next if he does not deliver the quality fights and viewing figures Sky want so that will be the motivation to make the best fights possible and make shows like the London one a blip.
If Hearn fails that would be the end of boxing on Sky for the forseeable, so i hope as hell that he gets it right

Your missing the point. Hearn runs the Darts etc and does what he wants. Boxing is just his passion.

Sky pays Hearn, Mickey, not the other way round.

Boxing could have been f**ked off completely by Sky, so it might very well have been Matchroom's good relationship with them which persuaded them to keep going.

Dog racing and speedway used to be on regularly. Now they aren't at all (I don't think). Boxing could have been in their position.

So for all the complaints about the 'monopoly' (which I understand) - if the choice was Sky showing Matchroom only (on the premise that Sky trusts them and believes they can deliver, unlike their experience of other promoters in recent years perhaps) or getting rid altogether...what would people choose?