Posted: 21 Feb 2008, 12:31
Tell me this isn't PPV?
Not that a Laszcano upset is beyond impossible given Hatton's motivations these days.
Not that a Laszcano upset is beyond impossible given Hatton's motivations these days.
Gareth Williams sadly knows sweet fa about the game. He didn't even know what WBA stood for.Lenny wrote:It's easy to see why boxing fans are getting turned off Hatton when you read some of his lawyers quotes in that link
Lazcano I believe is fine for a comeback fight, but at a decent time and no PPV. Also is a perfect style for Ricky
Danny Williamsnickd wrote:I would think it would be PPV, once a fighter goes down the PPV route with Sky I don't recall them going back to regular Skysports after.
I don't think the sanctioning bodies ENFORCE the purse split if the champ is willing to take less than the customary percentage. Cases in point: Bruno v Tyson and De La Hoya vs any defending champion. The defending champs in those examples knew the challengers were the drawcards but they'd still make a big payday even with the short end of the purse.Terry D wrote:PPV over here seems to be directed at casuals as mentioned. Bigger fights have not been PPV over here. The greed angle is fair enough but if Witter, or Calzaghe for that matter, was offered a PPV bout would it be turned down? Not likely.
Hopefully the whole Hatton/Witter saga will end soon enough.
As an aside the WBC mandate a certain purse split in favour of their title holder so to make the 30-70 a reality the WBC title may need to be dropped, or they may need a rule-bending sweetener.
Imagine, Witter has to drop the title to make the split, Hatton says "I'm not fighting him now he doesn't have a title".
DG explodes.
Doesn't look like the fight's ever going to happen judging by that press release, its Lazcano followed by a super feather weight or a lightweight (old habits must die hard)states wrote:It's going to be on at a decent hour, apparently:
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/21022008/ ... laims.html
Fighting Witter for the WBC Light Welter title in the BIGGEST All-British clash ever is a "waste of time", but fighting some obscure Mexican is a worth while clashRicky Hatton's lawyer has hit back at Junior Witter's latest attempts to secure a domestic light-welterweight super-fight by dismissing the potential showdown as "a waste of time".
Junior Witter the WBC LightWelterweight champion and No.1 in the division brings nothing to the table, but Juan Lazcano who lost his last fight to someone who Junior sparked clean out is somehow worthy of a clashWilliams said: "Ricky has got numerous options to pursue. He is being courted by every big promoter in the US and we have options like Manny Pacquaio, Juan Diaz or a rematch against Floyd Mayweather.
"Why is he going to fight Junior Witter when he can fight any of those guys? In our opinion Junior brings nothing to the table. Unless things change dramatically there is no way he is going to fight Ricky Hatton."
Well thank fcuking you for putting the show on "At a time convenient to the British fans", oh well suppose that makes up for Las Vegas ticket fiasco, the poor opponent and for us missing out on the BIGGEST All-British clash.Williams added: "I had a meeting with HBO in New York in early January when they offered a three-fight deal to Ricky. We made it perfectly clear his next fight would be in Britain at a time convenient to the English fans.
Williams was hardly an established PPV fighter. Hatton is.oliverfennell wrote:Danny Williamsnickd wrote:I would think it would be PPV, once a fighter goes down the PPV route with Sky I don't recall them going back to regular Skysports after.
It will be regular HBO in the US, but if it's on Sky it will be Box Office. They never miss a chance.states wrote:You'd hope it won't be PPV. Christ, even De La Hoya's next fight is going to be on regular HBO, isn't it?
Sadly, Hatton vs. Lazcano, or whoever else they find for May will no doubt be PPV. Still, the choice is there. I won't buy it, just like I didn't buy the Urango fight.
"In our opinion Junior brings nothing to the table. Unless things change dramatically there is no way he is going to fight Ricky Hatton...."
As states mentioned, the DLH fight is on HBO, not HBO PPV. To make things worse, I think HBO only have BAD and WCB and non-PPV brands, so either the fight has to start very late (usually about 10.30pm EST) or they need to get a title involved. But I'm not sure.nickd wrote:It will be regular HBO in the US, but if it's on Sky it will be Box Office. They never miss a chance.states wrote:You'd hope it won't be PPV. Christ, even De La Hoya's next fight is going to be on regular HBO, isn't it?
Sadly, Hatton vs. Lazcano, or whoever else they find for May will no doubt be PPV. Still, the choice is there. I won't buy it, just like I didn't buy the Urango fight.
Yeah, but IMO his opponent is poorer than Hatton's (Forbes is a Lightweight and DLH is a Light Middle, Welter at best), although Lazcano is still a let down. I'll watch it, but won't go.states wrote:Sorry, I should have made myself clearer earlier. I meant that if the King of the PPV's, DLH, can take a break from them in the U.S. once in a while, you'd like to think Hatton can do the same over here.
That's a good point. I'm seriously considering boycotting this if it's PPV, or let Kev get it.Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:Yeah, but IMO his opponent is poorer than Hatton's (Forbes is a Lightweight and DLH is a Light Middle, Welter at best), although Lazcano is still a let down. I'll watch it, but won't go.states wrote:Sorry, I should have made myself clearer earlier. I meant that if the King of the PPV's, DLH, can take a break from them in the U.S. once in a while, you'd like to think Hatton can do the same over here.
Thats just mandatories isnt it, loads of WBC fights have split in favour of the challenger - Tyson-Bruno, Mayweather-Baldomir, Delahoya-BHOPs, etc, etcTerry D wrote: As an aside the WBC mandate a certain purse split in favour of their title holder so to make the 30-70 a reality the WBC title may need to be dropped, or they may need a rule-bending sweetener.
.
Purse bids only Terrence, in voluntary defences, the sanctioning body don't stipulate a split, hence challengers being paid 50k, when the champ takes home a few million, as happened with DLH a few years back.Terry D wrote:So why put the stipulation. Is it purely for purse-bids scenarios? Say ODH, as a promoter, went for a WBC fight as #1 contender and won the bids for the fight. Stipulations would suggest 70-30 only for ODH to be able to say "as promoter of this fight, and your opponent I am now making the split 70-30 in my favour. How do you like those apples?"oliverfennell wrote:I don't think the sanctioning bodies ENFORCE the purse split if the champ is willing to take less than the customary percentage. Cases in point: Bruno v Tyson and De La Hoya vs any defending champion. The defending champs in those examples knew the challengers were the drawcards but they'd still make a big payday even with the short end of the purse.Terry D wrote:PPV over here seems to be directed at casuals as mentioned. Bigger fights have not been PPV over here. The greed angle is fair enough but if Witter, or Calzaghe for that matter, was offered a PPV bout would it be turned down? Not likely.
Hopefully the whole Hatton/Witter saga will end soon enough.
As an aside the WBC mandate a certain purse split in favour of their title holder so to make the 30-70 a reality the WBC title may need to be dropped, or they may need a rule-bending sweetener.
Imagine, Witter has to drop the title to make the split, Hatton says "I'm not fighting him now he doesn't have a title".
DG explodes.
What is the case then? How much would he have to duke the WBC to make a new ruling?
Terry D wrote:PPV over here seems to be directed at casuals as mentioned. Bigger fights have not been PPV over here. The greed angle is fair enough but if Witter, or Calzaghe for that matter, was offered a PPV bout would it be turned down? Not likely.
Hopefully the whole Hatton/Witter saga will end soon enough.
As an aside the WBC mandate a certain purse split in favour of their title holder so to make the 30-70 a reality the WBC title may need to be dropped, or they may need a rule-bending sweetener.
Imagine, Witter has to drop the title to make the split, Hatton says "I'm not fighting him now he doesn't have a title".
DG explodes.
Hey, TV execs, his Dad, Promoter and other hangers on are people too you knownickd wrote:Man of the people.
Well, perhaps the promoter could use options as some sort of offset. Offering to pay them more of their purse in their next fight as some sort of options agreement.Terry D wrote:Yeah, was speculating about what would happen if ODH was mandated for a title (although he's beyond the point of having to be in contention) and won the purse bids as a promoter, if he'd perhaps find a way to boost his income and not pay the full percentage split. An opponent might allow it to fight ODH for whatever money they get. Perhaps that is a potential problem of self-promoted boxers.jamesmcdonnell wrote:Purse bids only Terrence, in voluntary defences, the sanctioning body don't stipulate a split, hence challengers being paid 50k, when the champ takes home a few million, as happened with DLH a few years back.Terry D wrote: So why put the stipulation. Is it purely for purse-bids scenarios? Say ODH, as a promoter, went for a WBC fight as #1 contender and won the bids for the fight. Stipulations would suggest 70-30 only for ODH to be able to say "as promoter of this fight, and your opponent I am now making the split 70-30 in my favour. How do you like those apples?"
What is the case then? How much would he have to duke the WBC to make a new ruling?
Seconds out article indicates Hennessey is willing to allow Hatton the 70%, but he still won't bite. I'm not in "no man's land" on this debate.jamesmcdonnell wrote:Well, perhaps the promoter could use options as some sort of offset. Offering to pay them more of their purse in their next fight as some sort of options agreement.Terry D wrote:Yeah, was speculating about what would happen if ODH was mandated for a title (although he's beyond the point of having to be in contention) and won the purse bids as a promoter, if he'd perhaps find a way to boost his income and not pay the full percentage split. An opponent might allow it to fight ODH for whatever money they get. Perhaps that is a potential problem of self-promoted boxers.jamesmcdonnell wrote: Purse bids only Terrence, in voluntary defences, the sanctioning body don't stipulate a split, hence challengers being paid 50k, when the champ takes home a few million, as happened with DLH a few years back.
I think the purse bids are fairly strict, but it's not that often that there are big money mandatories, so it'snot that relevant. More often than not, the big fights are voluntary defences or unifications.