BoxRec

Crease wrote:

chad wrote:In his latest IFilm interview Eddie Hearn, for once, agreed with what Frank had to say 100%. I found it funny when Eddie said he was watching the allegedly interview, about Eubanks conning the British public, and found himself sitting there agreeing with Frank saying "Go on my son, go on"

I haven't seen that but I'll be looking for it.

Put it on another thread about 20 minutes in for about 20 minutes. I found it quite enjoyable.

Naandrew wrote:Put it on another thread about 20 minutes in for about 20 minutes. I found it quite enjoyable.

I spent a few hours watching the 2 allegedly interviews, then the 70+ minute one with Eddie Hearn.
I'm not even sure I want to hear Eubank senior's 50 minute interview.

Apparently Daniel Geale is a former 3 weight World Champion?

Naandrew wrote:Oscar Valdez won the title against an absolute waster. And defended against someone well out of their depth.

Zou shining got it vacant against a guy he had dominated about a year before

And the IBF stripped Fury because he was obliged to give Wladimir the rematch. Yet their 2 top contenders were Glasgow & Charles Martin...

And how's about the WBC Heavyweight scene? Who is Wilder fighting, bums. And what about Poverkin, I thought he was the mandatory.

And he'll, the WBA is even worse.

WBA Super Champ - winner of AJ vs Wlad
WBA Regular Champ - Lucy's Browne? Or winner of Briggs vs Osquendo
WBA Interim Champ - Louis Ortiz
WBA Champ in Recess - Tyson Fury

Looking at all of that, no one body is maintaining credibility these days.

Naandrew wrote:

Ruthless-RKO wrote:

Crease wrote: Maybe once but not anymore. These days the WBO is a World Championship & some of the best names of the sport have championed them.

Wladimir Klitchsco, David Haye, Joe Calzaghe, Bernard Hopkins, Oscar De La Hoya, Mandy Pacquaio.

He still doing it. Calzaghe was the last big name to do so. He had Liam Smith challenge for a vacant WBO title. Made 3 shitty defences until a big noney fight came alone. At least with Top Rank (who also hog the WBO) have their fighters in there with decent names.

Oscar Valdez won the title against an absolute waster. And defended against someone well out of their depth.

Zou shining got it vacant against a guy he had dominated about a year before

I was referring to the bigger names like Crawford, Loma, Crawford, Pacman, but you're still right, Top Rank and Queensberry are the same!

Crease wrote:

Naandrew wrote:Oscar Valdez won the title against an absolute waster. And defended against someone well out of their depth.

Zou shining got it vacant against a guy he had dominated about a year before

And the IBF stripped Fury because he was obliged to give Wladimir the rematch. Yet their 2 top contenders were Glasgow & Charles Martin...

And how's about the WBC Heavyweight scene? Who is Wilder fighting, bums. And what about Poverkin, I thought he was the mandatory.

And he'll, the WBA is even worse.

WBA Super Champ - winner of AJ vs Wlad
WBA Regular Champ - Lucy's Browne? Or winner of Briggs vs Osquendo
WBA Interim Champ - Louis Ortiz
WBA Champ in Recess - Tyson Fury

Looking at all of that, no one body is maintaining credibility these days.

It's easy to punch holes in all the organisations, but realistically there are four world titles and everyone knows who they are.

The biggest evidence of this was Hatton's reaction to becoming IBF champion having spent years with the WBU belt. All the promotion for the Tszyu fight was that it was Hatton's first world title fight. I agree Warren can appear a little hypocritical here with his views on the IBO but he's right in fairness.

The debate about crappy defences for the WBO title is something else entirely.

Crease wrote:

Naandrew wrote:Oscar Valdez won the title against an absolute waster. And defended against someone well out of their depth.

Zou shining got it vacant against a guy he had dominated about a year before

And the IBF stripped Fury because he was obliged to give Wladimir the rematch. Yet their 2 top contenders were Glasgow & Charles Martin...

And how's about the WBC Heavyweight scene? Who is Wilder fighting, bums. And what about Poverkin, I thought he was the mandatory.

And he'll, the WBA is even worse.

WBA Super Champ - winner of AJ vs Wlad
WBA Regular Champ - Lucy's Browne? Or winner of Briggs vs Osquendo
WBA Interim Champ - Louis Ortiz
WBA Champ in Recess - Tyson Fury

Looking at all of that, no one body is maintaining credibility these days.

The point was that the WBO is smothered by Top Rank and Warren and has been for ages. The other orgs aren't hogged by promoters, although WBA favour European fighters and WBC don't

£20 to watch Eubank jnr fight for the IBO title?

I want what they are smoking

How many will they get at Earls Court letting alone paying 20 quid at home ?

Ruthless-RKO wrote:

Crease wrote:

Naandrew wrote:Oscar Valdez won the title against an absolute waster. And defended against someone well out of their depth.

Zou shining got it vacant against a guy he had dominated about a year before

And the IBF stripped Fury because he was obliged to give Wladimir the rematch. Yet their 2 top contenders were Glasgow & Charles Martin...

And how's about the WBC Heavyweight scene? Who is Wilder fighting, bums. And what about Poverkin, I thought he was the mandatory.

And he'll, the WBA is even worse.

WBA Super Champ - winner of AJ vs Wlad
WBA Regular Champ - Lucy's Browne? Or winner of Briggs vs Osquendo
WBA Interim Champ - Louis Ortiz
WBA Champ in Recess - Tyson Fury

Looking at all of that, no one body is maintaining credibility these days.

The point was that the WBO is smothered by Top Rank and Warren and has been for ages. The other orgs aren't hogged by promoters, although WBA favour European fighters and WBC don't

As bad as each other I could rant all day about the WBA thought they are scum.

Crease wrote:

CaptainSpacerod wrote:But surely the guys at ITV who are dealing with this know their boxing and are fully aware of how few people will buy this.

You'd think so but his dad was doing the same thing 20 years ago.
People like Roy Jones Jr, Michael Nunn & James Toney consistently called him out yet he'd rather face the likrs of Dan Schommer & Gary Stretch.

And the earned over £10 million doing it & telling the public that he was "Simply The Best"...

Yeah but his dad was doing it on the back of having built a huge national profile having been involved in some epic fights broadcast on terrestrial tv watched by millions and millions of people.

Your average sports fan today has barely heard of Eubank Jr and even then probably only because of the Blackwell fight

tony1234 wrote:How many will they get at Earls Court letting alone paying 20 quid at home ?

Hasn't Earls Court been knocked down?

mickey1975 wrote:

tony1234 wrote:How many will they get at Earls Court letting alone paying 20 quid at home ?

Hasn't Earls Court been knocked down?

The leisure centre there hasn't.

dirk2686 wrote:It's easy to punch holes in all the organisations, but realistically there are four world titles and everyone knows who they are.

The debate about crappy defences for the WBO title is something else entirely.

I agree entirely about recognising the four World titles (WBC, WBA, WBO, IBF) and none other.

My point specifically was that none of the 4 bodies can be considered any greater than the others these days. All of them have questionable rankings & dubious sanctionings of title defenses.

freddydoesdallas wrote:£20 to watch Eubank jnr fight for the IBO title?
I want what they are smoking

Agreed £20 is a lot of money to be asking for compared to rival PPV broadcasters.

It might have been worth consideration if it was against a top-notch opponent (Golovkin, Canelo, DeGale).

Crease wrote:

freddydoesdallas wrote:£20 to watch Eubank jnr fight for the IBO title?
I want what they are smoking

Agreed £20 is a lot of money to be asking for compared to rival PPV broadcasters.

It might have been worth consideration if it was against a top-notch opponent (Golovkin, Canelo, DeGale).

Even then that will seem a lot to people who are used to getting all itv content for free. The general public aren't used to ppv and I doubt they'd be OK with forking out £20 for it on a terrestrial tv channel. I've already heard my in-laws moan about 'if I wanted to pay for TV, I'd get sky'.

freddydoesdallas wrote:Even then that will seem a lot to people who are used to getting all itv content for free. The general public aren't used to ppv and I doubt they'd be OK with forking out £20 for it on a terrestrial tv channel. I've already heard my in-laws moan about 'if I wanted to pay for TV, I'd get sky'.

No, I agree with you sir. I just said that it may be worth "considering"...
I fully suspect that the whole episode will be a "car crash" - as Eddie Hearn has already predicted.

freddydoesdallas wrote:

Crease wrote:

freddydoesdallas wrote:£20 to watch Eubank jnr fight for the IBO title?
I want what they are smoking

Agreed £20 is a lot of money to be asking for compared to rival PPV broadcasters.

It might have been worth consideration if it was against a top-notch opponent (Golovkin, Canelo, DeGale).

Even then that will seem a lot to people who are used to getting all itv content for free. The general public aren't used to ppv and I doubt they'd be OK with forking out £20 for it on a terrestrial tv channel. I've already heard my in-laws moan about 'if I wanted to pay for TV, I'd get sky'.

Who is "general public" that are not used to PPV? Are there different people who watch BBC, ITV, CH4 and CH5 than those that have Sky TV? Are they all trapped in 1988?

Is your son aware that there is now a thing called digital TV and the internet which offers a big ole choice of paid services?

tobyh5 wrote:

freddydoesdallas wrote:

Crease wrote: Agreed £20 is a lot of money to be asking for compared to rival PPV broadcasters.

It might have been worth consideration if it was against a top-notch opponent (Golovkin, Canelo, DeGale).

Even then that will seem a lot to people who are used to getting all itv content for free. The general public aren't used to ppv and I doubt they'd be OK with forking out £20 for it on a terrestrial tv channel. I've already heard my in-laws moan about 'if I wanted to pay for TV, I'd get sky'.

Who is "general public" that are not used to PPV? Are there different people who watch BBC, ITV, CH4 and CH5 than those that have Sky TV? Are they all trapped in 1988?

Is your son aware that there is now a thing called digital TV and the internet which offers a big ole choice of paid services?

Nearly 50% of the UK still only has access to terrestrial or free view tv. They will not be used to paying for TV.

I don't have a son and just because there is that option available and you and I may use it, it doesn't mean the majority of the country uses it. I have 4 brother in laws that go from my age to 10 years older who you would assume are similar to me but 3 of these don't have Sky, don't use netflix etc and only use the Internet to buy clothes and white goods.

freddydoesdallas wrote:

tobyh5 wrote:

freddydoesdallas wrote:
Even then that will seem a lot to people who are used to getting all itv content for free. The general public aren't used to ppv and I doubt they'd be OK with forking out £20 for it on a terrestrial tv channel. I've already heard my in-laws moan about 'if I wanted to pay for TV, I'd get sky'.

Who is "general public" that are not used to PPV? Are there different people who watch BBC, ITV, CH4 and CH5 than those that have Sky TV? Are they all trapped in 1988?

Is your son aware that there is now a thing called digital TV and the internet which offers a big ole choice of paid services?

Nearly 50% of the UK still only has access to terrestrial or free view tv. They will not be used to paying for TV.

I don't have a son and just because there is that option available and you and I may use it, it doesn't mean the majority of the country uses it. I have 4 brother in laws that go from my age to 10 years older who you would assume are similar to me but 3 of these don't have Sky, don't use netflix etc and only use the Internet to buy clothes and white goods.

I apologise, I did not know that many people still only have just free TV. I am surprised hugely!

Boxing fans being fleeced again,PPV is an absolute con and its getting worse by the year,ive always forked out for it because I don't want to miss it and truth be told,i spend a lot more than the say £30 i'll spend on a night in with a PPV(including cans and a take away) but TBH its starting to take the piss,seems every channel will be looking to outdo each other with big fights,meaning more PPV

Doesn't Warren criticise anyone who won't sign with him, or who's left him, or who is a rival fighter or promoter?

This guy have promoted Herbie Hide getting stopped for the WBO title when Lennox Lewis was champion.

And promoted WBU world title fights of Ricky Hatton, Enzo Maccarinelli and Gary Lockett, bloody hell.

Eubank Jr, PPV, IBO title, that said is poor. Wouldn't have paid that to watch his dad fight, in his prime, on TV.

Can see why the Eubanks were being difficult with Hearn because otherwise Jr would be Golovkin roadkill by now. All I can see for Jr is a Saunders rematch so maybe they should've gone the FW way in this case.

Autobarn wrote:Can see why the Eubanks were being difficult with Hearn because otherwise Jr would be Golovkin roadkill by now. All I can see for Jr is a Saunders rematch so maybe they should've gone the FW way in this case.

Well according the Eubanks, Jr would make mince meat out of GGG. "We don't own towels", they say.

He's already burned his bridge with W@arren, so what else can he do? He needs to sacrifice a bit of pride, make a public apology to either Hearn/W@rren, but let's be honest here, that is not happening.

handsofstone wrote:Boxing fans being fleeced again,PPV is an absolute con and its getting worse by the year,ive always forked out for it because I don't want to miss it and truth be told,i spend a lot more than the say £30 i'll spend on a night in with a PPV(including cans and a take away) but TBH its starting to take the piss,seems every channel will be looking to outdo each other with big fights,meaning more PPV

Not sure it's necessarily getting worse. I think most of the Matchroom PPV cards aren't bad. You have to remember that Warren was putting on some very ropy PPV's when Box Office was putting on his fights: Khan in particular - he's a PPV fighter when facing someone like Brook, but Salita? Prescott? Even Kotelnik? I'm not sure they are really any bigger than the likes of Brook v Porter or Crolla v Linares, both of which were on normal Sky.

Though Warren's point is valid, it's hypocritical when made by him. Warren has spent his entire career pulling stuff like this.

It's pretty much what the 'sport' of boxing has come. Fleecing as much money out of low-risk fights as possible.

tobyh5 wrote:
I apologise, I did not know that many people still only have just free TV. I am surprised hugely!

I also don't have NetFlix. And hardly ever download TV, films etc to watch in any way. By hardly ever, I mean I have legitimately downloaded about five films to watch my entire life. I still buy DVDs, for the most part.

Saying that, I have Virgin Media and get more channels than are just available on Freeview. (But Sky Sports, I'll point out, are not amongst them.)