BoxRec

And a 4.2 buy rate for two shows isn't bad.

salaco wrote:Remind me how Oscar was the world's leading light middle at that time. Was it beating vargas 5 years earlier in his only previous meaningful fight at the weight in which he actually won? Or maybe he proved it by losing to Mosley again? or was it beating a shot mayorga? Oscar may be still half decent but its impossible to say where he fits in any of these divisions because he just doesn't campaign regularly in any of them. The mayweather fight was an "attraction", just that.

If he wasn't, then who was? Cory Spinks?

Some fight that would have been.

Forbes was purely a marking time fight for the Mayweather rematch. He needed the rounds, he needed to fight a smaller man with good skills and good stamina... Forbes was satisfactory.

Nobody, not DLH, HBO or anyone said it was a fight DLH could lose. It was actually good match making, just unfortunate it now is null and void cause Mayweather retired. Forbes is as bout a close a match to Mayweather your going to get - without being in danger of losing the big pay day.

And hang on... Mayweather missed the leading Welters... wait a minute - who is this?

The Lineal champion was Baldomir - Mayweather beat him.

The fighter generally considered with the most offensive skills - Judah.... Mayweather beat him too.

So he beat the generally recognised #1 and the previously universally recognised #1, who could be argued took Baldomir lightly and lost. Had Judah beaten Baldomir there would have been no complaints about this.... but then Mayweather beat the pair of them.

Look at the list of fine Welter champions in recent times.
Margarito, Judah, Clottey, Cotto, Williams, Cintron, Mosley, Collazo, Quintana, Hatton - with the exception of Clottey, who is the latest champion, all been exposed RECENTLY.

stujones wrote:Forbes was purely a marking time fight for the Mayweather rematch. He needed the rounds, he needed to fight a smaller man with good skills and good stamina... Forbes was satisfactory.

Satisfactory for who Stu? For De la Hoya maybe, but certainly not for the fans. You've said yourself the result was never in doubt as it was little more than a glorified sparring session.

Deserter wrote:

stujones wrote:Forbes was purely a marking time fight for the Mayweather rematch. He needed the rounds, he needed to fight a smaller man with good skills and good stamina... Forbes was satisfactory.

Satisfactory for who Stu? For De la Hoya maybe, but certainly not for the fans. You've said yourself the result was never in doubt as it was little more than a glorified sparring session.

Not so many results are in doubt, though, are they? I thought the match was fine, especially as nobody was suggesting it was anything more than it was.

Deserter wrote:

stujones wrote:Forbes was purely a marking time fight for the Mayweather rematch. He needed the rounds, he needed to fight a smaller man with good skills and good stamina... Forbes was satisfactory.

Satisfactory for who Stu? For De la Hoya maybe, but certainly not for the fans. You've said yourself the result was never in doubt as it was little more than a glorified sparring session.

over and over again people on this forum make the same mistake, that is they think they are somehow "speaking for the fans" or this forum represents something more than a few hardcore malcontents

If Forbes wasnt a satisfactory fight for his fans, why did 2.5 million people pay 30 quid to buy the PPV?

Who would you say is correct in these 2 scenarios?


2.5 million people buying the PPV for DLH - Forbes Vs 25 semi autistic self-styled "hardcore" fans on an internet forum thinking they speak "for the fans" who think the fight was unsatisfactory


and

55,000 people paying to see Hatton - Lazcano Vs 25 semi autistic self-styled "hardcore" fans on an internet forum thinking they speak "for the fans" who think the fight was a joke


and so on

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

Deserter wrote:

stujones wrote:Forbes was purely a marking time fight for the Mayweather rematch. He needed the rounds, he needed to fight a smaller man with good skills and good stamina... Forbes was satisfactory.

Satisfactory for who Stu? For De la Hoya maybe, but certainly not for the fans. You've said yourself the result was never in doubt as it was little more than a glorified sparring session.

over and over again people on this forum make the same mistake, that is they think they are somehow "speaking for the fans" or this forum represents something more than a few hardcore malcontents

If Forbes wasnt a satisfactory fight for his fans, why did 2.5 million people pay 30 quid to buy the PPV?

Fair point KG. I should possibly have distinguished between fans of De La Hoya and hardcore fans of boxing. I clearly meant the latter but should have made it more explicit.

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

Deserter wrote:

stujones wrote:Forbes was purely a marking time fight for the Mayweather rematch. He needed the rounds, he needed to fight a smaller man with good skills and good stamina... Forbes was satisfactory.

Satisfactory for who Stu? For De la Hoya maybe, but certainly not for the fans. You've said yourself the result was never in doubt as it was little more than a glorified sparring session.

over and over again people on this forum make the same mistake, that is they think they are somehow "speaking for the fans" or this forum represents something more than a few hardcore malcontents

If Forbes wasnt a satisfactory fight for his fans, why did 2.5 million people pay 30 quid to buy the PPV?

And why did I drag myself out of bed at 8am on a Sunday morning to watch the fight in a deserted bar while eating an over-priced bootleg English breakfast?

Speaking of which, when will you be back around these parts? Could have done with your "nightlife tips" last Saturday, as I had a friend of ambiguous tastes visiting.

oliverfennell wrote:

Deserter wrote:

stujones wrote:Forbes was purely a marking time fight for the Mayweather rematch. He needed the rounds, he needed to fight a smaller man with good skills and good stamina... Forbes was satisfactory.

Satisfactory for who Stu? For De la Hoya maybe, but certainly not for the fans. You've said yourself the result was never in doubt as it was little more than a glorified sparring session.

Not so many results are in doubt, though, are they? I thought the match was fine, especially as nobody was suggesting it was anything more than it was.

The thing with that match that really got under my skin is that the deck was so stacked against Forbes in every single respect - it was just impossible to make a case for a victory in any circumstance, and not many top level matches fall into that bracket. You couldn't even make a case for a 'lucky punch' scenario. I think any true fan is on really dangerous ground trying to justify this type of match-up as you've then lost any credible criteria for criticising any fight at this level. It was a massive mismatch, plain and simple.

Deserter wrote:The thing with that match that really got under my skin is that the deck was so stacked against Forbes in every single respect - it was just impossible to make a case for a victory in any circumstance, and not many top level matches fall into that bracket. You couldn't even make a case for a 'lucky punch' scenario. I think any true fan is on really dangerous ground trying to justify this type of match-up as you've then lost any credible criteria for criticising any fight at this level. It was a massive mismatch, plain and simple.

True enough, but for the past 30 years, and especially the past 15 years, there have been "event" fights, where people pay just for the honour of being able say they saw Boxer X.

But you can never say never in this sport. I thought it was impossible to make a case for Kevin McBride lasting a full round with Tyson, let alone beating him!

Of course I do not use this as justification for mismatches, just saying that I accept why they happen. And also that I didn't think Oscar-Forbes was terrible.

DG. wrote:Excellent article by Glynn Leach in this months Boxing Monthly about Oscar De La Chicken Tikka Anna Kournikova Hoya and his insistence re: fighting smaller fighters.

I have always said ODLCTAKH looks for the most advantages he can get.

Read it - about time someone told it as it is re Oscar.

PBF at Light Middle

He wanted Hatton

Forbes at 150lbs and now he is after one time Superfly Pacman.

What a tosser!

I agree. Hoya does always seem to have physical advantages over his opponents. However, I hope the fight with Pacquiao does materialise. People might think I'm mad, but I think Pacquiao can win, I really do!

Don't get me wrong, Oscar has big advantages in respect of height, reach, physical size, etc. However, the key factor for Manny is speed, of which he has a big advantage over Hoya in that respect.

I can't see Manny being apprehensive of Oscar just because he'll be bigger than him. I personally think Pacquiao will too fast, too fit for Oscar.

Come on Manny. Let's have it!

oliverfennell wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

Deserter wrote:Forbes was purely a marking time fight for the Mayweather rematch. He needed the rounds, he needed to fight a smaller man with good skills and good stamina... Forbes was satisfactory.

And why did I drag myself out of bed at 8am on a Sunday morning to watch the fight in a deserted bar while eating an over-priced bootleg English breakfast?

Speaking of which, when will you be back around these parts? Could have done with your "nightlife tips" last Saturday, as I had a friend of ambiguous tastes visiting.

Ill be back in town just as soon as the authorities give me back my passport.

oliverfennell wrote:

Deserter wrote:The thing with that match that really got under my skin is that the deck was so stacked against Forbes in every single respect - it was just impossible to make a case for a victory in any circumstance, and not many top level matches fall into that bracket. You couldn't even make a case for a 'lucky punch' scenario. I think any true fan is on really dangerous ground trying to justify this type of match-up as you've then lost any credible criteria for criticising any fight at this level. It was a massive mismatch, plain and simple.

True enough, but for the past 30 years, and especially the past 15 years, there have been "event" fights, where people pay just for the honour of being able say they saw Boxer X.

But you can never say never in this sport. I thought it was impossible to make a case for Kevin McBride lasting a full round with Tyson, let alone beating him!

Of course I do not use this as justification for mismatches, just saying that I accept why they happen. And also that I didn't think Oscar-Forbes was terrible.

Fair point re. Tyson fights etc, though with him you've always got that air of unpredictability. I guess my problem stems from the fact that before the fight started I felt confident of being able to write the script for every minute of every round and consequently had zero desire to see it. It just struck me as the most cynical piece of match-making at the top level in recent times.
KG's right in that De La Hoya, like Hatton, has a fan base that extends beyond the boxing 'hardcore' that enables him to 'sell' the fight successfully, but it just left such a bad taste in my mouth... particuarly as I'd defended him in the past against the likes of DG!

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

Deserter wrote:

stujones wrote:Forbes was purely a marking time fight for the Mayweather rematch. He needed the rounds, he needed to fight a smaller man with good skills and good stamina... Forbes was satisfactory.

Satisfactory for who Stu? For De la Hoya maybe, but certainly not for the fans. You've said yourself the result was never in doubt as it was little more than a glorified sparring session.

over and over again people on this forum make the same mistake, that is they think they are somehow "speaking for the fans" or this forum represents something more than a few hardcore malcontents

If Forbes wasnt a satisfactory fight for his fans, why did 2.5 million people pay 30 quid to buy the PPV?

Who are these 2.5M idiots, given that the de la-forbes fight wasn't even on PPV?! 8)

salaco wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

Deserter wrote:Forbes was purely a marking time fight for the Mayweather rematch. He needed the rounds, he needed to fight a smaller man with good skills and good stamina... Forbes was satisfactory.

Satisfactory for who Stu? For De la Hoya maybe, but certainly not for the fans. You've said yourself the result was never in doubt as it was little more than a glorified sparring session.

over and over again people on this forum make the same mistake, that is they think they are somehow "speaking for the fans" or this forum represents something more than a few hardcore malcontents

If Forbes wasnt a satisfactory fight for his fans, why did 2.5 million people pay 30 quid to buy the PPV?

Who are these 2.5M idiots, given that the de la-forbes fight wasn't even on PPV?! 8)[/quote]

yes my bad, i meant 2.5 million viewing figures

Deserter,

When was it suggested it was a top level match up? No world title was on the line, not even a made up or interim one. It was a catch weight contest designed to sharpen DLH's skills for the Mayweather rematch.

It was free to subscribers of HBO... so it didn't "con" a PPV market, okay big gate - but whats wrong with fans paying to see DLH in a glorified spar session... cause thats how it was hyped.

Now... Hatton vs Lazcano on the other hand - was labelled a world title fight, was on PPV. Lewis vs Botha the same.

stujones wrote:Deserter,

When was it suggested it was a top level match up? No world title was on the line, not even a made up or interim one. It was a catch weight contest designed to sharpen DLH's skills for the Mayweather rematch.

It was free to subscribers of HBO... so it didn't "con" a PPV market, okay big gate - but whats wrong with fans paying to see DLH in a glorified spar session... cause thats how it was hyped.

Now... Hatton vs Lazcano on the other hand - was labelled a world title fight, was on PPV. Lewis vs Botha the same.

Botha was a legit top 10 heavy. Even if he wasn't much a match for Lewis, it was at least a genuine world title fight i.e. not a bogus tag. It also had a very solid undercard. Not to mention Lewis in the UK (not that this made a difference on TV) - I paid 150 gold nuggets for the privilege of watching a British world heavyweight champion fight on home soil.

oliverfennell wrote:

stujones wrote:Deserter,

When was it suggested it was a top level match up? No world title was on the line, not even a made up or interim one. It was a catch weight contest designed to sharpen DLH's skills for the Mayweather rematch.

It was free to subscribers of HBO... so it didn't "con" a PPV market, okay big gate - but whats wrong with fans paying to see DLH in a glorified spar session... cause thats how it was hyped.

Now... Hatton vs Lazcano on the other hand - was labelled a world title fight, was on PPV. Lewis vs Botha the same.

Botha was a legit top 10 heavy. Even if he wasn't much a match for Lewis, it was at least a genuine world title fight i.e. not a bogus tag. It also had a very solid undercard. Not to mention Lewis in the UK (not that this made a difference on TV) - I paid 150 gold nuggets for the privilege of watching a British world heavyweight champion fight on home soil.

Don't think Botha was ever in BM's independent top ten.

Yes, I agree with what you say... but DLH vs Forbes wasn't even marketed as that. It wasn't marketed as a top match. It was a chance for DLH to say thanks to his home town, and for him to have a tune up against a guy who stylistically, and size wise was similar to Mayweather. Not a geniune top level match up... and it didn't pretend to be.

It was a satisfactory match up given what DLH needed for his planned schedule. Do I think had Mayweather retired that DLH would have fought Forbes... no.

stujones wrote:Deserter,

When was it suggested it was a top level match up?

Any fight involving a fighter of De La Hoya's stature is by definition a top level match. Forbes had no right being in the ring with him in a competitive context.

Disagree.

Never considered Ali vs Dunn as a top level fight, Morales vs Croft? Surely even greats are allowed tune ups - especially after a defeat and a hard fight in awaiting.

Fights labelled by fighter and TV companies as Tune ups, should be treated as such as DLH vs Tyson (darryl), Mosley vs Rivera, Wise, Marquez, Estrada, and Cruz were.....

Lets put it this way... had these fights been in the UK - there would have been some title on the line... so I say fair play to Mosley and DLH (and several others) for not conning the fans into hyping a title. I actually thought Scott Walker (who fought Chavez on the twin bill as DLH vs Tyson) was sanctionable.

It was a classic Tune up... and even superstars should be allowed that. No-one complained about Hatton vs Lazcano as a tune up, people were pissed off with it being PPV and calling it a world title fight - and with good reason.... if it would have had the same marketing as DLH vs Forbes, then it would have been fine.

stujones wrote:Never considered Ali vs Dunn as a top level fight, Morales vs Croft?.

In a word, no. We'll have to completely disagree on this one Stu as to my mind those types of mismatches masquerade as 'tune-ups'. The only place for tune-ups of that nature, as far as I'm concerned, is behind closed doors - witness Maske's preparations for the Hill rematch, for example.
I think it's a sad indictment on boxing that we've reached a situation where even hardcore fans tolerate these kind of mismatches and it's one of the reasons why MMA is overtaking boxing in terms of popularity in certain regions.

Maybe, and enough respect for Maske for doing that way. Although his situation was slightly different, he hadn't fought in 10 years and was in his forties. I don't think he knew what he had left. I don't think Maske would have wanted to embarres his legacy by losing a tune up... and with him it was far more conceivable that he could lose. Don't think he wanted an Axel Schultz style disaster.

DLH had enough left in the tank to know his match with Floyd wasn't at risk.... plus, Forbes knew he wasn't going to get badly hurt (cause he knew DLH wanted to go rounds) and plus, Forbes aint bad he knows how to handle himself. Forbes had been competing at 147 on occasions, so while it was clearly out of his optimum weight, I don't think there was more threat of physical damage than in normal situations. Its been a win win situation as far as I can see.... you think had Forbes carried on fighting the opponents he was doing he would have landed a world title fight? IMO, his commendable display against an at 80% DLH has landed him the shot at Berto (at 147).

For me it was like.... I don't know... say Led Zepplin reforming and declaring in advance "well to save our voices for the big gig, we're only going to be singing Ba ba black sheep - still want to come". If fans are still prepared to come, with cheap tickets (by their standards) then why not sell tickets for the rehersals, and if it gets them to perform their songs better at the big gig then whats the harm.

The other mismatches I labelled were not official tune ups... they were actually marketed as competitive world title fights.

stujones wrote:For me it was like.... I don't know... say Led Zepplin reforming and declaring in advance "well to save our voices for the big gig, we're only going to be singing Ba ba black sheep - still want to come". If fans are still prepared to come, with cheap tickets (by their standards) then why not sell tickets for the rehersals, and if it gets them to perform their songs better at the big gig then whats the harm.

Fair enough, but just not my scene, if you see what I mean.