BoxRec

What im i missing here, re the sauna comments ?

Boxers not allowed in sauna's ?

The Hearns have done a fantastic job with darts. Not going to deny it. But when it comes to boxing, their current standing is all down to the decision Sky made to allow a monopoly on their channel and basically funded it.

Eddie and Matchroom have used that position very smartly to their advantage to 'build' a stable, but the smugness, arrogance and general demeanour they portray would have you believe that they were some sort of promotional geniuses. Utter nonsense. They're just the people who happen to have the financial backing to guarantee shows, activity and relatively mainstream exposure.

Sky have been the 'kingmakers' in this current moment and there's no doubt that things will change again.

Personally I dislike the business model in boxing which allows promoters to such a visible role in the media, and most distressingly, make a ridiculous amount of money compared to the people who actually put their lives and bodies at risk in one of the toughest jobs anyone could choose to do.

The top US boxers starting their own promotion companies is not a coincidence. It simply allows them to examine figures and make sure that they understand every element of income and ensure that they're the ones getting properly paid and whilst the promoters earn, the balance is tipped further towards the deserving fighter when a fighter is properly represented and has the power to be able to get that involved in the dealmaking process.

Promoters in boxing use the age old excuse of how they 'built these fighters' but it's all down to controlling the exposure and the pursestrings - without the talent there'd be nothing to build.

In the business I come from (music) when a show is put on - you're presented the full figures for a show and then every single detail before you agree a split with a promoter - and the promoters' % is relatively tiny.

Now I realise boxing is totally different but the principle is ultimately the same - the FIGHTERS are the draw - from what I can gather - (and I may well be wrong here) - they are simply given a purse, which may seem like a decent pay day to them, but the promoter doesn't necessarily disclose their costs/earnings to the fighter and the promoters make far more money % wise than in other businesses.

Mayweather and co are changing that in America and people like GBP have had to learn to work with it, and again, from what I can gather, Haymon has applied a lot of his music business experience to his representation of fighters and getting them what THEY are worth - Top Rank seem to be a harder nut to crack and ALLEGEDLY the likes of Pacquiao whilst getting huge purses are still losing out in comparison to what they could get.

I've gone off point, but ultimately the way the Hearns' present themselves is like they're some sort of clean new look to boxing, but they're not. It's meet the new boss, same as the old boss and they both have the gift of the gab , flashing teeth and love the camera -

FW had a real point about the 'friend of the fighters' business and the absolute lack of humility that Eddie shows. It's transparent. Total fake. The same as in US boxing, our 2 main promoters are at each others throats and spending too much time trying to get one over the other and it's harming the sport in terms of great fights not getting made. But I realise that's nothing new in boxing.

If BH/EH were really the 'better men' etc, they wouldn't have responded with the stuff like "we had a chuckle", and the "chauffeur" comment. Not defending some of what FW says, but he is unashamedly old school , whereas the Hearns present this smug air of superiority that's not based in talent, but based in the fact that they happen to be the ones holding the cards in this 'cycle'.

I'm not saying BN will or won't take off, but if it does and things swing back to FWP in one way or another, it wouldn't be a major surprise, it's always been cyclical in boxing. One truly special fighter can change a huge amount - and I've yet to see Eddie actually build one.

His best fighters' groundwork was all done elsewhere - and the big fights that got made, for example in Carl's case were off the back of Carl and Mick's work in Super 6. After that, the Bute/Kessler fights pretty much made themselves - but for Hearns "in" at Sky. Scott Quigg is a superb fighter who Hearn was literally dismissing not so long ago and now he's going to reap the rewards of Hatton being stitched by Sky. Groves, Burns, Bellew etc - where was that groundwork done? And when did it become worthwhile for them to switch? When Matchroom gained the TV/funding advantage.

That's literally the advantage he has, and as I said at the beginning of this ramble, he's played it extremely well, but when someone is as smug and condescending as he so constantly is, it actually makes you want to see how he would respond if that particular rug got pulled and like FW he tried to stay in the boxing business without playing with "someone elses money". The likelihood is, he wouldn't.

And don't get me started on his overall matchmaking.

FW has taken a long, brutal road with BN and any boxing fan has to admit for a tenner a month it's good value. As a business model it's ballsy and who knows what the outcome will be, it's been a risk and he's having to ride choppy waters, and arguably that's cost him his place at the Sky table and allowed the Hearns to come in and do what they've done from that position.

IMHO they should pipe down and whilst I'm sure Eddie Hearn and Kugan C genuinely get on well, KC must see that he's being used to an extent for Eddie to hammer home his message and build his own 'brand'. He was working in sports marketing and that's what he's doing here - with himself. FW might not be his own best PR but this whole thing has become unsavoury - and just because FW wasn't slick and smarmy about it, doesn't mean he got "owned".

For me the whole system of boxing needs an overhaul, I don't think it can happen because, like football, it's too ingrained, but fighters are not looked after, particularly those further down the bills, when they make sacrifices and put everything on the line, whilst people like the Hearns are chauffered around and sit around parading their country manors.

Fake dignity is the worst kind.

goldenears wrote:The Hearns have done a fantastic job with darts. Not going to deny it. But when it comes to boxing, their current standing is all down to the decision Sky made to allow a monopoly on their channel and basically funded it.

Eddie and Matchroom have used that position very smartly to their advantage to 'build' a stable, but the smugness, arrogance and general demeanour they portray would have you believe that they were some sort of promotional geniuses. Utter nonsense. They're just the people who happen to have the financial backing to guarantee shows, activity and relatively mainstream exposure.

Sky have been the 'kingmakers' in this current moment and there's no doubt that things will change again.

Personally I dislike the business model in boxing which allows promoters to such a visible role in the media, and most distressingly, make a ridiculous amount of money compared to the people who actually put their lives and bodies at risk in one of the toughest jobs anyone could choose to do.

The top US boxers starting their own promotion companies is not a coincidence. It simply allows them to examine figures and make sure that they understand every element of income and ensure that they're the ones getting properly paid and whilst the promoters earn, the balance is tipped further towards the deserving fighter when a fighter is properly represented and has the power to be able to get that involved in the dealmaking process.

Promoters in boxing use the age old excuse of how they 'built these fighters' but it's all down to controlling the exposure and the pursestrings - without the talent there'd be nothing to build.

In the business I come from (music) when a show is put on - you're presented the full figures for a show and then every single detail before you agree a split with a promoter - and the promoters' % is relatively tiny.

Now I realise boxing is totally different but the principle is ultimately the same - the FIGHTERS are the draw - from what I can gather - (and I may well be wrong here) - they are simply given a purse, which may seem like a decent pay day to them, but the promoter doesn't necessarily disclose their costs/earnings to the fighter and the promoters make far more money % wise than in other businesses.

Mayweather and co are changing that in America and people like GBP have had to learn to work with it, and again, from what I can gather, Haymon has applied a lot of his music business experience to his representation of fighters and getting them what THEY are worth - Top Rank seem to be a harder nut to crack and ALLEGEDLY the likes of Pacquiao whilst getting huge purses are still losing out in comparison to what they could get.

I've gone off point, but ultimately the way the Hearns' present themselves is like they're some sort of clean new look to boxing, but they're not. It's meet the new boss, same as the old boss and they both have the gift of the gab , flashing teeth and love the camera -

FW had a real point about the 'friend of the fighters' business and the absolute lack of humility that Eddie shows. It's transparent. Total fake. The same as in US boxing, our 2 main promoters are at each others throats and spending too much time trying to get one over the other and it's harming the sport in terms of great fights not getting made. But I realise that's nothing new in boxing.

If BH/EH were really the 'better men' etc, they wouldn't have responded with the stuff like "we had a chuckle", and the "chauffeur" comment. Not defending some of what FW says, but he is unashamedly old school , whereas the Hearns present this smug air of superiority that's not based in talent, but based in the fact that they happen to be the ones holding the cards in this 'cycle'.

I'm not saying BN will or won't take off, but if it does and things swing back to FWP in one way or another, it wouldn't be a major surprise, it's always been cyclical in boxing. One truly special fighter can change a huge amount - and I've yet to see Eddie actually build one.

His best fighters' groundwork was all done elsewhere - and the big fights that got made, for example in Carl's case were off the back of Carl and Mick's work in Super 6. After that, the Bute/Kessler fights pretty much made themselves - but for Hearns "in" at Sky. Scott Quigg is a superb fighter who Hearn was literally dismissing not so long ago and now he's going to reap the rewards of Hatton being stitched by Sky. Groves, Burns, Bellew etc - where was that groundwork done? And when did it become worthwhile for them to switch? When Matchroom gained the TV/funding advantage.

That's literally the advantage he has, and as I said at the beginning of this ramble, he's played it extremely well, but when someone is as smug and condescending as he so constantly is, it actually makes you want to see how he would respond if that particular rug got pulled and like FW he tried to stay in the boxing business without playing with "someone elses money". The likelihood is, he wouldn't.

And don't get me started on his overall matchmaking.

FW has taken a long, brutal road with BN and any boxing fan has to admit for a tenner a month it's good value. As a business model it's ballsy and who knows what the outcome will be, it's been a risk and he's having to ride choppy waters, and arguably that's cost him his place at the Sky table and allowed the Hearns to come in and do what they've done from that position.

IMHO they should pipe down and whilst I'm sure Eddie Hearn and Kugan C genuinely get on well, KC must see that he's being used to an extent for Eddie to hammer home his message and build his own 'brand'. He was working in sports marketing and that's what he's doing here - with himself. FW might not be his own best PR but this whole thing has become unsavoury - and just because FW wasn't slick and smarmy about it, doesn't mean he got "owned".

For me the whole system of boxing needs an overhaul, I don't think it can happen because, like football, it's too ingrained, but fighters are not looked after, particularly those further down the bills, when they make sacrifices and put everything on the line, whilst people like the Hearns are chauffered around and sit around parading their country manors.

Fake dignity is the worst kind.

Whats your role in music if you dont mind me asking mate?

Edit - Forget it.

columbo wrote:

goldenears wrote:The Hearns have done a fantastic job with darts. Not going to deny it. But when it comes to boxing, their current standing is all down to the decision Sky made to allow a monopoly on their channel and basically funded it.

Eddie and Matchroom have used that position very smartly to their advantage to 'build' a stable, but the smugness, arrogance and general demeanour they portray would have you believe that they were some sort of promotional geniuses. Utter nonsense. They're just the people who happen to have the financial backing to guarantee shows, activity and relatively mainstream exposure.

Sky have been the 'kingmakers' in this current moment and there's no doubt that things will change again.

Personally I dislike the business model in boxing which allows promoters to such a visible role in the media, and most distressingly, make a ridiculous amount of money compared to the people who actually put their lives and bodies at risk in one of the toughest jobs anyone could choose to do.

The top US boxers starting their own promotion companies is not a coincidence. It simply allows them to examine figures and make sure that they understand every element of income and ensure that they're the ones getting properly paid and whilst the promoters earn, the balance is tipped further towards the deserving fighter when a fighter is properly represented and has the power to be able to get that involved in the dealmaking process.

Promoters in boxing use the age old excuse of how they 'built these fighters' but it's all down to controlling the exposure and the pursestrings - without the talent there'd be nothing to build.

In the business I come from (music) when a show is put on - you're presented the full figures for a show and then every single detail before you agree a split with a promoter - and the promoters' % is relatively tiny.

Now I realise boxing is totally different but the principle is ultimately the same - the FIGHTERS are the draw - from what I can gather - (and I may well be wrong here) - they are simply given a purse, which may seem like a decent pay day to them, but the promoter doesn't necessarily disclose their costs/earnings to the fighter and the promoters make far more money % wise than in other businesses.

Mayweather and co are changing that in America and people like GBP have had to learn to work with it, and again, from what I can gather, Haymon has applied a lot of his music business experience to his representation of fighters and getting them what THEY are worth - Top Rank seem to be a harder nut to crack and ALLEGEDLY the likes of Pacquiao whilst getting huge purses are still losing out in comparison to what they could get.

I've gone off point, but ultimately the way the Hearns' present themselves is like they're some sort of clean new look to boxing, but they're not. It's meet the new boss, same as the old boss and they both have the gift of the gab , flashing teeth and love the camera -

FW had a real point about the 'friend of the fighters' business and the absolute lack of humility that Eddie shows. It's transparent. Total fake. The same as in US boxing, our 2 main promoters are at each others throats and spending too much time trying to get one over the other and it's harming the sport in terms of great fights not getting made. But I realise that's nothing new in boxing.

If BH/EH were really the 'better men' etc, they wouldn't have responded with the stuff like "we had a chuckle", and the "chauffeur" comment. Not defending some of what FW says, but he is unashamedly old school , whereas the Hearns present this smug air of superiority that's not based in talent, but based in the fact that they happen to be the ones holding the cards in this 'cycle'.

I'm not saying BN will or won't take off, but if it does and things swing back to FWP in one way or another, it wouldn't be a major surprise, it's always been cyclical in boxing. One truly special fighter can change a huge amount - and I've yet to see Eddie actually build one.

His best fighters' groundwork was all done elsewhere - and the big fights that got made, for example in Carl's case were off the back of Carl and Mick's work in Super 6. After that, the Bute/Kessler fights pretty much made themselves - but for Hearns "in" at Sky. Scott Quigg is a superb fighter who Hearn was literally dismissing not so long ago and now he's going to reap the rewards of Hatton being stitched by Sky. Groves, Burns, Bellew etc - where was that groundwork done? And when did it become worthwhile for them to switch? When Matchroom gained the TV/funding advantage.

That's literally the advantage he has, and as I said at the beginning of this ramble, he's played it extremely well, but when someone is as smug and condescending as he so constantly is, it actually makes you want to see how he would respond if that particular rug got pulled and like FW he tried to stay in the boxing business without playing with "someone elses money". The likelihood is, he wouldn't.

And don't get me started on his overall matchmaking.

FW has taken a long, brutal road with BN and any boxing fan has to admit for a tenner a month it's good value. As a business model it's ballsy and who knows what the outcome will be, it's been a risk and he's having to ride choppy waters, and arguably that's cost him his place at the Sky table and allowed the Hearns to come in and do what they've done from that position.

IMHO they should pipe down and whilst I'm sure Eddie Hearn and Kugan C genuinely get on well, KC must see that he's being used to an extent for Eddie to hammer home his message and build his own 'brand'. He was working in sports marketing and that's what he's doing here - with himself. FW might not be his own best PR but this whole thing has become unsavoury - and just because FW wasn't slick and smarmy about it, doesn't mean he got "owned".

For me the whole system of boxing needs an overhaul, I don't think it can happen because, like football, it's too ingrained, but fighters are not looked after, particularly those further down the bills, when they make sacrifices and put everything on the line, whilst people like the Hearns are chauffered around and sit around parading their country manors.

Fake dignity is the worst kind.

Whats your role in music if you dont mind me asking mate?

Representing artists. So I was involved in their career on every level and have worked with figures from everything to record deals, to sponsorship, to every level of gig from the smallest, to arenas, stadiums, festivals. Like I say, my info on boxing is slightly second hand so I may have some detail wrong - but it feels very different to the sort of protection an artist can get in music - although the way record deals have traditionally been structured have screwed them for years. Gigs though, artists and their representatives are very sussed as to exactly how much money is involved and make sure that they are aware of what is coming in and that they are the ones who really benefit.

A band like Oasis for instance (just a random example) will set up a tour - everyone knows it's going to sell out - so the promoter books the infrastructure and may do broadcast deals etc, but the artist/management sign off on it and agree the splits and they are heavily heavily in the favour of the headline artist. At that level the promoters' % will be negligible but they would still make a respectable amount of money, but it would be dwarfed by what the artist , which is who people are coming to see , would make.

All valid points; however Frank, Ricky Hatton and others had the chance to do what Matchroom now do for Sky before they gave them the contract - and they fucked it up. That isn't coincidence. Yes, the Sky deal is clearly a massive part of Matchroom Boxing's success but they aren't the first to have a go at putting boxing on Sky - but they've had the bigger audiences which convinced Sky to form a business partnership with them.

The fact is the shows put on by Hatton Promotions & Warren weren't good enough. They had their chance.

goldenears wrote:

columbo wrote:

goldenears wrote:The Hearns have done a fantastic job with darts. Not going to deny it. But when it comes to boxing, their current standing is all down to the decision Sky made to allow a monopoly on their channel and basically funded it.

Eddie and Matchroom have used that position very smartly to their advantage to 'build' a stable, but the smugness, arrogance and general demeanour they portray would have you believe that they were some sort of promotional geniuses. Utter nonsense. They're just the people who happen to have the financial backing to guarantee shows, activity and relatively mainstream exposure.

Sky have been the 'kingmakers' in this current moment and there's no doubt that things will change again.

Personally I dislike the business model in boxing which allows promoters to such a visible role in the media, and most distressingly, make a ridiculous amount of money compared to the people who actually put their lives and bodies at risk in one of the toughest jobs anyone could choose to do.

The top US boxers starting their own promotion companies is not a coincidence. It simply allows them to examine figures and make sure that they understand every element of income and ensure that they're the ones getting properly paid and whilst the promoters earn, the balance is tipped further towards the deserving fighter when a fighter is properly represented and has the power to be able to get that involved in the dealmaking process.

Promoters in boxing use the age old excuse of how they 'built these fighters' but it's all down to controlling the exposure and the pursestrings - without the talent there'd be nothing to build.

In the business I come from (music) when a show is put on - you're presented the full figures for a show and then every single detail before you agree a split with a promoter - and the promoters' % is relatively tiny.

Now I realise boxing is totally different but the principle is ultimately the same - the FIGHTERS are the draw - from what I can gather - (and I may well be wrong here) - they are simply given a purse, which may seem like a decent pay day to them, but the promoter doesn't necessarily disclose their costs/earnings to the fighter and the promoters make far more money % wise than in other businesses.

Mayweather and co are changing that in America and people like GBP have had to learn to work with it, and again, from what I can gather, Haymon has applied a lot of his music business experience to his representation of fighters and getting them what THEY are worth - Top Rank seem to be a harder nut to crack and ALLEGEDLY the likes of Pacquiao whilst getting huge purses are still losing out in comparison to what they could get.

I've gone off point, but ultimately the way the Hearns' present themselves is like they're some sort of clean new look to boxing, but they're not. It's meet the new boss, same as the old boss and they both have the gift of the gab , flashing teeth and love the camera -

FW had a real point about the 'friend of the fighters' business and the absolute lack of humility that Eddie shows. It's transparent. Total fake. The same as in US boxing, our 2 main promoters are at each others throats and spending too much time trying to get one over the other and it's harming the sport in terms of great fights not getting made. But I realise that's nothing new in boxing.

If BH/EH were really the 'better men' etc, they wouldn't have responded with the stuff like "we had a chuckle", and the "chauffeur" comment. Not defending some of what FW says, but he is unashamedly old school , whereas the Hearns present this smug air of superiority that's not based in talent, but based in the fact that they happen to be the ones holding the cards in this 'cycle'.

I'm not saying BN will or won't take off, but if it does and things swing back to FWP in one way or another, it wouldn't be a major surprise, it's always been cyclical in boxing. One truly special fighter can change a huge amount - and I've yet to see Eddie actually build one.

His best fighters' groundwork was all done elsewhere - and the big fights that got made, for example in Carl's case were off the back of Carl and Mick's work in Super 6. After that, the Bute/Kessler fights pretty much made themselves - but for Hearns "in" at Sky. Scott Quigg is a superb fighter who Hearn was literally dismissing not so long ago and now he's going to reap the rewards of Hatton being stitched by Sky. Groves, Burns, Bellew etc - where was that groundwork done? And when did it become worthwhile for them to switch? When Matchroom gained the TV/funding advantage.

That's literally the advantage he has, and as I said at the beginning of this ramble, he's played it extremely well, but when someone is as smug and condescending as he so constantly is, it actually makes you want to see how he would respond if that particular rug got pulled and like FW he tried to stay in the boxing business without playing with "someone elses money". The likelihood is, he wouldn't.

And don't get me started on his overall matchmaking.

FW has taken a long, brutal road with BN and any boxing fan has to admit for a tenner a month it's good value. As a business model it's ballsy and who knows what the outcome will be, it's been a risk and he's having to ride choppy waters, and arguably that's cost him his place at the Sky table and allowed the Hearns to come in and do what they've done from that position.

IMHO they should pipe down and whilst I'm sure Eddie Hearn and Kugan C genuinely get on well, KC must see that he's being used to an extent for Eddie to hammer home his message and build his own 'brand'. He was working in sports marketing and that's what he's doing here - with himself. FW might not be his own best PR but this whole thing has become unsavoury - and just because FW wasn't slick and smarmy about it, doesn't mean he got "owned".

For me the whole system of boxing needs an overhaul, I don't think it can happen because, like football, it's too ingrained, but fighters are not looked after, particularly those further down the bills, when they make sacrifices and put everything on the line, whilst people like the Hearns are chauffered around and sit around parading their country manors.

Fake dignity is the worst kind.

Whats your role in music if you dont mind me asking mate?

Representing artists. So I was involved in their career on every level and have worked with figures from everything to record deals, to sponsorship, to every level of gig from the smallest, to arenas, stadiums, festivals. Like I say, my info on boxing is slightly second hand so I may have some detail wrong - but it feels very different to the sort of protection an artist can get in music - although the way record deals have traditionally been structured have screwed them for years. Gigs though, artists and their representatives are very sussed as to exactly how much money is involved and make sure that they are aware of what is coming in and that they are the ones who really benefit.

A band like Oasis for instance (just a random example) will set up a tour - everyone knows it's going to sell out - so the promoter books the infrastructure and may do broadcast deals etc, but the artist/management sign off on it and agree the splits and they are heavily heavily in the favour of the headline artist. At that level the promoters' % will be negligible but they would still make a respectable amount of money, but it would be dwarfed by what the artist , which is who people are coming to see , would make.

Very interesting line of work to be in!

DMA1987 wrote:Quick question mate. Would you rather the Hearns or FWP be on top? Which would be best for boxing? For all the ranting about how they are the same - they aren't are they? Ask the boxers.

not sure if that is aimed at me but as my rant was the last one, i'll offer my opinion. I'd rather neither were 'on top' - I'd rather that whilst there was a rivalry in winning fighters over early on - they'd all be working together on a level playing field and making fights that the sport needs

it's exactly the same as the US now.

The reason Frampton/Quigg won't get made is because neither promoter will give way as to where the fight is shown - both fighters IMHO would - if they weren't being 'advised' otherwise - jump in the ring tomorrow

same with, for example Donaire/Mares in the US, or even Floyd/Pacquiao which fell apart more due to Arum than Floyd or MP.

Barry basically admitted (allegedly from what I can gather from the interview) that he wasn't going to let any of his headline fighters fight on BN no matter what the financial offer. So a fighter, who has a short career and needs to earn whilst they can, might have an enormous payday turned down due to ego/TV politics/boxing promoter beefs and unless they are considered 'small' enough for them to accept the results of purse bids (eg Ryder) then they are going to find a way to scupper any lost purse bids and prevent their fighters appearing outside of their jurisdiction even if it's going to lose that fighter a huge amount of potential earnings.

Donaire was forced into an in house fight for half the money on offer for a Mares match up and came unstuck simply because Arum refused to work with GBP, who even agreed no options and to fight on HBO.

In the correspondence between MR and FW all of Eddie's responses about Cleverly/Froch basically said that he wasn't interested in FW's offer, but that if the weight could be agreed, HE would be making the offer to Nathan C.

It's a total mess.

Thanks for the reply mate, there is some real sense there. I am on my phone so I won't be able to type the reply you warrant, I apologise.

If BN fails it might take away much of that problem, if it succeeds then in many respects it will harm the domestic fights which can get made no end. But Sky made this problem and probably thought BN would have disappeared by now.

I think it also depends on which side of the fence you sit as to who you view the real problem as.

Im of the belief that all promoters are toss jockeys to a certain degree. DMA1987, I know you think I hate Eddie Hearn and I can understand why as I do give him stick on here. It's not that I hate him, it's just that when he first came onto the scene, he was saying how he wanted to make boxing mainstream again and put on 50-50 fights. He was saying how mismatches have killed the sport to a degree and I agreed with him. I was genuinely excited when he was first doing his thing. It's just that lately im starting to see matches made they go against his initial statements and end up like your stereotypical greedy boxing promoter who doesnt really care about the best fighting the best, but rather who makes the most money for their pocket. FW has done the same thing over the years but ive never expected any better of him to be honest. However over the last few years, I think he's made some good risky fights. Like Chisora vs Haye and Mitchell vs Murray and Bellew vs Cleverly, etc. Maybe its because he's had to because he's been marginalised but my expectations with him havent been great so I dont even bother giving him stick. Also whereas FW doesnt hide the fact he seems a bit of a miserable git. To me Eddie and Barry seem good at giving off this image of being everyday men when they're really not. It's like they're skilled PR practioners.

MarkMcBurney wrote:All valid points; however Frank, Ricky Hatton and others had the chance to do what Matchroom now do for Sky before they gave them the contract - and they fucked it up. That isn't coincidence. Yes, the Sky deal is clearly a massive part of Matchroom Boxing's success but they aren't the first to have a go at putting boxing on Sky - but they've had the bigger audiences which convinced Sky to form a business partnership with them.

The fact is the shows put on by Hatton Promotions & Warren weren't good enough. They had their chance.

I kind of see where you're coming from, but there's a difference between giving someone a complete monopoly which basically hamstrings everyone else, and a few companies being involved and Sky not being able to get them to work together to make some of the fights that were needed.

Prizefighter worked on a basic level of bringing in some more 'casual' boxing fans, but lets not kid ourselves that things like Bellew vs Chilemba , or the disgrace of a Froch undercard etc were any better than a lot of the things that were on before the monopoly, and I for one am not of fan of seeing a UK fighter trot off to the States literally to take a beating so that Eddie can get meetings with HBO.

You can find arguments for and against all promoters shows, Matchrooms' shows since the monopoly haven't all been barnstormers - Bute/Kessler are the standouts, and as I say, he got them on a plate, FW got Burns biggest fights, and he got them here against fighters Burns was supposed to lose against. 1st fight with Matchroom, Burns was beyond lucky - terrible matchmaking. Purdy? Rees?

If Cleverly beats Kovalev which is a definite possibility, his standing in the USA will jump massively. The hype on Kovalev is huge out there and suddenly HBO will be all over Cleverly. Degale is still a highly skilled fighter with every chance of a World Title. Fury got the biggest boxing TV audience of the year so far in the US (free to air mainstream channel but still), Frankie Gavin is arguably the most naturally gifted fighter (skills wise) we have and Frampton/Quigg is a potential classic rivalry (let alone rematching Degale/Groves) - there's things happening outside of Matchroom and Sky - but this current situation is completely unhealthy.

The playing field isn't level.

columbo wrote:Im of the belief that all promoters are toss jockeys to a certain degree. DMA1987, I know you think I hate Eddie Hearn and I can understand why as I do give him stick on here. It's not that I hate him, it's just that when he first came onto the scene, he was saying how he wanted to make boxing mainstream again and put on 50-50 fights. He was saying how mismatches have killed the sport to a degree and I agreed with him. I was genuinely excited when he was first doing his thing. It's just that lately im starting to see matches made they go against his initial statements and end up like your stereotypical greedy boxing promoter who doesnt really care about the best fighting the best, but rather who makes the most money for their pocket. FW has done the same thing over the years but ive never expected any better of him to be honest. However over the last few years, I think he's made some good risky fights. Like Chisora vs Haye and Mitchell vs Murray and Bellew vs Cleverly, etc. Maybe its because he's had to because he's been marginalised but my expectations with him havent been great so I dont even bother giving him stick. Also whereas FW doesnt hide the fact he seems a bit of a miserable git. To me Eddie and Barry seem good at giving off this image of being everyday men when they're really not. It's like they're skilled PR practioners.

exactly my opinion. Agreed 100%. I'm not trying to just defend FW or attack MR, I just find the facade really undignified and smug - when they're just doing the same thing and lining their own pockets first and foremost.

someone said 'ask the fighters who they prefer' earlier - and I have had this conversation with one or two. At this point in time what Eddie offers is activity and Sky TV. The particular fighters I discussed it with didn't feel that they weren't looked after by FW - or that the ones that did leave weren't being looked after - it was about activity and exposure - FW were unlucky with some shows falling through and that was unfortunate for them. Whatever rumours there are in the past, the people I've PERSONALLY spoken to had no complaints. Equally they didn't have complaints about working with Matchroom, but they certainly weren't making out that the treatment was vastly better in other ways.

goldenears wrote:

MarkMcBurney wrote:All valid points; however Frank, Ricky Hatton and others had the chance to do what Matchroom now do for Sky before they gave them the contract - and they fucked it up. That isn't coincidence. Yes, the Sky deal is clearly a massive part of Matchroom Boxing's success but they aren't the first to have a go at putting boxing on Sky - but they've had the bigger audiences which convinced Sky to form a business partnership with them.

The fact is the shows put on by Hatton Promotions & Warren weren't good enough. They had their chance.

I kind of see where you're coming from, but there's a difference between giving someone a complete monopoly which basically hamstrings everyone else, and a few companies being involved and Sky not being able to get them to work together to make some of the fights that were needed.

Prizefighter worked on a basic level of bringing in some more 'casual' boxing fans, but lets not kid ourselves that things like Bellew vs Chilemba , or the disgrace of a Froch undercard etc were any better than a lot of the things that were on before the monopoly, and I for one am not of fan of seeing a UK fighter trot off to the States literally to take a beating so that Eddie can get meetings with HBO.

You can find arguments for and against all promoters shows, Matchrooms' shows since the monopoly haven't all been barnstormers - Bute/Kessler are the standouts, and as I say, he got them on a plate, FW got Burns biggest fights, and he got them here against fighters Burns was supposed to lose against. 1st fight with Matchroom, Burns was beyond lucky - terrible matchmaking. Purdy? Rees?

If Cleverly beats Kovalev which is a definite possibility, his standing in the USA will jump massively. The hype on Kovalev is huge out there and suddenly HBO will be all over Cleverly. Degale is still a highly skilled fighter with every chance of a World Title. Fury got the biggest boxing TV audience of the year so far in the US (free to air mainstream channel but still), Frankie Gavin is arguably the most naturally gifted fighter (skills wise) we have and Frampton/Quigg is a potential classic rivalry (let alone rematching Degale/Groves) - there's things happening outside of Matchroom and Sky - but this current situation is completely unhealthy.

The playing field isn't level.

You make a lot of valid points. On the issue of the quality of Matchroom cards I tend to agree with the exception that on most of the poorer cards there has been one exceptionally good fight, whether its the main event or not, and that at least is different to a lot of the drab shows served up before they came along.

The Bellew/Chilemba card for example, featured the rematch of Anthony Crolla and Derry Mathews in a FOTY contender. I was actually discussing that event some time back with Tris Dixon and I believe that the Bellew fight is seen as worse than it actually was because it followed a real stormer. I mean it wasn't a good fight - far from it - but was it really as terrible as made out, or is Chilemba just 'one of those fighters' that people struggle to shine against?

The Cleverly point is also a good one - I was surprised Warren made this fight as it really is a stick or twist fight for Nathan. By a distance the best opposition he's faced since becoming champion, and probably of his career; this will answer a lot of questions about him. Frank has arranged some terrible matchups for him that have seen him regress if anything over the past couple of years, for a 26yr old world champion the level of fighter that he has faced has been an absolute shambles and the fact is nobody really knows how good he is. I hope for Warren's sake (and of course Nathan) that he's as good as he thinks he is, or he might get a bit of a rude awakening.

One final point with regard the 'Matchroom monopoly'; I stick with my point about the others having a chance, but also let's not forget that there's no point in them bitching about it; as soon as Warren started BN there was clearly no way he was ever going to work with Sky again - at least while BN is still going and under his control, so why discuss it? The fact is, prior to starting the channel if his shows had been of a good enough standard the Sky would never have decided to stick with just one promoter. It would have been detrimental to them. As it was Matchroom were the company who had put on the better shows and they were then rewarded with this deal - something, lets not forget, that was not the doing of Eddie or Barry Hearn but Adam Smith and the other Sky executives. If Warren or anyone else was offered the same deal would they have turned it down 'in the interests of British boxing'? Would they hell.

The simple fact is that Matchroom are making the most of a good opportunity that they have been given, hardly something to criticise them for.

columbo wrote:Im of the belief that all promoters are toss jockeys to a certain degree. DMA1987, I know you think I hate Eddie Hearn and I can understand why as I do give him stick on here. It's not that I hate him, it's just that when he first came onto the scene, he was saying how he wanted to make boxing mainstream again and put on 50-50 fights. He was saying how mismatches have killed the sport to a degree and I agreed with him. I was genuinely excited when he was first doing his thing. It's just that lately im starting to see matches made they go against his initial statements and end up like your stereotypical greedy boxing promoter who doesnt really care about the best fighting the best, but rather who makes the most money for their pocket. FW has done the same thing over the years but ive never expected any better of him to be honest. However over the last few years, I think he's made some good risky fights. Like Chisora vs Haye and Mitchell vs Murray and Bellew vs Cleverly, etc. Maybe its because he's had to because he's been marginalised but my expectations with him havent been great so I dont even bother giving him stick. Also whereas FW doesnt hide the fact he seems a bit of a miserable git. To me Eddie and Barry seem good at giving off this image of being everyday men when they're really not. It's like they're skilled PR practioners.

Christ we have been through this though haven't we, I gave you a big old list of fights both past and present which showed it to not really be the case. Remember this is his first real year, I really don't think he has done too badly. He could do better yes, I'm not happy with what he's doing with Burns at all, but then again we don't know everything. I trust Eddie to do right, I really do, which is why I probably give him more benefit of the doubt than most.

As for them being PR practitioners, of course they are. Who isn't? Ever lied on a CV? They pay their boxers on time, are actually good to listen to and regardless of what you are saying, put on good fights. Compared to the fornicating cards being postponed/delayed/announced when not finalised from FW. That and not paying fighters, etc. I mean come on now they are a league apart on that side too.

MarkMcBurney wrote:

goldenears wrote:

MarkMcBurney wrote:All valid points; however Frank, Ricky Hatton and others had the chance to do what Matchroom now do for Sky before they gave them the contract - and they fucked it up. That isn't coincidence. Yes, the Sky deal is clearly a massive part of Matchroom Boxing's success but they aren't the first to have a go at putting boxing on Sky - but they've had the bigger audiences which convinced Sky to form a business partnership with them.

The fact is the shows put on by Hatton Promotions & Warren weren't good enough. They had their chance.

I kind of see where you're coming from, but there's a difference between giving someone a complete monopoly which basically hamstrings everyone else, and a few companies being involved and Sky not being able to get them to work together to make some of the fights that were needed.

Prizefighter worked on a basic level of bringing in some more 'casual' boxing fans, but lets not kid ourselves that things like Bellew vs Chilemba , or the disgrace of a Froch undercard etc were any better than a lot of the things that were on before the monopoly, and I for one am not of fan of seeing a UK fighter trot off to the States literally to take a beating so that Eddie can get meetings with HBO.

You can find arguments for and against all promoters shows, Matchrooms' shows since the monopoly haven't all been barnstormers - Bute/Kessler are the standouts, and as I say, he got them on a plate, FW got Burns biggest fights, and he got them here against fighters Burns was supposed to lose against. 1st fight with Matchroom, Burns was beyond lucky - terrible matchmaking. Purdy? Rees?

If Cleverly beats Kovalev which is a definite possibility, his standing in the USA will jump massively. The hype on Kovalev is huge out there and suddenly HBO will be all over Cleverly. Degale is still a highly skilled fighter with every chance of a World Title. Fury got the biggest boxing TV audience of the year so far in the US (free to air mainstream channel but still), Frankie Gavin is arguably the most naturally gifted fighter (skills wise) we have and Frampton/Quigg is a potential classic rivalry (let alone rematching Degale/Groves) - there's things happening outside of Matchroom and Sky - but this current situation is completely unhealthy.

The playing field isn't level.

You make a lot of valid points. On the issue of the quality of Matchroom cards I tend to agree with the exception that on most of the poorer cards there has been one exceptionally good fight, whether its the main event or not, and that at least is different to a lot of the drab shows served up before they came along.

The Bellew/Chilemba card for example, featured the rematch of Anthony Crolla and Derry Mathews in a FOTY contender. I was actually discussing that event some time back with Tris Dixon and I believe that the Bellew fight is seen as worse than it actually was because it followed a real stormer. I mean it wasn't a good fight - far from it - but was it really as terrible as made out, or is Chilemba just 'one of those fighters' that people struggle to shine against?

The Cleverly point is also a good one - I was surprised Warren made this fight as it really is a stick or twist fight for Nathan. By a distance the best opposition he's faced since becoming champion, and probably of his career; this will answer a lot of questions about him. Frank has arranged some terrible matchups for him that have seen him regress if anything over the past couple of years, for a 26yr old world champion the level of fighter that he has faced has been an absolute shambles and the fact is nobody really knows how good he is. I hope for Warren's sake (and of course Nathan) that he's as good as he thinks he is, or he might get a bit of a rude awakening.

One final point with regard the 'Matchroom monopoly'; I stick with my point about the others having a chance, but also let's not forget that there's no point in them bitching about it; as soon as Warren started BN there was clearly no way he was ever going to work with Sky again - at least while BN is still going and under his control, so why discuss it? The fact is, prior to starting the channel if his shows had been of a good enough standard the Sky would never have decided to stick with just one promoter. It would have been detrimental to them. As it was Matchroom were the company who had put on the better shows and they were then rewarded with this deal - something, lets not forget, that was not the doing of Eddie or Barry Hearn but Adam Smith and the other Sky executives. If Warren or anyone else was offered the same deal would they have turned it down 'in the interests of British boxing'? Would they hell.

The simple fact is that Matchroom are making the most of a good opportunity that they have been given, hardly something to criticise them for.

Think you make good points too. This is a decent debate.

I've said over and over again, I'll think you'll acknowledge, that Matchroom have 100% been very astute in making the most of their opportunity. No argument there. It's just that I think the opportunity shouldn't have been given to them. Sky should have used their financial and reach muscle to cajole promoters into working together for the good of the domestic sport. Maybe they did try and we don't know.

My instinct is that allegedly came about because FW probably knew way in advance that Sky weren't going to continue to work with him and saw the MR thing coming a mile off - which lets face it, was a large amount to do with the undoubtably tremendous job they've done with the Darts - more IMHO than on the basis of their boxing programming, which I honestly didn't think was all that. Even then some of those prizefighters were awful, and some of the Darren Barker etc fights were just drab drab drab.

As for Tony Bellew/Chilemba - it's all opinions, but that first fight was a shocker. People say that Chilemba is a hard fighter to look good against, but as someone who watched many many of Tony's early fights on Khan undercards etc - once he stepped up from fighting people who could just bang out in 2 or 3 rounds, he became a very frustrating fighter to watch - Since the McKenzie 1 fight I'm not sure I've enjoyed a Bellew fight apart from when he was clearly IMHO beaten by Cleverly. He put up a brave effort that night but looked a level below- and he ALWAYS has an excuse, always blames the other fighter. It takes 2 to tango and Tony above domestic level isn't an exciting fighter. That fight was a nightmare. The 2nd one was hardly better. If he fights Stevenson....oh dear. Especially if it's in Canada/US.

Crolla/Matthews was decent but that was literally stuck in there to sell tickets for a fight that wouldn't have sold otherwise. Not a hard fight to make as a rematch and the offer of it being on Sky. It was a great fight, but I don't think that was design in terms of an entertaining card.

There were plenty of those big FW nights that might have had a few mismatches but still had the Murray/Mitchell , Groves DeGale, Smith DeGale, Clev Bellew, Burns Katsidis matches that were risks in many ways. It's easy to forget that.

Agree 100% on Clev/Kovalev - I get the impression that they've tried desperately to make bigger fights/tests for him and it hasn't come off, but this is a massive crossroads - and like Burns/Martinez, this is an opportunity to blow his career wide open - and lets not forget - on both those occasions, he's got the 'money' fighter (which Kovalev is in this case as far as HBO are concerned) over to his fighters' hometown. Matchroom deserve credit for getting Bute to Nottingham, but I'm not sure anyone saw that performance coming and there was a rematch clause in there that could have easily been activated if Carl hadn't have been so magnificent.

If Clev doesn't do the macho / hands down silly stuff, and boxes to his ability, he is a better fighter than Kovalev, but despite Clev's granite chin, he's not fought anyone with this sort of power and for once he really will have to be on it all night. Lets not forget Carl was probably 30 before any real fights of massive consequence so Nathan is still very young for a breakthrough fight - which this could be. If he wins, there's no doubt - big fights await and then things start to change again.

An example for me is the fact that Vasquez coming to Glasgow for a unification was a good fight for Burns - there were issues I realise, but that fight seems like it would have happened without the promotion changes, instead MR made a terrible interim fight that Burns should have lost. I don't see Dean Powell making that sort of mistake personally. If you take risk then it needs to be educated and with reward.

Anyway - enough of my ramble - I think we all agree this situation isn't helping anyone, and that the Sky decision just has distorted boxing in this country even more, the same way the HBO/Showtime battle lines getting set in stone in the US absolutely cemented the 'cold war' out there -

Frank the other day obviously didn't conduct himself brilliantly in that interview but Eddie H after the show the other night with his mocking comments and Barry today have done nothing to dissuade me that they're anything other than smug self publicists who have played a smart game with sky and now delight in telling people how great they are.

They could have sat down together, made 2 big fights between their clients, put one on BN and one on MR and shown that they're above ego and for the future of boxing and the best interests of their fighters.

just my opinion

Hard to argue against any of that in fairness.

I think ultimately regardless of who 'the chosen one' is, this is just the way boxing is and will continue to be in the UK. Fighters will come and go but at the end of the day Frank and Barry/Eddie will always be involved and whoever has fights on Sky or whatever channel I'm not sure much will ever change - I agree about the Prizefighter series; there have been a handful that were good, one of the best recent ones was the Welterweigts 2 won by Larry Ekundayo, simply because there wasn't really a 'name' in it so it was competitive all the way. The big thing about PF though is it's attracted a new audience to the sport, the type who never liked cricket before 20/20 came along. Similar to that, die hard cricket fans on the whole don't like 20/20 in the same numbers that most of us boxing fans aren't massively excited about PF, but clearly it's a winner for Sky. Was that a Matchroom idea incidentally or was it Sky's own?

My one complaint with the boxing scene is that even with Sky & BN showing as many fights as they do, there are still some brilliant small hall shows that go completely unnoticed, such as Goodwin, Coldwell & Hobson. Thankfully Dave Coldwell's brilliant app means we don't miss what have been some excellent shows but this is where I think someone like the BBC is missing a massive trick, especially in light of the most successful british boxing squad at an Olympic Games - in Britain at that - in history.

I would say though, as disjointed and imperfect as the boxing scene is in this country I'm still much happier with things like this than in the states where seemingly 99% of fights are on PPV, and they have a far higher cable audience percentage than we do satellite over here. Add in the Top Rank/Golden Boy nonsense and I think on the whole we aren't that hard done by really. As much as Warren & the Hearns clearly dislike each other I do believe they are willing to work together. There might be an argument about which TV platform shows the event but that's still a step up from the Showtime saga in the states.

MarkMcBurney wrote:Hard to argue against any of that in fairness.

I think ultimately regardless of who 'the chosen one' is, this is just the way boxing is and will continue to be in the UK. Fighters will come and go but at the end of the day Frank and Barry/Eddie will always be involved and whoever has fights on Sky or whatever channel I'm not sure much will ever change - I agree about the Prizefighter series; there have been a handful that were good, one of the best recent ones was the Welterweigts 2 won by Larry Ekundayo, simply because there wasn't really a 'name' in it so it was competitive all the way. The big thing about PF though is it's attracted a new audience to the sport, the type who never liked cricket before 20/20 came along. Similar to that, die hard cricket fans on the whole don't like 20/20 in the same numbers that most of us boxing fans aren't massively excited about PF, but clearly it's a winner for Sky. Was that a Matchroom idea incidentally or was it Sky's own?

My one complaint with the boxing scene is that even with Sky & BN showing as many fights as they do, there are still some brilliant small hall shows that go completely unnoticed, such as Goodwin, Coldwell & Hobson. Thankfully Dave Coldwell's brilliant app means we don't miss what have been some excellent shows but this is where I think someone like the BBC is missing a massive trick, especially in light of the most successful british boxing squad at an Olympic Games - in Britain at that - in history.

I would say though, as disjointed and imperfect as the boxing scene is in this country I'm still much happier with things like this than in the states where seemingly 99% of fights are on PPV, and they have a far higher cable audience percentage than we do satellite over here. Add in the Top Rank/Golden Boy nonsense and I think on the whole we aren't that hard done by really. As much as Warren & the Hearns clearly dislike each other I do believe they are willing to work together. There might be an argument about which TV platform shows the event but that's still a step up from the Showtime saga in the states.

agree 100% about the small hall stuff. People forget Crolla fought a cracking fight on one of Dave's bills even though there were sad consequences. I'd much rather people like Dave Coldwell were getting breaks in Boxing in the UK than the likes of MR - clearly DC is a proper boxing man and looks after and cares for his fighters. Comes across as a decent, ego-free person from what I can see on TV and social media and puts together shows that are about entertaining fights and value for money.

The lack of terrestrial TV for boxing is a total tragedy, especially given those of us who can remember the heyday of Benn/Eubank etc on ITV and how big the sport was then - they had a programme on prime time TV just to show the signing of the contract for Benn/Eubank 2 !!

It's a shame that Fury/Haye is likely to head to Sky, if ever there was a fight to capture the wider public's imagination and bring some people back to the game it would be that one on terrestrial TV -

The US thing is a totally different discussion - I live there now and don't necessarily agree 100%. Not that many fights end up on PPV, just the monster fights (although Brad/Marquez is a weird one) and there are a lot of excellent fights on HBO/Sho nowadays which also show some of the best drama/comedy in the world - so they're part of a good value subscription fee. PPV too expensive over there, but it's a model that actually works. The "cold war" over there is a disaster absolutely between the channels and promoters, but at the moment because they have such decent stables, we're getting quality fights still although some obvious great fights won't happen. I think that's worse over here because domestically there's just less in terms of numbers.

Goldenears I disagree with a few of your points. First off Burns v Gonzalez. It was a mandatory, if your the WBO champ and the WBO tell you that you have a mandatory defence then you HAVE to face that guy or lose your title. And he would have HAD to fight Gonzalez whether he was with Hearn or whether he was with Warren. So calling it poor matchmaking is a bit off, I mean are you telling me if he was with Warren that he would have dropped the belt?

On Bellew and Chillemba that was a final eliminator. Are you telling me before the first fight you would get Mystic meg in and say 'nah this is a stinker so I am going to shitcan all the work we have done with the WBC to get into a final eliminator position and go ina different direction'? And as mentioned the chief support ended up being a cracker. So at the end of the night we had the main event and chief support being 2 really even fights and not complete mismatches.

Most of what I have read from yourself is having a go that Hearn has taken a mandatory defence, an eliminator, or a final eliminator. When those fights come along you take them, and if they are a mismatch or a stinker, well tough because winning them puts you in a great position and Bellew is now in a very good position to get a shot at Stevenson.

On the Rees and Purdy points obviously it's a good point but before the Broner fight I don't think anyone realised Rees had literally no chance whatsoever and with Purdy I agree he shouldn't have bothered.

I think for every good fight Warren has put on when he was on Sky you can counter with the same for Hearn. I just prefer the way Hearn goes about it by getting his fighters into mandatory spots with the more respected organisations rather than getting them shots at the WBO and then defending them against weak opposition over and over. Burns next defence is better than any of the defences he had with Warren as Beltran is rated top 10 by Ring mag and boxrec and the IBO's independent ratings. Where were Cook, Evensen, Laryea, Moses and Mitchell with those rankings? Obviously the 2 fights he had winning the belts were good but most of the time the defences that Mr Warren puts up are poor, and it's the same with Clev this is the first respectable (very respectable) defence he has had since he got handed the vacant title.

Also on Clev's fight we have gone through the 'what if he wins' scenarios but if he loses it leaves Warren in virtual tatters.

jameswilson wrote:Goldenears I disagree with a few of your points. First off Burns v Gonzalez. It was a mandatory, if your the WBO champ and the WBO tell you that you have a mandatory defence then you HAVE to face that guy or lose your title. And he would have HAD to fight Gonzalez whether he was with Hearn or whether he was with Warren. So calling it poor matchmaking is a bit off, I mean are you telling me if he was with Warren that he would have dropped the belt?

On Bellew and Chillemba that was a final eliminator. Are you telling me before the first fight you would get Mystic meg in and say 'nah this is a stinker so I am going to shitcan all the work we have done with the WBC to get into a final eliminator position and go ina different direction'? And as mentioned the chief support ended up being a cracker. So at the end of the night we had the main event and chief support being 2 really even fights and not complete mismatches.

Most of what I have read from yourself is having a go that Hearn has taken a mandatory defence, an eliminator, or a final eliminator. When those fights come along you take them, and if they are a mismatch or a stinker, well tough because winning them puts you in a great position and Bellew is now in a very good position to get a shot at Stevenson.

On the Rees and Purdy points obviously it's a good point but before the Broner fight I don't think anyone realised Rees had literally no chance whatsoever and with Purdy I agree he shouldn't have bothered.

I think for every good fight Warren has put on when he was on Sky you can counter with the same for Hearn. I just prefer the way Hearn goes about it by getting his fighters into mandatory spots with the more respected organisations rather than getting them shots at the WBO and then defending them against weak opposition over and over. Burns next defence is better than any of the defences he had with Warren as Beltran is rated top 10 by Ring mag and boxrec and the IBO's independent ratings. Where were Cook, Evensen, Laryea, Moses and Mitchell with those rankings? Obviously the 2 fights he had winning the belts were good but most of the time the defences that Mr Warren puts up are poor, and it's the same with Clev this is the first respectable (very respectable) defence he has had since he got handed the vacant title.

Also on Clev's fight we have gone through the 'what if he wins' scenarios but if he loses it leaves Warren in virtual tatters.

Burns was due to fight a unification fight with Vasquez under Warren. Win that and different routes would have opened up. None of us know the back story but that fight was a far more winnable one for Burns (IMHO) with greater rewards. The mandatory would have been pushed aside for the unification. If he was with Warren, he was fighting for TWO belts.

Bellew vs Chilemba is not a headlining fight at an arena. It wasn't even the biggest fight of the night. A domestic clash was. Agreed no-one is mystic meg but everyone was saying "it's hard to look good against him blah blah blah" - but as I said, Bellew has become just as bad - every fight it's "next time, next time" - Crolla/Matthews he stuck on there and luckily they served up a cracker. It wasn't him sticking 2 of his fighters in for a much anticipated war like Murray/Mitchell though.

I'm not sure there was anyone who thought Gavin Rees seriously had a chance against Broner outside of Gav's house, and the Purdy thing was embarrassing on every level. I'm sure someone will come back with a "you've got to take the shot" - but nah, you don't have to take a predictable caking that does absolutely nothing to advance your career, especially if you're nowhere near the weight. It's too late to go into others, but even this weekend he thought Rees would walk through Crolla, and Brian Rose got given a brutal night by an out of condition journeyman. Again, the risk fight - Smigga/Dodson - wasn't his fighter - the ticketsellers on the night were Crolla and Smith in the main. Non-matchroom fighters.

Be interesting to see if the Ryder/Saunders fight doesn't magically disappear.

I've no doubt that my opinion is coloured by the transparent fakeness of the Matchroom attempt to look like some new school of futuristic boxing thinking - which makes me possibly magnify the obvious cracks - but I don't think they're making the 'fights the public want to see' which was the whole guff that he spouted early on. If he and his dad were seriously into that, they'd be making a point of trying to build bridges with other promoters and trying to think about the sport as a whole - they're in the strongest financial position and that's put them in the position of having the strongest, biggest stable - it's my opinion that this has been used more to their own benefit than to any of the fighters or to British boxing in general.

Americans after the farces of Rees/Purdy etc are starting to see our fighters the way we see the Polish kids we bring over to get beaten up by our better fighters.

It's all opinion though. I respect the business MR are building for THEMSELVES, but I don't like how it came about and what they are doing with their advantages, and certainly not the superior and smarmy way they act about it. Pride comes before a fall.

Come on mate the Burns v Vasquez fight was never happening, everyone knew that when it fell through. Billy Nelson posts here so if he sees this I'd like to hear from him how certain that fight was?

Also on your second point you say Bellew v Chillemba isn't a headline for an arena fight. Well it was wasn't it. Just because the chief support ended up being a better fight didn't mean the fans weren't there to watch the main event.

goldenears wrote:

MarkMcBurney wrote:Hard to argue against any of that in fairness.

I think ultimately regardless of who 'the chosen one' is, this is just the way boxing is and will continue to be in the UK. Fighters will come and go but at the end of the day Frank and Barry/Eddie will always be involved and whoever has fights on Sky or whatever channel I'm not sure much will ever change - I agree about the Prizefighter series; there have been a handful that were good, one of the best recent ones was the Welterweigts 2 won by Larry Ekundayo, simply because there wasn't really a 'name' in it so it was competitive all the way. The big thing about PF though is it's attracted a new audience to the sport, the type who never liked cricket before 20/20 came along. Similar to that, die hard cricket fans on the whole don't like 20/20 in the same numbers that most of us boxing fans aren't massively excited about PF, but clearly it's a winner for Sky. Was that a Matchroom idea incidentally or was it Sky's own?

My one complaint with the boxing scene is that even with Sky & BN showing as many fights as they do, there are still some brilliant small hall shows that go completely unnoticed, such as Goodwin, Coldwell & Hobson. Thankfully Dave Coldwell's brilliant app means we don't miss what have been some excellent shows but this is where I think someone like the BBC is missing a massive trick, especially in light of the most successful british boxing squad at an Olympic Games - in Britain at that - in history.

I would say though, as disjointed and imperfect as the boxing scene is in this country I'm still much happier with things like this than in the states where seemingly 99% of fights are on PPV, and they have a far higher cable audience percentage than we do satellite over here. Add in the Top Rank/Golden Boy nonsense and I think on the whole we aren't that hard done by really. As much as Warren & the Hearns clearly dislike each other I do believe they are willing to work together. There might be an argument about which TV platform shows the event but that's still a step up from the Showtime saga in the states.

agree 100% about the small hall stuff. People forget Crolla fought a cracking fight on one of Dave's bills even though there were sad consequences. I'd much rather people like Dave Coldwell were getting breaks in Boxing in the UK than the likes of MR - clearly DC is a proper boxing man and looks after and cares for his fighters. Comes across as a decent, ego-free person from what I can see on TV and social media and puts together shows that are about entertaining fights and value for money.

The lack of terrestrial TV for boxing is a total tragedy, especially given those of us who can remember the heyday of Benn/Eubank etc on ITV and how big the sport was then - they had a programme on prime time TV just to show the signing of the contract for Benn/Eubank 2 !!

It's a shame that Fury/Haye is likely to head to Sky, if ever there was a fight to capture the wider public's imagination and bring some people back to the game it would be that one on terrestrial TV -

The US thing is a totally different discussion - I live there now and don't necessarily agree 100%. Not that many fights end up on PPV, just the monster fights (although Brad/Marquez is a weird one) and there are a lot of excellent fights on HBO/Sho nowadays which also show some of the best drama/comedy in the world - so they're part of a good value subscription fee. PPV too expensive over there, but it's a model that actually works. The "cold war" over there is a disaster absolutely between the channels and promoters, but at the moment because they have such decent stables, we're getting quality fights still although some obvious great fights won't happen. I think that's worse over here because domestically there's just less in terms of numbers.

I stand corrected on the US PPV fights then, I had read somewhere that a lot of fights were on PPV, most 'just' $15-$30 but big fights often as high as $70. I know Pacquiao v Marquez 3 was $65 for high definition. That seems awfully expensive given that in America there is roughly one decent sized fight a month during the 'season'. Even if they averaged $50 if you add up the big and small shows there must be an average of one a week in-season; that's $200 a month - and in a good (depending on which way you look at it) you might have say Mayweather and Pacquiao fighting in the same month, so you could spend $300 conceivably. Meaning you can easily spend well over $1500 a year on boxing if you watch every fight.

At least here BN is £120 a year; Sky Sports is c.£250 a year and with the odd PPV thrown in we probably spend about £400 a year. I don't think that's too bad in terms of value for money actually, it's just the politics that stink.

jameswilson wrote:Come on mate the Burns v Vasquez fight was never happening, everyone knew that when it fell through. Billy Nelson posts here so if he sees this I'd like to hear from him how certain that fight was?

Also on your second point you say Bellew v Chillemba isn't a headline for an arena fight. Well it was wasn't it. Just because the chief support ended up being a better fight didn't mean the fans weren't there to watch the main event.

I was at that show - I live in the New Forest and was given free tickets by BetFair otherwise I'll admit I would have watched on TV - and the majority of the crowd were there for Bellew; but a big number were also there for Mathews/Crolla, probably a quarter of the crowd. There was a big section of Manchester fans, and predictably it kicked off between them during the fight, in fact during one round there must have been ten times more punches thrown in the stand than the ring!

There were also a LOT of people leaving during the main event, this was down to a combination of the fact that the fight didn't start until gone midnight, but also the fact that a quarter or so had gone after the previous fight. And the fact that; like any boxing show; there were a lot of people there with no idea about the sport and that fight bored them shitless!

MarkMcBurney wrote:

jameswilson wrote:Come on mate the Burns v Vasquez fight was never happening, everyone knew that when it fell through. Billy Nelson posts here so if he sees this I'd like to hear from him how certain that fight was?

Also on your second point you say Bellew v Chillemba isn't a headline for an arena fight. Well it was wasn't it. Just because the chief support ended up being a better fight didn't mean the fans weren't there to watch the main event.

I was at that show - I live in the New Forest and was given free tickets by BetFair otherwise I'll admit I would have watched on TV - and the majority of the crowd were there for Bellew; but a big number were also there for Mathews/Crolla, probably a quarter of the crowd. There was a big section of Manchester fans, and predictably it kicked off between them during the fight, in fact during one round there must have been ten times more punches thrown in the stand than the ring!

There were also a LOT of people leaving during the main event, this was down to a combination of the fact that the fight didn't start until gone midnight, but also the fact that a quarter or so had gone after the previous fight. And the fact that; like any boxing show; there were a lot of people there with no idea about the sport and that fight bored them shitless!

Yeah and I'll follow on that by saying you can't predict if competitive fights will be easy on the eye. You'd be daft to not take a final eliminator if you have got yourself into that kind of position. And like I say. It was a headline at an arena because WBC final eliminators are usually good enough to headline if one of the boxers has a big enough fanbase. And Bellew did and does.

Also following on from goldenears point saying had Burns stayed with Warren the Vasquez fight would definitely have happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJgrO6VajI0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6h2xqR0lUM

There's 2 interviews, one with Burns's manager and with Burns himself confirming that the Vasquez fight was continually falling through. The fight was NOT going to happen.

MarkMcBurney wrote:All valid points; however Frank, Ricky Hatton and others had the chance to do what Matchroom now do for Sky before they gave them the contract - and they fucked it up. That isn't coincidence. Yes, the Sky deal is clearly a massive part of Matchroom Boxing's success but they aren't the first to have a go at putting boxing on Sky - but they've had the bigger audiences which convinced Sky to form a business partnership with them.

The fact is the shows put on by Hatton Promotions & Warren weren't good enough. They had their chance.

Matchroom in the 00's put on some terrible shows on Sky. The only reason they are in such a position of strength is their hugely successful contribution to Sky Sports in other areas.

Just to stick my pennies worth in to those slating promoters ....

I know its not the same with me being an "unlicensed " promoter but i still feel i can offer a point of view in opposition .


Its seen as if Promoters are all there to just make money and that they do make a fair bit of it ...

Well that in itself is garbage , Do people not realise just how hard it is to make money in boxing ? wether it be as a promoter , a boxer or a trainer , its not an easy living .

With a promoter they are in theory (when its all done ligit ) the only person not guaranteed to be paid at the end of a show , yet they put up the financial risk , its their money used to make a show and when things dont work out its them who lose money .

Put it this way ... without promoters who exactly is going to put on the shows and thus pay the boxers and everyone else who needs paying for their work from the drs and the mc down to the whip or the lady at the printing shop who designed the posters ??


get rid of promoters and theirs no shows , so someone would need to replace them and put shows on , might be managers or the boxers themselves , but wheres the money coming from ? all they then do is take on the role of the promoter themselves .

Simply put boxing cannot survive without promoters .

We dont always agree with them , when things are in the public domain etc , but they dont squeze the life out of boxing in the way some think , if anything they breath life into it .

And way i see it is those at the top who are making money were at one point at the bottom struggling to make ends meet like the rest of the small hall promoters , except for eddie Hearn the rest have earned the right to earn money by working hard , no different to if you become top of the field in any other profession , you work hard and take a few risks then if you get to the top you earned that right to make a good living .

Its just something that irritates me , even i get people saying things like " i bet your minted doing the boxing " i really wish i was but im not , and its easier to make money from unlicensed than in the pro game , so from my point of view i can appreciate how hard it is .


At least a musician is perfectly capable of booking themselves a gig and earning their money without a promoter taking a cut , in boxing that simply isnt the case unless your at the top as it would be destined for bankruptcy