Breaking news: Manny blames allegedly

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 13 Aug 2004, 07:21

The bottom line is this: pay the champion what he wants if you want his title. Barney Eastwood paid Eusebio Pedroza a million quid back in 1985 to come over here and defend his WBA title.

knockout · Post by **knockout** » 13 Aug 2004, 07:35

David Haye sells all the tickets, gets the TV interest.... yet he is willing to earn half what Carl Thompson will get.

Haye hasnt got a bank balance like Hatton, but he is taking a risk.....

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 13 Aug 2004, 07:41

Fight Academy are paying Thompson a king's ransom for this fight. They've put their hands in their pockets and made the fight happen.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 13 Aug 2004, 07:46

bennie wrote:The bottom line is this: pay the champion what he wants if you want his title. Barney Eastwood paid Eusebio Pedroza a million quid back in 1985 to come over here and defend his WBA title.

Blimey, that's a good fornicating earner for Pedroza. Wonder what that would be now, isn't it usually double it every 20 years, or is it 10?

I think PPV and non-terrestrial TV has definetly changed boxing for the worse, fighters are much less willing to take risks on the whole, if they can just carry on getting telly money for soft defences.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 13 Aug 2004, 07:49

knockout wrote:David Haye sells all the tickets, gets the TV interest.... yet he is willing to earn half what Carl Thompson will get.

Haye hasnt got a bank balance like Hatton, but he is taking a risk.....

Is Thompson not much of a ticket seller normally, don't get to many fights up that way, but you'd think someone who is as exciting to watch as Thompson would sell a few. I guess he doesn't have the most media friendly persona though, very unfomfortable in front of camera usually.

It's such a shame this fight isn't being shown live, what a corker it could be.

JC · Post by JC » 13 Aug 2004, 07:56

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
knockout wrote:David Haye sells all the tickets, gets the TV interest.... yet he is willing to earn half what Carl Thompson will get.

Haye hasnt got a bank balance like Hatton, but he is taking a risk.....
Is Thompson not much of a ticket seller normally, don't get to many fights up that way, but you'd think someone who is as exciting to watch as Thompson would sell a few. I guess he doesn't have the most media friendly persona though, very unfomfortable in front of camera usually.

It's such a shame this fight isn't being shown live, what a corker it could be.

are they not showing it live! Damn what are the going to do put it on at some funny time is it on the bbc or are sky showing this one I assume it's on the BBC cos Haye is signed with then isnt he?

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 13 Aug 2004, 07:58

Highlights only, next day on grandstand.

JC · Post by JC » 13 Aug 2004, 08:17

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Highlights only, next day on grandstand.

knockout artist · Post by **knockout artist** » 13 Aug 2004, 08:35

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
bennie wrote:The bottom line is this: pay the champion what he wants if you want his title. Barney Eastwood paid Eusebio Pedroza a million quid back in 1985 to come over here and defend his WBA title.
Blimey, that's a good fornicating earner for Pedroza. Wonder what that would be now, isn't it usually double it every 20 years, or is it 10?

I think PPV and non-terrestrial TV has definetly changed boxing for the worse, fighters are much less willing to take risks on the whole, if they can just carry on getting telly money for soft defences.

A good rule of thumb is 1970-1975 values x 10 for today, 1980-85 values x 5 for today.

Remember inflation only came in in 1963.

JC · Post by JC » 13 Aug 2004, 09:36

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Highlights only, next day on grandstand.

What was the point of the BBC signing Haye if they aren't going to show his fights properly. I can even except them not showing it live cos they want to put on some awful, ratings grabbing piece of crap on a friday night instead but they could at least show the full fight at some point.

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 13 Aug 2004, 09:39

J-C wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:Highlights only, next day on grandstand.
What was the point of the BBC signing Haye if they aren't going to show his fights properly. I can even except them not showing it live cos they want to put on some awful, ratings grabbing piece of crap on a friday night instead but they could at least show the full fight at some point.

There is the possibility they may show it live, if the public demands it. Start praying for The Sun to hype this fight beforehand and you may wel see a switch from the BBC.

Chambers · Post by **Chambers** » 13 Aug 2004, 10:04

J-C wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:Highlights only, next day on grandstand.
What was the point of the BBC signing Haye if they aren't going to show his fights properly. I can even except them not showing it live cos they want to put on some awful, ratings grabbing piece of crap on a friday night instead but they could at least show the full fight at some point.

It won't last long, so I would be amazed if we didn't ge5t the full fight on grandstand

Smit · Post by **Smit** » 13 Aug 2004, 11:13

DIRT SUGAR wrote:
Smit wrote:Harris v Mayweather better than watching Harris v Hatton

Seems like it worked out a hell of alot better for Harris than Hatton.

Just imagine if Hatton had taken the fight and won, he'd be in line for a shot at Mayweather possibly
Not sure about that. Fancy Harris chances better v Hatton than Mayweather.

A good performance by Harris v Mayweather but losing would do him alot less damages than a loss to Hatton.

Plus i'm not sure but i think he'll be getting more money to fight Floys than he ever would to fight Hatton .

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 14 Aug 2004, 15:18

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I would take what Manny says with a pinch of salt, he may be a great trainer, but he talks a heap load of shit when it comes to his own fighters.

Your dead right there mate, he was telling us all Tye Fields will become a Heayweight force a few months back

Southpaw Stylist · Post by **Southpaw Stylist** » 15 Aug 2004, 10:47

I don't rate Manny Steward as a trainer, his fundamental teaching may be right, but he encourages good boxers like Hearns to fight too much, and he also encourages fighters to look for KO's. Look at how Hearns speaks now, and probably many other fighters he has trained.

Also, James Toney had a brief spell at the kronk when he was younger and he left because there was too many wars.

Lefthookhappy19 · Post by **Lefthookhappy19** » 15 Aug 2004, 11:12

He produces exciting fights and fighters which everyone wants to see. Not surprised you don't like him judging by your name "Southpaw Stylist".

Southpaw Stylist · Post by **Southpaw Stylist** » 15 Aug 2004, 11:27

Correct, I like boxers, not hell for leather brawlers.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 16 Aug 2004, 06:16

Yeah, Kronk gym wars are legendary. Steward I get the impression is very good at fundamentals, especially balance, footwork and punching technique, and he's a good reader of fights, but I don't know if I would be too keen on having him as my manager. Pulling out of this fight may or may not be a bad move.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 16 Aug 2004, 06:21

Southpaw Stylist wrote:I don't rate Manny Steward as a trainer, his fundamental teaching may be right, but he encourages good boxers like Hearns to fight too much, and he also encourages fighters to look for KO's. Look at how Hearns speaks now, and probably many other fighters he has trained.

Also, James Toney had a brief spell at the kronk when he was younger and he left because there was too many wars.

Tommy Hearns has always spoken like that, right from the early days. Also, looking back, Hearns never really got hit all that much. A few times yes, but he was usualy OUT when he was really clocked a good one.

It's the guys who can take punch after punch that end up walking on their heels - see Pocket Rocket and Holyfield as two guys who should definitely be looked after for their own good.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 16 Aug 2004, 06:23

I don't agree, Tommy definetly sounds punchy, I remember how he sounded early in his career. That could be due to nerve damage to the face however.

It's worht remembering that it's not just the shots taken in the gym which cause damage, but the countless thousands taken in sparring.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 16 Aug 2004, 06:45

Well I always thought he sounded a little punchy, going back to the early 80's - but put it down to the fact he had a slight speech impediment.

Who knows, but he's defintitely carried on too long, I think he dreams about coming back, even now. He had a long amateur career too, but was a pure boxer at the time.
Manny turned him into a big hitter, and I've no arguments there: he and Tommy gave us one of the most exciting fighters of the 1980's as a result.
Even then he could box when he wanted too: almost beating Leonard that way, and easily beating Benitez too.

DG. · Post by **DG.** » 16 Aug 2004, 10:16

Just imagine if Hatton had taken the fight and won, he'd be in line for a shot at Mayweather possibly[/quote]

THAT IS WHY hATTON dID NOT WANT THE FIGHT !

Floyd would kick his arse !

Hatton is a fraud.. Allegedly

( I did not write this - someone else did ! ).

don't call it a comeback · Post by **don't call it a comeback** » 16 Aug 2004, 11:04

knockout artist wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
bennie wrote:The bottom line is this: pay the champion what he wants if you want his title. Barney Eastwood paid Eusebio Pedroza a million quid back in 1985 to come over here and defend his WBA title.
Blimey, that's a good fornicating earner for Pedroza. Wonder what that would be now, isn't it usually double it every 20 years, or is it 10?

I think PPV and non-terrestrial TV has definetly changed boxing for the worse, fighters are much less willing to take risks on the whole, if they can just carry on getting telly money for soft defences.
A good rule of thumb is 1970-1975 values x 10 for today, 1980-85 values x 5 for today.

Remember inflation only came in in 1963.

Actually its quite a bit less than that. A pound in 1985 is worth about £1.80 at todays prices.

If you want to check whether the price of a mars bar has kept up with inflation or whether you earn more in real terms than your dad, there is an inflation calculator here:

http://www.thisismoney.com/undated/ff954.html

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 16 Aug 2004, 11:26

As I thought, double every 20 years or so.