BoxRec

SticknMove wrote:

Twinkle Toes wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:
Twinkle, have you read the thread?

Yes mate, and it's a very well written piece, but the question was: Has greed taken over?

For sure it has, but like I said, it's a business and Calzaghe/Hatton are looking to cash in - So yeah, they are greedy bastards, but so what.

I won't be lining their pockets by going to watch them, just as I didn't when they where having their cushy fights under the SN banner.

Ditto to your previous post and ditto to this one.

I wish both of them both all the best - if that means money albeit.

The only people that do not appear to complain are those that have spent 'disposable' cash to watch these events on which they headline and do not expect more than the fight/event in return. The diehard fan should know better. You pay your money to watch a fight/bill - that's where it ends. There's no further responsibilty from the fighter to the fan.

yeah, but this is Boxrec with its alternate universe of how boxing works and used to work

hitman_hatton1 wrote:tbf some of joe louis title reign opponents were worse than calzaghe's.

the old bum of the month club.

The bum of the month club was not describing the fighters as bums. The bum was a reference to putting bums on seats once per month, fighting 1 man per month and there were some decent names amongst those

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:sentimental tripe


Boxers going for the big payday and easy fights!

That never happened in my day

*Except it did, all the fooking time, its just that my rose tinted glasses get rosier with each passing year

Look at Sugar Ray Robinson, excellent record BUT avoided the best black fighters of his day who were better the fighters he faced. If you were doing a P4P list of the time Charles, Moore, Burley, Holman Williams, Cocoa Kid, Lloyd Marshall would all be in the top10. Robinson campaigned in the same division with all except Moore/Charles (except his brief stay at 175) yet never fought any of them

i think you have got to have your eyes open when it comes to boxing. i love going to the big fights and have paid a lot over the last few years to enjoy them but i dont think for one minute the fighters actually care about the fans. Yes boxers are greedy when it comes to money but who wouldnt be if they were in the same position.

The whole vegas vs new york argument is silly i work in the airline industry and to say vegas is cheaper is just an outright lie. You can get a flight to New York for 300 quid including taxes due to the amount of competition. I challenge anyone to fly to Vegas for that considering the hefty surcharges that we have all added to flights over the last few months due to the insane price of fuel.

Without naming who i work for and without naming the name of boxers as you can understand. We have a deal with a fighter who tells us when and where is he fighting before it is announced in return for a number of free business seats. We can therefore bump up the price of all the tickets and make a tidy sum more than we would of from the fans. So to say boxers care about the fans is possibly nothing more than PR.

adamwillan wrote:i think you have got to have your eyes open when it comes to boxing. i love going to the big fights and have paid a lot over the last few years to enjoy them but i dont think for one minute the fighters actually care about the fans. Yes boxers are greedy when it comes to money but who wouldnt be if they were in the same position.

The whole vegas vs new york argument is silly i work in the airline industry and to say vegas is cheaper is just an outright lie. You can get a flight to New York for 300 quid including taxes due to the amount of competition. I challenge anyone to fly to Vegas for that considering the hefty surcharges that we have all added to flights over the last few months due to the insane price of fuel.

Without naming who i work for and without naming the name of boxers as you can understand. We have a deal with a fighter who tells us when and where is he fighting before it is announced in return for a number of free business seats. We can therefore bump up the price of all the tickets and make a tidy sum more than we would of from the fans. So to say boxers care about the fans is possibly nothing more than PR.

Is that really true? Would it be common knowledge for staff within the airline, or are you just high up?

adamwillan wrote:Without naming who i work for and without naming the name of boxers as you can understand. We have a deal with a fighter who tells us when and where is he fighting before it is announced in return for a number of free business seats. We can therefore bump up the price of all the tickets and make a tidy sum more than we would of from the fans. So to say boxers care about the fans is possibly nothing more than PR.

This sounds a tad unlikely, and only 1 airline bumping the prices? Wouldnt the fans just goto the airline that doesnt bump the prices up to said destination?

Yeah sure if want to connect with an american carrier their are lots of options to connect anywhere in america but if you want to go direct there are very few options to said airport.

Anyone within the commercial side of things would know that kind of thing if they cared but the average person doesnt care about boxing.

adamwillan wrote:Yeah sure if want to connect with an american carrier their are lots of options to connect anywhere in america but if you want to go direct there are very few options to said airport.

Anyone within the commercial side of things would know that kind of thing if they cared but the average person doesnt care about boxing.

BMI fly direct to Vegas from Manchester don't they?

Autobarn wrote:The problem is that the lucrative fights are no longer the best fights. Frankly, a load of garbage is being put on, at times. Used to be, Leonard and Hearns, Spinks and Qawi, would gravitate toward one another because they knew that was where the biggest money was for them at that time.

Nowadays, everyone seems to be "getting away" with something. Hatton v Malignaggi a "unification", Calzaghe v Jones a meeting between "legends at their best", Khan - "ready for a world title" - clearing out super featherweight and feasting on feathers in the meantime.

Ppl are told they are watching the sport at the highest level, which is a rotten stinking lie. They are being told that second best is best, that flailing combos, no defence and hugging are quality boxing.

Is that so good for things in the long run?

Yes, these guys have some loyal followings, they are "big names", they make money off the average fans' ignorance, but sadly there are not as many good fights being made as there could be.

What seems to be happening is that boxing has more big 'events' than big fights.

The amount of mismatches where one fighter is the goods, and people turn up to watch them paste the shit out of some no-mark is on the rise. I read an article in Boxing Monthly on just this subject.

This in reality is nothing new, Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey did just the same thing, the difference is, they also faced the best available challengers, as this was where the really massive paydays lay.

It's become far too easy for TV companies to sell dross, because hardly anyone out there knows who the best fighters are any more and ignorance is bliss to a promoter.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Autobarn wrote:The problem is that the lucrative fights are no longer the best fights. Frankly, a load of garbage is being put on, at times. Used to be, Leonard and Hearns, Spinks and Qawi, would gravitate toward one another because they knew that was where the biggest money was for them at that time.

Nowadays, everyone seems to be "getting away" with something. Hatton v Malignaggi a "unification", Calzaghe v Jones a meeting between "legends at their best", Khan - "ready for a world title" - clearing out super featherweight and feasting on feathers in the meantime.

Ppl are told they are watching the sport at the highest level, which is a rotten stinking lie. They are being told that second best is best, that flailing combos, no defence and hugging are quality boxing.

Is that so good for things in the long run?

Yes, these guys have some loyal followings, they are "big names", they make money off the average fans' ignorance, but sadly there are not as many good fights being made as there could be.

What seems to be happening is that boxing has more big 'events' than big fights.

The amount of mismatches where one fighter is the goods, and people turn up to watch them paste the shit out of some no-mark is on the rise. I read an article in Boxing Monthly on just this subject.

This in reality is nothing new, Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey did just the same thing, the difference is, they also faced the best available challengers, as this was where the really massive paydays lay.

It's become far too easy for TV companies to sell dross, because hardly anyone out there knows who the best fighters are any more and ignorance is bliss to a promoter.

Cotto-Margarito is probably the first GENUINE fight since Hatton-Mayweather.

don't call it a comeback wrote:

adamwillan wrote:Yeah sure if want to connect with an american carrier their are lots of options to connect anywhere in america but if you want to go direct there are very few options to said airport.

Anyone within the commercial side of things would know that kind of thing if they cared but the average person doesnt care about boxing.

BMI fly direct to Vegas from Manchester don't they?

bmi fly from MAN and virgin from LGW

And that's it. 2 flights per day to Vegas direct from the UK & BMI only fly 3 times a week. So there's only about 600 available seats per day at most.

I've never understood why there isn't more competition. The business class only airlines have all gone out of business but i can't see why BA or American Airines haven't challenged the monopolies.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:This in reality is nothing new, Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey did just the same thing, the difference is, they also faced the best available challengers, as this was where the really massive paydays lay..

Actually Jack Dempsey avoided the best challengers of his day in Harry Wills, Harry Grebb, Godfrey, and the older blk fighters like Jack Johnson, Langford, McVey, Jeanette. There is certainly a reasonable debate that Wills and not Dempsey may have been the best fighter of that era and he was no1 contender for about 7years if not longer

Louis didnt fight the top black fighters for the most part either

Of course your right guys, both Hoe and Ricky are looking at £££££ BIG-TIME!!!!

However, Joe (especially more than Ricky) is more concerned with his record... Ricky was obsessed with his own record, until Mayweather wrecked it by dropping a defeat onto him.

Joe however, has no such loss to his name... And can continue obsessing about bulking up his "perfect Record"... Up until 5 years ago, Calazaghe could only boast victories over "greats" like (a battered, old) Chris Eubank, Robin Reid, Mario Veit and Rchiw Woodhall...

However, nowdays he can say that he beat Jeff Lacy and Bernard Hopkins.... And I think he will polish off his record by saying that he defeated another great in Roy Jones JR. - detereoriated or not....

PLUS, BBC's INSIDE SPORT got hold of Carl Froch (my perosanl favourite British boxer) and gave him Calaghe's phone number... The funny thing about it all was that Calzaghe and Froch hand never met... NEVER EVEN SPOKEN!!!

Then Froch phones Joe and asks him "When are we gonna get it on"?

Joe replies:

"The moneys got to be right man, you know that. It's all about the money" Joe replies stutteringly....

TRUE STORY!!! It was one BBCs INSIDE SPORT with Gabby Logan.... And Steve Bunce.

Crease wrote: PLUS, BBC's INSIDE SPORT got hold of Carl Froch (my perosanl favourite British boxer) and gave him Calaghe's phone number... The funny thing about it all was that Calzaghe and Froch hand never met... NEVER EVEN SPOKEN!!!

Then Froch phones Joe and asks him "When are we gonna get it on"?

Joe replies:

"The moneys got to be right man, you know that. It's all about the money" Joe replies stutteringly....

TRUE STORY!!! It was one BBCs INSIDE SPORT with Gabby Logan.... And Steve Bunce.

It was on ITV actually, on their coverage of the Froch fight.

Yep. Their after money, and a lot of fans are being played like Chumps thinking their legends. Sadly, even on this forum.

observer1 wrote:Yep. Their after money, and a lot of fans are being played like Chumps thinking their legends. Sadly, even on this forum.

True.

The reason there is a monopoly is that no one wants to fly there. with fuel at $130 a barrel vegas cannot make money due to it being a 15 hour flight and no corporate business travel prop the topline figures

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:This in reality is nothing new, Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey did just the same thing, the difference is, they also faced the best available challengers, as this was where the really massive paydays lay..

Actually Jack Dempsey avoided the best challengers of his day in Harry Wills, Harry Grebb, Godfrey, and the older blk fighters like Jack Johnson, Langford, McVey, Jeanette. There is certainly a reasonable debate that Wills and not Dempsey may have been the best fighter of that era and he was no1 contender for about 7years if not longer

Louis didnt fight the top black fighters for the most part either

well quite, but there is no telling the "boxrec-hardcore-things-were-better-in-the-old-days-rose-tinted-glasses-bunch"

Who read an article on secondsout written by a similarly ill-informed "journalist" and all of a sudden have an intimate knowledge of boxing politics in the 1930's....

Listen you bray fornicating morons, fighters since the 1700's and before have always gone for the money and everyone has "avoided" someone in their career, as gets pointed out by people who actually know about this. But whatever the fight, whoever the fighter some clown has to tell us all about how its all wrong and how "fighter x never ducked anyone" when in fact they always did.


quack quack quack, the call of boxrec!

adamwillan wrote:The reason there is a monopoly is that no one wants to fly there. with fuel at $130 a barrel vegas cannot make money due to it being a 15 hour flight and no corporate business travel prop the topline figures

Mate you've got it all wrong, the reason is that Ray Hatton tips off the airlines that there is going to be a fight on that date and then they fix the price so he gets half the money, and then they have the cheek to come on Parkinson and say Ricky is a "man of the people" and then he ducked Jr Witter and Sugar Ray Robinson never ducked anyone and Calzaghe is a JOKE for fighting Jones he should fight Pavlik and Khan should fight Julio Chavez Sr circa 1987 at lightweight and the press are all just biased and Warren gave Nelson step aside money

Of course KG re ducking, but there's so much more of it now. Now, the fights that are at the highest level are mostly so much bloated rubbish. DLH-Pacquiao, Calzaghe-Jones? Laughable.

The bottom line is that boxing gets laughed at by martial arts fans because in MMA there is no such agonising about whom you're fighting next. Don't tell me, MMA spends more on advertising & top level boxers make more, quack quack quack.

In your eyes Calzaghe vs Manfredo is probably a good thing because it "made sense" i.e. made money. Most of the fights you seem to defend are the ones that make money even if they get an E or F grade for abysmal action, in Ring Magazine.

Any time anyone criticises a fradulent world title, you seem to get genuinely upset. In your parallel world Anthony Farnell & Michael Brodie are probably authentic "world champions." I wonder if you know/work for a promoter or a sanctioning body that came to be during the last 15 years, because you seem all for the kind of things that rub hardcore fans the wrong way.

The way you seem to like it, boxing is just a night out for the less discerning fan who doesn't really know what he/she is watching. So long as enough of them turn up for domestic contests sold as "world championship action" & cross the big pond to see so much flapping and holding "at the highest level" it doesn't seem to matter.

Autobarn wrote:Of course KG re ducking, but there's so much more of it now. Now, the fights that are at the highest level are mostly so much bloated rubbish. DLH-Pacquiao, Calzaghe-Jones? Laughable.

DLH-Pacquiao, Calzaghe-Jones, laughable?

On what level are they laughable?

4 genuine world class fighters, not all of them at the very peak, but still class and a intruiging clash of styles in both

Ohhh it isnt EXACTLY the fight you want, so its "laughable" quack quack quack


As for it happening much more now, ok? prove it

The bottom line is that boxing gets laughed at by martial arts fans because in MMA there is no such agonising about whom you're fighting next. Don't tell me, MMA spends more on advertising & top level boxers make more, quack quack quack.

MMA being the new measuring stick?

No agonizing about who fights who next?

Oh purleeeease, thats a joke right?
Also there are tonnes of MMA fights that havent been made due to politics, esp when PRIDE was still around, now we are getting the ame thing with DREAM and HERO's fighters. But you probably dont know about them, right?

In your eyes Calzaghe vs Manfredo is probably a good thing because it "made sense" i.e. made money. Most of the fights you seem to defend are the ones that make money even if they get an E or F grade for abysmal action, in Ring Magazine.

It was a fair enough fight, it sure had enough interest to sell tickets and do good TV numbers. Not every fight can be Thrilla in Manilla. It was just another fight in a long career, nothing new, this sort of things has always gone on

Any time anyone criticises a fradulent world title, you seem to get genuinely upset. In your parallel world Anthony Farnell & Michael Brodie are probably authentic "world champions." I wonder if you know/work for a promoter or a sanctioning body that came to be during the last 15 years, because you seem all for the kind of things that rub hardcore fans the wrong way.

I have never defended the alphabet titles, ok next

Oh and if by hardcore fans you mean say, you, Horse and ummm Andrew Woollatt... well you can write your own jokes there lads...

The way you seem to like it, boxing is just a night out for the less discerning fan who doesn't really know what he/she is watching.

ummmm for 95% of people who turn out for even the smallest shows it it indeed a night of entertainment. THANK GOD. I couldnt face spending an evening with 2000 internet malcontents not happy with any fight that has happened in the last 25 years...



'

So long as enough of them turn up for domestic contests sold as "world championship action" & cross the big pond to see so much flapping and holding "at the highest level" it doesn't seem to matter.

I have never defended "world championship action" dont make things up, it weakens your argument quite a bit, sonny

I think KG could be boxrec's Obama with a touch of Charles XII of Sweden.

I like the Charles XII analogy, the Obama, less so.

DLH v Pac, it's a massive size difference. It's not going to be competitive. Calzaghe-Jones - hardly Leonard-Hearns, or Vazquez-Marquez, is it?

The best fights just aren't the money fights any more. And the biggest names are often clashing way past their primes (Calzaghe-Jones). This is the problem as I see it. The old names are hanging around too long, the big networks are giving them big money to fight in catchweights, when the new names should be build.

It should be time for Pavlik-Abraham, not Pavlik-Hopkins for instance.

Of course, not all the MMA fights are made (Marco Ruas-Rickson Gracie, anyone?) but big fights are made often, and do we see that many Calzaghe-Ashira type fights on big shows?

All I'm saying is, if I complain about a bogus world title fight OR an overblown superfight - things that I see as boxing devaluing itself - you start with your quack quack quack routine, KG.

Wasn't quoting you, Sir, but rather what these kind of fights, that I don't like, being sold as. You make out that I'm some kind of internet malcontent, yet YOU seem to comment only on these negative subjects & I actually prefer to stick to subjects that I have something constructive to sat (British lightweights, hot prospects, etc). I know boxing is a business, that when I talk to boxing ppl, "mortgage" & "financial future" are as common as "left hook", "knockout" "it should be a brilliant fight" and "tactics." I'm under no illusions, but think boxing can be consistently better than it is.