BoxRec

The Warren era was a very frustrating time. Especially the reigns of Joe Calzaghe (WBO) and Ricky Hatton (WBU).

Recently, Hearn fighters have beaten well regarded international opponents. McDonnell (v Kameda, twice), Brook (v Porter), De Gale (Bute) beat world class opponents away from home.

Joshua just demolished a guy rated above him.

Not too long ago Froch hammered Bute, went to war with Kessler and Groves, then demolished Groves in front of all those people.

More risks than I recall in the great days of Warren. We really had to suffer waiting for Calzaghe's masterclasses over Lacy and Kessler.

The worst thing about Hearn cards is that you can sit there 5 hours then the main event is over in a couple of rounds (Joshua-Martin & Brook-Bizier).

On the bright side we have potential superstars at welterweight and heavyweight, the two divisions where the right fighter can really shine.

Hated fisheyes with a passion. But kind of like him since hes been humbled a bit. Be better as number 2 tho. Not sure i d want warren as the main man again. Hearn good banter. Cons the public but what i like is he doesnt hide it.

Hearn is much more effective at selling BS dressed up as quality. I hate the smug prick hearn so much that I just cannot tolerate watching interviews anymore but when I did, you felt he was just a great talker whereas Warren seems quite upfront and honest. I do remember what it was like when he was the main man and think maybe the knocking down a peg or two forced more honesty out of him in what he says

The Hearns have always been the masters of getting in soft opponents and paying their fighters well. Their hype machine, generates the interest and ensures there is enough money to go round.
People seem to forget about when Eubank was on a million a fight 20 years ago fighting some awful fighters. It's probably why Benn has sent his boy with them. Benn was fighting the likes of Barkley and Mclleland when Eubank was fighting Godoy and Schommer.
So you could say that with the Hearns the viewer loses out, but FW milked Sky the same way as the Hearns are doing now, with allegedly he has been forced to make it value for money which of course is a good thing.
Also I haven't heard any of Hearns fighters talk badly about them and certainly haven't heard of any court cases chasing unpaid wages. From my own experience as an away, undercard fighter on their shows, I was always treated very nicely. Barry always had that personal touch which went a long way.

Why do so many fighters like Calzaghe Hatton Burns Tyson seem to fall foul.....
Or rather, forget the “why” part. I dislike the way so many fighters seem to fall foul of a certain promoter.

Well.... In defence of FW, regardless of the letter of the law, when you have invested good money in a boxer and built their profile, it must be sickening when they reach the top level and then set up their own promotional company etc when the really big money is up for grabs.

handsofstone wrote:As far as im aware Eddie pays his fighters so therefore he's the better ,who wants to put their life on the line for free?

Yeah very true. I read a while ago that Burns hadn't been paid for the Mitchell fight. Went to tribunal and they ruled in favour of Burns but whatever company Warren was in charge of at the time was being liquidated or dissolved (not sure the diff) so Burns was unlikely to ever see a penny. Should've been Burns biggest pay day and got nothing. Disgusting. I'm sure there's plenty of these kind of examples concerning Warren.

I get why people don't like Hearn, but Warren?

Not paying a fighter is unforgivable.

If I was a boxer turning pro now, I'd go with Hearn, no question what do ever. More chance of getting paid. Less chance of being sued. Exposure on SKY. Possible PPV down the line. from a boxer's POV what's not to like?

I've got a lot of respect for Mick Hennessey and his handling of Tyson Fury. Mick has done a superb job under very difficult circumstances.

keithmoonhangover wrote:If I was a boxer turning pro now, I'd go with Hearn, no question what do ever. More chance of getting paid. Less chance of being sued. Exposure on SKY. Possible PPV down the line. from a boxer's POV what's not to like?

I've got a lot of respect for Mick Hennessey and his handling of Tyson Fury. Mick has done a superb job under very difficult circumstances.

He's extremely lucky Tyson has stood by him.

My intake on this:

allegedly is trying his best to remain in the game. It's tricky and I believe that he should retire and let his sons run the business.
I don't know the Ins & Out's of the feud between this site and B*allegedly but I think the channel is a good thing for boxing. However, the lack of funding compared to Sky is huge and the quality in terms of "pure entertainment" is low. Some bizarre choices regarding the fights showed live doesn't help as well.
There's also a huge promotion issue around Queensbury. They barely sell out any of their events and when they do, it's a total mess (remember Fury v Chisora II?). Something needs to change on that front.

Eddie Hearn is tacky, cringe and a loud mouth but he is modern and delivers for his fighters. I know he annoys a lot of people but he brings new ideas and 'fun' to the sport. Going to a Matchroom event is actually quite appealing for the 'casual' fans, even when the card is very mediocre. My main concern with Hearn is his lack of interest in the sport. I don't believe he is that passionate about it and once he will not generate the income he is expected, he will pull the plug, leaving his boxers struggling for a promoter and financially.

Regarding the other UK promoters, I find Mick Hennessy less and less credible. Without the Furys, his stable would be very weak. He has proven time and time again that he can't deliver the big fights (last example, Hughie Fury having to be co-promoted), even Hatton seems more successful with his stable.
I don't really understand why Kellie Malloney is coming back in the game. The others seem to be running on a much smaller if not local scale.

Picking up on a point made in the above post, I do think Fwank has damaged his own "brand" with all the show cancellations or changes of opponent. Part of the reason for poor ticket sales has to be a lack of trust on the part of the paying punter. Several weeks out from a show, what is advertised is often not what you get. As Eddie recently said, people will keep hold of their money, and wait for another show. Last week, Billy Joe pulled out of his title fight and in an interview, he joked that he had damaged his hand having a "wxxk". I know it was a joke but given the poor track record of W.ar.ren shows which fall through I thought wow, the next main event falls through and it's just an excuse for a joke. Some people would actually be bothered about the harm being done by cancellations and changes of opponent. Eddie boasted that if he had staged Flanaghan vs Matthews he would have sold out the arena, that really wound up Frank, I think we would all accept that given Eddie's Sky platform he can do a better job of selling tickets so if anything, Frank and his excellent but niche channel should be trying harder on this front. In a different sport, you would get the promoter sitting front and centre, speaking directly to the fans to explain why a main event is not taking place. First I heard of it was when Billy Joe was saying he'd hurt his hand masturbating. I think this is an area where there is room for improvement. I genuinely don't believe any excuse given by the outfit for a show being cancelled or a fighter withdraws, but I do want the channel to prosper. My own view is that BJS will be chief support to Fury/Wlad, and they pulled him from the 30th April date for that reason. I might be wrong but that is my take on it.

mickey1975 wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:If I was a boxer turning pro now, I'd go with Hearn, no question what do ever. More chance of getting paid. Less chance of being sued. Exposure on SKY. Possible PPV down the line. from a boxer's POV what's not to like?

I've got a lot of respect for Mick Hennessey and his handling of Tyson Fury. Mick has done a superb job under very difficult circumstances.

He's extremely lucky Tyson has stood by him.

You make your own luck in business as in other walks of life. There are obviously some reasons they have stayed. Perhaps its down to micks persona, who knows, but im surd the fury clan had other offers.

I think 99% of other fighters would have left. That's just the way Fury is. Financially, it must have harmed him.

I like that Hearn has made domestic fights we wanted, Smith v Fielding, Joshua v Whyte, Quigg v frampton if you can call it domestic, with Selby v Warrington in the works (maybe that explains the horrendous scorecards last weekend) and he did attempt to make Brook v Khan and you know there'll be a push for Joshua challenging Fury.

Also pleased that he puts fights on in Yorkshire. Used to only be Hobson and Maloney who did that.

Like him or not, Hearn (no doubt aided massively by his Sky deal) has changed the landscape for British boxing. As far as being a "promoter" goes, Warren can't touch him. You can't put fights on an obscure channel that the vast majority won't have even heard of, never mind subscribe to, and claim to be "promoting" your fighters.

Both are alright. I actually quite like Hearn and think there is a lot of 'tall poppy syndrome' at play amongst those who dislike him. I'm sure if he was short, fat, ugly and from a working class background people would say how great he is. Because he's not people just can't bring themselves to. Its just petty envy.

I also think a lot of the criticism Eddie gets should really be directed at Sky. We shouldn't forget that as the broadcaster, and with Matchroom having a contract to fulfil, it will be them pulling the strings much of the time over e.g. what must be PPV, how many times per year, etc etc.

I'm not an Eddie "fanboy", but find his IFLTV interviews reasonably amusing and informative. Just because he's rich and smug doesn't mean I have to actively dislike the bloke. He is a boxing promoter - are you hoping for shy and retiring?

Loftgroov wrote:Both are alright. I actually quite like Hearn and think there is a lot of 'tall poppy syndrome' at play amongst those who dislike him. I'm sure if he was short, fat, ugly and from a working class background people would say how great he is. Because he's not people just can't bring themselves to. Its just petty envy.

I also think a lot of the criticism Eddie gets should really be directed at Sky. We shouldn't forget that as the broadcaster, and with Matchroom having a contract to fulfil, it will be them pulling the strings much of the time over e.g. what must be PPV, how many times per year, etc etc.

I'm not an Eddie "fanboy", but find his IFLTV interviews reasonably amusing and informative. Just because he's rich and smug doesn't mean I have to actively dislike the bloke. He is a boxing promoter - are you hoping for shy and retiring?

The above won't go down well on here but there's a lot of truth in it.

Those that don't like him let it cloud their judgement completely. The amount of conspiracy drivel you read from Matchroom's detractors

I'd also say that someone of Hearn's resources could find a lot easier and less stressful ways of making money. To say he's in it to make a fortune and cash out is not the impression I get it at all. If he does pack it in it'll be because boxing is a horrible business, something you hear all the time whether it be from Hearn, Warren, Hennessy etc.

Fwank Warren for me over fast car silver spoon Eddie

the_doctor wrote:Like him or not, Hearn (no doubt aided massively by his Sky deal) has changed the landscape for British boxing. As far as being a "promoter" goes, Warren can't touch him. You can't put fights on an obscure channel that the vast majority won't have even heard of, never mind subscribe to, and claim to be "promoting" your fighters.

Warren's been through lots of incarnations already, It would be foolish to write him off.

I think allegedly is a good thing, and I'm glad it exists.

It just seems to me that most people despise the "establishment" explaining why Sky Sports, their commentary team, Hearn and trainer Joe Gallagher are treated on here with so much suspicion and contempt. I don't watch every fight anymore, I'm at a distance but I see some terrific work. Promoters and broadcasters never give you "the truth" but at least the matches made are a bit more direct.

The days in which I invested a lot of time following boxing, 2003-2007, I was the same a little bit when it came to Warren, the WBO, Sky and Enzo Calzaghe who went on a great little run as trainer. Everything all seemed a bit too close and creepy. Smugness and collusion were words that came to my mind (without having proof). There were many mismatches and withdrawals and while the huge fights were delivered (Hatton-Tszyu, Calzaghe's unifications) we had to wait a shockingly long time and many of us had lost belief in the establishment. The best network in the UK brought in some bizarre visiting opponents. Joe Calzaghe didn't get payment for his debut in America and the light heavyweight division. Frustrating and frankly weird times. IMO we had reason to be so pissed off.

But obviously before that there was the cartel / monopoly in the '80s that the newcomer Warren broke, a time when people were unhappy with how things were run and FW was considered a breath of fresh air.

Warren knows boxing back to front , he;s done it so long , but he's a shark boxers don't get paid people get sued , if he does'nt agree or like you , your likely get slagged off in his columm . Mismatches pullouts etc. ect. ect ..

Hearns well public schoolboy , inherited daddys company , with daddy in the background to advice ,, but heh so what , that does'nt mean he can't do the job , what he does understand is EVENTS and his shows are events , there a night out , people want to go to them and alls he has to do is supply one big name fighting mickey mouse and he sells it has an event ..

For me there a good compliment , they both want to make money , they both want to rip the public off for has much has they can make ,but they both relize the other one is wauiting for a slip so they can take over , which means there both always going to compete for that big fight we want to see

the_doctor wrote:Like him or not, Hearn (no doubt aided massively by his Sky deal) has changed the landscape for British boxing. As far as being a "promoter" goes, Warren can't touch him. You can't put fights on an obscure channel that the vast majority won't have even heard of, never mind subscribe to, and claim to be "promoting" your fighters.

I prefer boxing under the Sky-Hearn monopoly than in the days when Warren had most of the clout with Sky.

Autobarn wrote:

the_doctor wrote:Like him or not, Hearn (no doubt aided massively by his Sky deal) has changed the landscape for British boxing. As far as being a "promoter" goes, Warren can't touch him. You can't put fights on an obscure channel that the vast majority won't have even heard of, never mind subscribe to, and claim to be "promoting" your fighters.

I prefer boxing under the Sky-Hearn monopoly than in the days when Warren had most of the clout with Sky.

Seconded that period around 2003 where it just seemed to be taking ages was very frustrating. Remember Enzo Mac vs Jason Deslisle with a wank undercard? And Enzo then in the post fights interview saying he was ready for a WT fight now. And that was the normal standard of card not the exceptionally bad one.

It was dreadful and Warren or his fighters were milking the WBO and the WBU for all they were worth with worthless opposition.

Do you mean Richie Lamontagne, the model who'd appeared in the de Niro bus driver movie A Bronx Tale? A bad one, for sure.

Remember when they tried to get Ezra Sellers as a WBO defence for Enzo Macc? Sellers, about 4 years retired, long removed from his classic win over Carl Thompson, and in physiotherapy. Thankfully the WBO ended up not approving it. Promoters took some liberties back then.

Was Delisle the contender that the IBF kept recycling for Clinton Woods?