BoxRec

I'm sure he did, but you cannot deny he became a ticket seller in his own right in the end.

when ya drawing 16,000 a fight it's slightly gone over that riding the coat tails stage.

Obviously Farnell has gone so Hatton is selling the tickets now... but I still feel farnell played a big part in the Hatton success story!!!

Dont get me wrong i am not hating on Hatton... just an observation i made....

Anyway i am moving away from the main point of this post......



Boxchat, i see you have read the thread... I hope Mr Warren has took some notice of the good things coming out of the MMA shows, even if he doesnt like the actual fighting, and perhaps he could consider incorporating them into sports network shows!!!

Your comments would be welcome!!!

Cheers

stepper wrote:Presentation of the sport, from the announcement of the fight to the presentation in the Arena could all do with a makeover.

I'm not trying to plug but I have a website making films that, amongst other things, look to exploit the hype if I'm honest. On a few occasions recently boxers have mouthed off at eachother and I've made efforts to catch up with the people involved to keep the pot bubbling but it appears that promoters want to manage their fighters closely. This is a bit of a request to promoters to have a little trust and recognise the need for some showbiz and razz-matazz.

Boxers thesedays would wise to recognise the benefits of establishing a recognisable brand around themselves. I'm not talking about the WWE Hulk Hogan type of persona but I am suggesting they open the doors backstage and let people in. The public choose what they like so just be yourself. For example, if you try and look like a gangster covered in bling there's a good chance people will pity you and want to see you beat. If on the other hand you run a roofing business and employ a couple of kids who were at risk of going off the rails before you gave them a break, the phone might start ringing off the hook.

Either way we need to push the sport back into premiership.

Spot on about the brand. Whether you brand yourself as a hero or villain it's still the way forward.

Yeah, there's been a lot of good, crowd pleasing Manc fighters since the 90s, Brodie, Thompson, Bingham (I think) etc.

back to one of the points at the start of this thread...

i think the 'in ring' post fight interviews were stopped after a hyped up eubank made comments about michael watsons alleged stimulant intake while watson was slumped and dying in his own corner !!

Final Fight wrote:Yeah, there's been a lot of good, crowd pleasing Manc fighters since the 90s, Brodie, Thompson, Bingham (I think) etc.

all exciting fighters, all good/great fighters BUT they didn't sell big tickets....not sure why.....
Was it because they didnt have the football following??
Was it because they didnt have the right promotion??
Was it because they were the wrong colour??
Was it because they didnt have the right personality??
or was the Hatton/Farnell/Gomez phenomenan a one off???

I don't know.... Thompson should have been one of the biggest ticket sellers ever... his fights were pure drama... One punch KO artist, iffy chin, tremendous heart and guts...

Three things counted against Carl.

Firstly, he ended the career of Chris Eubank, who by that stage had become a national treasure.

Secondly, he campaigned in the unfashionable cruiserweight division, had he been having fights like that at middleweight, well, who knows?

Thirdly, he was a brummie, and no motherfoka could understand him.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Three things counted against Carl.

Firstly, he ended the career of Chris Eubank, who by that stage had become a national treasure.

Secondly, he campaigned in the unfashionable cruiserweight division, had he been having fights like that at middleweight, well, who knows?

Thirdly, he was a brummie, and no motherfoka could understand him.

He didn't have a brummie accent... thought he was a Manchester/Salford lad.

Another thing in which maybe why the public didn't adhere to him as they should was maybe his post fights interviews. Don't get me wrong, you probably couldn't get a more humble a fighter - but sometimes he might not give his opponent quite the respect he deserved.

For example, he claimed after the fight with Eubank that he was playing possom and Eubank never hurt him. Eubank floored him and its wasn't a flash knockdown. Okay, so SOME of it might have geniunely been an act to lure Eubank into a mistake - but obviously, when Eubank floored him he'd had to have been hurt. The fight was so close on the cards (I scored it for Chris) that the KD could have been crucial to the fight - so why go down if you were not hurt and could have lost your title because of it?

Similarly with the Nelson fight, he had every reason to complain about the stoppage - but again, if memory serves me correct he claimed Johnny NEVER hurt him (appologies here if I am wrong). Obviously, Johnny hurt him at some stages, but I agree Carl should have been allowed to continue.

If memory serves me, he said something similar vs Rothman. At least giving the impression that he was in full control and was just waiting for the right moment.... again, partly true IMO but maybe doing the effort Rothman made for 8 rounds a bit of a disservice.

rhino222 wrote:back to one of the points at the start of this thread...

i think the 'in ring' post fight interviews were stopped after a hyped up eubank made comments about michael watsons alleged stimulant intake while watson was slumped and dying in his own corner !!

My understanding is different Rhino. The doctors who work the corners are a very undervalued bunch IMO. Most of the medical proffesion are of the opinion that a sport that requires a trauma to the brain in order to win is not a sport they can support. The doctors in the corner at fights are generally more aware of the wider benefits offered to kids who may have little or nothing in the way of adult role models and find a place to exist in a local gym. I'm not suggesting that every boxer has no positive adult role model but I am saying that a lot of the chattering classes fail to understand how much a local gym offers its community by giving focus dicipline and a feeling of self worth to kids if they make it in boxing or not.

The rule about no interviews in the ring is as much to do with giving the doctor a little more time to observe and giving the boxer a little more time to cool off, both of which seem completely sensible things to do.

We should be thanking the doctors who understand boxing not giving them more grief.

not sure if you are aware of my profession stepper but im an anaesthetic practitioner, i actually know some of the BBB of C doctors and the reason they are there ringside is because they love the sport as fans and generally have an interest and/or are practising in anaesthetics and/or resuscitation.

stujones wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Three things counted against Carl.

Firstly, he ended the career of Chris Eubank, who by that stage had become a national treasure.

Secondly, he campaigned in the unfashionable cruiserweight division, had he been having fights like that at middleweight, well, who knows?

Thirdly, he was a brummie, and no motherfoka could understand him.

He didn't have a brummie accent... thought he was a Manchester/Salford lad.

Another thing in which maybe why the public didn't adhere to him as they should was maybe his post fights interviews. Don't get me wrong, you probably couldn't get a more humble a fighter - but sometimes he might not give his opponent quite the respect he deserved.

For example, he claimed after the fight with Eubank that he was playing possom and Eubank never hurt him. Eubank floored him and its wasn't a flash knockdown. Okay, so SOME of it might have geniunely been an act to lure Eubank into a mistake - but obviously, when Eubank floored him he'd had to have been hurt. The fight was so close on the cards (I scored it for Chris) that the KD could have been crucial to the fight - so why go down if you were not hurt and could have lost your title because of it?

Similarly with the Nelson fight, he had every reason to complain about the stoppage - but again, if memory serves me correct he claimed Johnny NEVER hurt him (appologies here if I am wrong). Obviously, Johnny hurt him at some stages, but I agree Carl should have been allowed to continue.

If memory serves me, he said something similar vs Rothman. At least giving the impression that he was in full control and was just waiting for the right moment.... again, partly true IMO but maybe doing the effort Rothman made for 8 rounds a bit of a disservice.

Whoops, where did I get the impression he was a brummie from?

The thing is Carl's fight were nearly always exciting up and down affairs, with a lot of the down coming from Carl hitting the floor.

The Rothmann fight, Carl claimed, rightly if you look at the video of the fight, that at the point of the final knockdown, he was waiting for a chance to lure Rothmann in to finish him off. Carl was knackered and was about to be stopped, and it was a last hurrah. However, I don't remember him claiming he was in control of the entire fight.

Against Nelson, Carl looked to be in desperate trouble, but part of the reason for that I think is carl's leaden footed and awfully balanced footwork. Carl always looked like he was on the verge of hitting the canvas in fights, and I think quite a few of the knockdowns he suffered were partially being hurt, and partially poor balance.

Against Haye, a supposendly murderous puncher, Carl managed to stay on his feet, despite being hit with everything but the kitchen sink for two and a half rounds, and looked like he was going over any second for most of that time.

It was unfortunate for Carl that he had to beat Eubank twice on national TV, I don't think it endeared him to the public much, and those were by far his two biggest fights.

I wish Carl had gotten a rematch against Nelson, but I think the result would have been the same, because Nelson had a terrible style for Carl, and had managed to survive against bigger punching heavyweights.

jamesmcdonnell wrote: Thirdly, he was a brummie, and no motherfoka could understand him.

Carl is no brummie - though I would love to claim him as one of our own. He is from Bolton if I remember rightly.

Also, he turned pro after no amateur career, save some Thai Boxing matches, with little aplomb. His early career was spent as a journeyman, until he started knocking over the likes of Nicky Piper.

It was relatively late into his career - following stellar wins for the European title on foreign soil, that British boxing fans started to warm to The Cat.

stepper wrote:

rhino222 wrote:back to one of the points at the start of this thread...

i think the 'in ring' post fight interviews were stopped after a hyped up eubank made comments about michael watsons alleged stimulant intake while watson was slumped and dying in his own corner !!

My understanding is different Rhino. The doctors who work the corners are a very undervalued bunch IMO. Most of the medical proffesion are of the opinion that a sport that requires a trauma to the brain in order to win is not a sport they can support. The doctors in the corner at fights are generally more aware of the wider benefits offered to kids who may have little or nothing in the way of adult role models and find a place to exist in a local gym. I'm not suggesting that every boxer has no positive adult role model but I am saying that a lot of the chattering classes fail to understand how much a local gym offers its community by giving focus dicipline and a feeling of self worth to kids if they make it in boxing or not.

The rule about no interviews in the ring is as much to do with giving the doctor a little more time to observe and giving the boxer a little more time to cool off, both of which seem completely sensible things to do.

We should be thanking the doctors who understand boxing not giving them more grief.

An interesting point, never thought about that. However, what they certainly could do for the benefit of the crowd at the show, would be to ensure that the ringside interviews are at the least CLEARLY audible to the crowd, and ideally VISIBLE on screens.

Ant Evans wrote:Boxing is run by old farts, while the UFC operated by a 37-year-old and staffed with the best at what they do who are in their 30s and 20s.

Sorry, but this Haye fight this Friday is not interesting. The dude got beat by Audley Harrison - Fraudly the A Farce - so who cares to see him again? That's a main event? Only on Sky Sports it is...

In fairness to Haye as a heavyweight debut opponent, I think Bonin is fine. He has to test the water before diving right in!!

Boxing does have to up its game to respond to the challenges put forth by the UFC though - lets hope that they are up to it!

Ant Evans wrote:Boxing is run by old farts, while the UFC operated by a 37-year-old and staffed with the best at what they do who are in their 30s and 20s.

Sorry, but this Haye fight this Friday is not interesting. The dude got beat by Audley Harrison - Fraudly the A Farce - so who cares to see him again? That's a main event? Only on Sky Sports it is...

It must be said in all fairness that I have noticed a slight drop off in quality and depth of the UFC cards as they run once a month and look to expand globally..

It is only to be expected, but the undercard to Liddell v Jackson 2 (at the end of May) outside of Parysian v Burkman is pretty poor, and the headliner for Belfast (UFC 72) in Franklin v Kampfmann is simply not a headline fight in my eyes.

Yes the UFC is like a breath of fresh air in terms of marketing, production values, robust matchmaking, merchandising and innovation but it will be interesting to see how they tackle the problem of potential dilution of programming content as shows become more frequent and widespread..

I would be interested to hear your take on this problem Ant?..

Ant Evans wrote:Boxing is run by old farts, while the UFC operated by a 37-year-old and staffed with the best at what they do who are in their 30s and 20s.

Sorry, but this Haye fight this Friday is not interesting. The dude got beat by Audley Harrison - Fraudly the A Farce - so who cares to see him again? That's a main event? Only on Sky Sports it is...

You seem to have an anti Sky Sports 1 agenda, Ant. I can see why, with you being at secondsout and offering an alternative. But it's an alternative only, or an addition, not a replacement.

Sky keep putting on quality domestic matchups. Okay, this year hasn't been as good as an exceptional 06, but that's because Sky fighters can't get fights with Warren fighters and everyone's still ducking the Africans. International coverage is sporadic but I'll tune in for the fights we do get.

Haye-Bonin at least has some intrigue and it's both a gamble and sensible - getting him a WBC heavyweight rating.


The way to save boxing over here is not to let ppl in exclusive contracts that they wil abuse to get maximum ££s for providing minumum competitive action. I keep saying it, but Warren will do this with every exclusive contract he gets and the only way to light a fire up his arse is to have him negotiate fight by fight - he'd have to make intriguing fights or there'd be NO fight.

Ant Evans wrote:Boxing is run by old farts, while the UFC operated by a 37-year-old and staffed with the best at what they do who are in their 30s and 20s.

Sorry, but this Haye fight this Friday is not interesting. The dude got beat by Audley Harrison - Fraudly the A Farce - so who cares to see him again? That's a main event? Only on Sky Sports it is...

I disagree, whilst hardly a globally significant fight, it's intriguing, because we will find out how Haye fares against a genuine heavyweight, he may be relatively medicore, but Bonin is a big enough lad, and Haye has yet to fight a genuine heavyweight. I won't be creaming in my pants over this one, but I am interested enough to watch it.

Oh, except I'm at a party on Friday night...balls. So maybe not that intereted after all, must start recording stuff to my PC.

I think you're onto something about the age bracket. UFC have been able to recruit young, enthusiastic and top line professionals to do their PR for them, it's no wonder their rise has been meteoric. Boxing is the old guard, and the way that the organisations is built has historically been to pluck people from those in the ranks and those 'in the know.'

At the end of the day, you don't have to know the sport inside out to promote it well, that can be learnt. Jay Larkin knew nothing about the boxing business, yet managed to create a successful franchise in Showtime when given the opportunity. What he did understand was TV, and how to promote sports on TV.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

stujones wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Three things counted against Carl.

Firstly, he ended the career of Chris Eubank, who by that stage had become a national treasure.

Secondly, he campaigned in the unfashionable cruiserweight division, had he been having fights like that at middleweight, well, who knows?

Thirdly, he was a brummie, and no motherfoka could understand him.

He didn't have a brummie accent... thought he was a Manchester/Salford lad.

Another thing in which maybe why the public didn't adhere to him as they should was maybe his post fights interviews. Don't get me wrong, you probably couldn't get a more humble a fighter - but sometimes he might not give his opponent quite the respect he deserved.

For example, he claimed after the fight with Eubank that he was playing possom and Eubank never hurt him. Eubank floored him and its wasn't a flash knockdown. Okay, so SOME of it might have geniunely been an act to lure Eubank into a mistake - but obviously, when Eubank floored him he'd had to have been hurt. The fight was so close on the cards (I scored it for Chris) that the KD could have been crucial to the fight - so why go down if you were not hurt and could have lost your title because of it?

Similarly with the Nelson fight, he had every reason to complain about the stoppage - but again, if memory serves me correct he claimed Johnny NEVER hurt him (appologies here if I am wrong). Obviously, Johnny hurt him at some stages, but I agree Carl should have been allowed to continue.

If memory serves me, he said something similar vs Rothman. At least giving the impression that he was in full control and was just waiting for the right moment.... again, partly true IMO but maybe doing the effort Rothman made for 8 rounds a bit of a disservice.

Whoops, where did I get the impression he was a brummie from?

The thing is Carl's fight were nearly always exciting up and down affairs, with a lot of the down coming from Carl hitting the floor.

The Rothmann fight, Carl claimed, rightly if you look at the video of the fight, that at the point of the final knockdown, he was waiting for a chance to lure Rothmann in to finish him off. Carl was knackered and was about to be stopped, and it was a last hurrah. However, I don't remember him claiming he was in control of the entire fight.

Against Nelson, Carl looked to be in desperate trouble, but part of the reason for that I think is carl's leaden footed and awfully balanced footwork. Carl always looked like he was on the verge of hitting the canvas in fights, and I think quite a few of the knockdowns he suffered were partially being hurt, and partially poor balance.

Against Haye, a supposendly murderous puncher, Carl managed to stay on his feet, despite being hit with everything but the kitchen sink for two and a half rounds, and looked like he was going over any second for most of that time.

It was unfortunate for Carl that he had to beat Eubank twice on national TV, I don't think it endeared him to the public much, and those were by far his two biggest fights.

I wish Carl had gotten a rematch against Nelson, but I think the result would have been the same, because Nelson had a terrible style for Carl, and had managed to survive against bigger punching heavyweights.

Not sure I agree entirely with this.... yes, Carl's balance wasn't the best and I am sure for some of the time it was mainly balance. However, you cannot "act" a glazed look in the eye and Carl had it on several occasions vs Eubank and a few vs Nelson (not when the fight was stopped granted) and Rothman. What Carl had was a FANTASTIC recovery power. Naseem had excellent recovery power also - but I don't think I have seen a fighter quite as good as Thompson. Most of Tito Trindad's KD's were flash KD and he was never really badly shaken up before falling. Thompson seemed to have his senses scrambled but would recover instantly.

I do agree about the Eubank victories... the manner of the wins also didn't adhere him to the general British public. Fight 1 was controvesial in the scoring... many thought Chris had won, most thought Chris would have won had it not been for the Watson fight (and him not being commiting to finish off Carl)... the second fight all Eubank had to do was survive without going down to get a draw and Eubank was always famed for saving enough to win the last round.

I think Eubank also unintentially dented Carl's popularity post fight. Remember, there was no hint that this was to be his final fight... quite the opposite infact. Some pundits said Eubank should retire but Eubank countered by saying stuff like he was the better man, but got "robbed" by the referee and that he wanted a third meeting to prove he was the better man.

Had Thompson beaten Chris decisvely in any of the two fights or a third meeting, then I think it would have done him good. Eubank's performance of Calzaghe have given boxing fans enough to talk about "what could have been"... but it was a decisive enough victory for the general public to respect Joe was a "true" world champion (even if it was a vacant title against a rusty and drained Eubank) and he had some great respect. It was Joe/Warren/Injuries and his fights/performances/opponents POST Eubank that cost him his popularity.

Look at it in context though. Yes, it's not a great fight if Haye was already campaigning at heavyweihgt, but he isn't. It's a marking time fight, albeit a strange one, and the guy is a cruiserweight.

I'm certainly not saying Sky is great value, it isn't, it's a pain in arse paying 40 quid a month just to watch boxing, but I don't see anything wrong with this particular fight. I also don't mind watching domestic dust ups on Sky, they are often far better quality matchups than the so called 'high profile' fights we get offered, where we see rank outsiders being obliterated inside a round.

Ant Evans wrote:But Sky DID have the power to make Steve Roberts v Takaoo v Richard WIlliams v Wayne Alexander five years ago but didn't. Now they are serving up more rubbish than ever.

I agree on your first comment but not on the second one at all, SKY's output has improved ten fold since they canned allegedly and his WBU circus trudged over to ITV.