BoxRec

ashedward wrote:I have seen lately on here that some people would be happy IF Sky binned boxing,I say careful what you wish for because unless a company like BT take up the dates lost by them,the scene in Britain could be in major trouble especialy if allegedly does bite the dust,people are dreaming if they think that ITV or 5 will the invest the money or time in to boxing that Sky does.

Pretty sure people are saying they'd be happy if Sky ditched boxing as long as their coverage was picked up by another broadcaster - ie boxing coverage is simply consolidated amongst a smaller number of broadcasters. I'm one of those people who've been wishing it for ages; Sky is very poor value for anyone subscribing only for the boxing.

But I agree with the overall point - it would be a disaster if Sky pulled out of boxing without another broadcaster properly replacing their coverage.

Boxerbeetle wrote:

ashedward wrote:I have seen lately on here that some people would be happy IF Sky binned boxing,I say careful what you wish for because unless a company like BT take up the dates lost by them,the scene in Britain could be in major trouble especialy if allegedly does bite the dust,people are dreaming if they think that ITV or 5 will the invest the money or time in to boxing that Sky does.

Pretty sure people are saying they'd be happy if Sky ditched boxing as long as their coverage was picked up by another broadcaster - ie boxing coverage is simply consolidated amongst a smaller number of broadcasters. I'm one of those people who've been wishing it for ages; Sky is very poor value for anyone subscribing only for the boxing.

But I agree with the overall point - it would be a disaster if Sky pulled out of boxing without another broadcaster properly replacing their coverage.

Yeah I`m not a big fan of everything Sky have done but they have stuck with the sport for more then 20 years while other have dipped in and out and I don`t know if another network would keep the same commitment to it.I do like allegedly and hope that it does prosper but we need to have a broadcaster in the uk that can commit at least 20 dates a year to the sport and are very solid in there support for the sport.

Not gonna pretend to have read all the previous posts but did see a few mentions of friday fight night. Thats when boxing on sky was at its best for me. As a fan I dont want to see overhyped 'superstars' against nobodies or has beens. Friday fight nights were great, good match ups regularly whilst also providing exposure to more fighters. Sky and matchroom may have grabbed the attention of casual fans on a few occassions over the last couple of years but they have probably lost the respect and custom of the hardcore fans.

Some of the friday / saturday fight night match ups were brilliant viewing. Id happily watch 50-50 british title match ups on a regular basis instead of waiting to see a high profile pay per view once in a blue moon.

Get Hearn offski and go back to how it was...

Eddie was well respected by most fans before that infamous PPV. One bad move can undo the years of good work.

SNG wrote:There were some great Friday fnight fights for me, I miss those small hall shows. Moore- Macklin, Moore-Jones I, II and III.

Agreed.

He's not terrible and people are going overboard with the hate. Sending Brook, Barker etc abroad for their title shot was something a lot of other promoters would have never done and making Froch Groves II was a bold, brilliant piece of promotional work. I also like the way he gets fighters recognition in their home town and builds them a solid fan base rather than make every show in London.

However, Bellew v Cleverley II was a sham of a PPV and really took the piss, Brook fought far too many 'final eliminators' before actually challenging for the title and he talks in cliches. There are other obvious mis-matches but I can't think of them right now.

In summary, yes it's not all been great, but this is sport and you can't predict what's going to happen all of the time, but in the main he's done okay.

If in 2015 he makes 3 or 4 out of the following 7, I'll be very happy:

Groves v DeGale
Coyle v Campbell
Froch v GGG, Ward or DeGale
Joshua v Price
Bellew v Huck
Brook v Khan
Quigg v Frampton

Happy Slapper wrote:He's not terrible and people are going overboard with the hate. Sending Brook, Barker etc abroad for their title shot was something a lot of other promoters would have never done and making Froch Groves II was a bold, brilliant piece of promotional work. I also like the way he gets fighters recognition in their home town and builds them a solid fan base rather than make every show in London.

However, Bellew v Cleverley II was a sham of a PPV and really took the piss, Brook fought far too many 'final eliminators' before actually challenging for the title and he talks in cliches. There are other obvious mis-matches but I can't think of them right now.

In summary, yes it's not all been great, but this is sport and you can't predict what's going to happen all of the time, but in the main he's done okay.

If in 2015 he makes 3 or 4 out of the following 7, I'll be very happy:

Groves v DeGale
Coyle v Campbell
Froch v GGG, Ward or DeGale
Joshua v Price
Bellew v Huck
Brook v Khan
Quigg v Frampton

Froch-Groves 1 made the second fight, not Eddie! And why would he keep the fights in London? Theyre not great supporters and FW has the main ticket sellers sown up down there. Keeping Warrington in Leeds, Campbell in Hull etc is common sense, not giving back to the public.

G0mez wrote:

expe wrote:Shows full of shite mismatches, inability to put big fights together, every decent fight has to be on PPV and he's just an annoying, arrogant, smug bastard

Tell us what you really think Expe.

Emmseegee wrote:Not gonna pretend to have read all the previous posts but did see a few mentions of friday fight night. Thats when boxing on sky was at its best for me. As a fan I dont want to see overhyped 'superstars' against nobodies or has beens. Friday fight nights were great, good match ups regularly whilst also providing exposure to more fighters. Sky and matchroom may have grabbed the attention of casual fans on a few occassions over the last couple of years but they have probably lost the respect and custom of the hardcore fans.

Some of the friday / saturday fight night match ups were brilliant viewing. Id happily watch 50-50 british title match ups on a regular basis instead of waiting to see a high profile pay per view once in a blue moon.

Get Hearn offski and go back to how it was...

Benelio wrote:

Emmseegee wrote:Not gonna pretend to have read all the previous posts but did see a few mentions of friday fight night. Thats when boxing on sky was at its best for me. As a fan I dont want to see overhyped 'superstars' against nobodies or has beens. Friday fight nights were great, good match ups regularly whilst also providing exposure to more fighters. Sky and matchroom may have grabbed the attention of casual fans on a few occassions over the last couple of years but they have probably lost the respect and custom of the hardcore fans.

Some of the friday / saturday fight night match ups were brilliant viewing. Id happily watch 50-50 british title match ups on a regular basis instead of waiting to see a high profile pay per view once in a blue moon.

Get Hearn offski and go back to how it was...

x2

I used to like the Friday night cards

like kellie maloneys bills with Jamie Moore etc

ashedward wrote:
Yeah I`m not a big fan of everything Sky have done but they have stuck with the sport for more then 20 years while other have dipped in and out and I don`t know if another network would keep the same commitment to it..

They have not done it for any other reason than it is financially viable, they do not trade in sentimentality. It keeps some subscribers (previously me) and with a score of sports channels running 24 hours per day they have a lot of airtime to fill and lets be honest, boxing fills the time pretty cheaply.

Can hardly compare to other channels like any terrestrial channel that only has one or two channels, news, soaps, dramas, films, football, documentaries etc to fill their time. They will rightly say, "why bother with boxing, we do not have enough time to air all we could while Sky Sports have more airtime than they need"

sweetscience wrote:I used to like the Friday night cards

like kellie maloneys bills with Jamie Moore etc

In the interest of balance, dozens of Rendall Munroe shows and then throw in Johanneson vs Sykes as a headline Saturday night occasion is hardly setting the world alight either for paying subscribers. All good solid bouts, but a marquee "big show" never seemed to ever happen.

He was also notorious for bringing in Latvians - I remember one show was that bad, he actually apologised at the end for being supplied a load of crud from overseas.

To be fair though, he had a knack for interesting bouts on cards, such as John Fireball Fewkes, Craig Watson etc and often get stablemates of his fighters onto televised fights.

You do wonder how if Price, Darren Sutherland (RIP) and Tony Jeffries were still about / victorious... would Frank still be Frank today ? or would he still of pursued his alter ego Kellie.

Why are people giving hearn credit for sending baker and brook abroad? He had to send them to the usa or they would not have got a title shot, simple as.

rio wrote:Why are people giving hearn credit for sending baker and brook abroad? He had to send them to the usa or they would not have got a title shot, simple as.

Rio, I dont think posters on this thread are giving Eddie credit - infact they are giving him a kicking about it.

Jamie Moore was mentioned just now, and perhaps most people thought after Macklin / Picorillo he was ready to go places at 154, but his promoter never got him a shot home or abroad?

Then we have FW's approach, which is wait for a belt holder who is ripe for picking and bring him over at the right time, which sometimes never actually pulled off (Mitchell Katsidis). Rees vs MBaye, Hatton vs Tszyu , Khan vs Kotelnik,

I think all options have their drawbacks and upsides.

Hearn, if I am not mistaken, allowed Barker to keep his full purse from the Martinez fight. That's got to count for something in his favour. He is not dragging these fighters to the airport to fight Porter, Martinez, Broner, Geale, Devon and Andrade - the fighters are going of their own volition for the bigger money available.

G0mez wrote:Jamie Moore was mentioned just now, and perhaps most people thought after Macklin / Picorillo he was ready to go places at 154, but his promoter never got him a shot home or abroad?

I think you'll find he got quite a few shots abroad...

tobyh5 wrote:

ashedward wrote:
Yeah I`m not a big fan of everyore then 20 years while other have dipped in and out and I don`t know if another network would keep the same commitment to it..

They have not done it for any other reason than it is financially viable, they do not trade in sentimentality. It keeps some subscribers (previously me) and with a score of sports channels running 24 hours per day they have a lot of airtime to fill and lets be honest, boxing fills the time pretty cheaply.

Can hardly compare to other channels like any terrestrial channel that only has one or two channels, news, soaps, dramas, films, football, documentaries etc to fill their time. They will rightly say, "why bother with boxing, we do not have enough time to air all we could while Sky Sports have more airtime than they need"

Yeah, some good points there and of course they have kept yhe sport on because its been viable for them to do so.I hope it stays viable and prospers on their or bt come in and do a better job.

He's had good shows (Froch Groves 2) and bad shows (Clev Bellew 2).
He's done well with some fighters (Brook, Barker, Froch, Degale so far) and not so well with others (Burns, Quigg).
He answers more questions and gives more access than any other promoter which is great for the fans. He also has a tendency to talk shit (Clev Bellew PPV / Quigg Frampton talks) which isn't so good for fans!

A good friend of mine summed it up nicely. In his opinion British boxing is better now than it was 5 years ago when Eddie was just starting out. I happen to agree with him. So in my opinion, the stick he gets is in the most-part, way over the top, but sometimes warranted.

Terry Dooley wrote:If he moved on, everyone would moan about his replacement. The thing that annoys me is that there seems to be fewer British title fights. In fact, I'm going to count how many there's been each year over the past five years.

I'll see yous in six months.

Yeah. Got to agree with the posters who enjoyed the Friday Fight Night cards. They were hella cool.

hurlock wrote:He's took & risked his top draw fighters stateside rather then milk them over here like wazza but people soon forget that.

It costs a promoter a lot more money to keep a fighting winning in the UK than it does to send them overseas.

G0mez wrote:

sweetscience wrote:I used to like the Friday night cards

like kellie maloneys bills with Jamie Moore etc

In the interest of balance, dozens of Rendall Munroe shows and then throw in Johanneson vs Sykes as a headline Saturday night occasion is hardly setting the world alight either for paying subscribers. All good solid bouts, but a marquee "big show" never seemed to ever happen.

He was also notorious for bringing in Latvians - I remember one show was that bad, he actually apologised at the end for being supplied a load of crud from overseas.

To be fair though, he had a knack for interesting bouts on cards, such as John Fireball Fewkes, Craig Watson etc and often get stablemates of his fighters onto televised fights.

You do wonder how if Price, Darren Sutherland (RIP) and Tony Jeffries were still about / victorious... would Frank still be Frank today ? or would he still of pursued his alter ego Kellie.

You're right mate, but Johanneson v Sykes was a cracking fight....and it was promoted by Matchroom. 05/03/2011 - http://boxrec.com/list_shows.php?human_ ... t=promoter

G0mez wrote:

rio wrote:Why are people giving hearn credit for sending baker and brook abroad? He had to send them to the usa or they would not have got a title shot, simple as.

Rio, I dont think posters on this thread are giving Eddie credit - infact they are giving him a kicking about it.

Jamie Moore was mentioned just now, and perhaps most people thought after Macklin / Picorillo he was ready to go places at 154, but his promoter never got him a shot home or abroad?

Then we have FW's approach, which is wait for a belt holder who is ripe for picking and bring him over at the right time, which sometimes never actually pulled off (Mitchell Katsidis). Rees vs MBaye, Hatton vs Tszyu , Khan vs Kotelnik,

I think all options have their drawbacks and upsides.

Hearn, if I am not mistaken, allowed Barker to keep his full purse from the Martinez fight. That's got to count for something in his favour. He is not dragging these fighters to the airport to fight Porter, Martinez, Broner, Geale, Devon and Andrade - the fighters are going of their own volition for the bigger money available.

I wonder who got the Sky TV money from that fight though? The fighters are going for bigger money short term and for the likes of Lee Purdy and Brian Rose it's their best option because they were never going to win. But for others like Bellew, Barker and Brook, who actually had a chance of winning, it might have been better for them to fight at home for less money, with a better chance of winning and getting hold of a belt that would give them good paydays on a regular basis.

Does anyone remember that song by The Average White Band, Let's go round again ?
Maybe it's my age but the comments remain the same just the name gets changed.
Oh how Wazza used to get it in the neck.
Now it's Eddie's turn.
All Promoters piss in the same pot when it comes down to it. They all follow the same format - hang on desperately to the golden goose hang the rest out to dry.
Fighters are commodities on a conveyor belt playing snakes and ladders.
Wazza would have done the same as Eddie has done had he got the contract.

The only slight difference now is the monopoly created by Sky. Shame on you.

expe wrote:

G0mez wrote:

rio wrote:Why are people giving hearn credit for sending baker and brook abroad? He had to send them to the usa or they would not have got a title shot, simple as.

Rio, I dont think posters on this thread are giving Eddie credit - infact they are giving him a kicking about it.

Jamie Moore was mentioned just now, and perhaps most people thought after Macklin / Picorillo he was ready to go places at 154, but his promoter never got him a shot home or abroad?

Then we have FW's approach, which is wait for a belt holder who is ripe for picking and bring him over at the right time, which sometimes never actually pulled off (Mitchell Katsidis). Rees vs MBaye, Hatton vs Tszyu , Khan vs Kotelnik,

I think all options have their drawbacks and upsides.

Hearn, if I am not mistaken, allowed Barker to keep his full purse from the Martinez fight. That's got to count for something in his favour. He is not dragging these fighters to the airport to fight Porter, Martinez, Broner, Geale, Devon and Andrade - the fighters are going of their own volition for the bigger money available.

I wonder who got the Sky TV money from that fight though? The fighters are going for bigger money short term and for the likes of Lee Purdy and Brian Rose it's their best option because they were never going to win. But for others like Bellew, Barker and Brook, who actually had a chance of winning, it might have been better for them to fight at home for less money, with a better chance of winning and getting hold of a belt that would give them good paydays on a regular basis.

Rose was saying in an interview the other day the money was poor to fight Andrade.

Parson has hit the nail on the head.

The FNF era saw just as much moaning on forums, just with a number of different promoters being criticised (often fairly I should add).

Let's not over-romanticise the past. Now, I'm off to watch "Best of Bobby Vanzie's Commonwealth Title Defences" on DVD.