BoxRec

tyson fury fights always trend on twitter when he's on. doesn't seem to happen a lot with anybody else. only way to make stars is by showing it for free, at primetime. if the man on the street doesn't know who froch is, they certainly don't know anything about burns or cleverly

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:Have you got a slingbox, btw?

Don't even know what one is.

smcb80 wrote:tyson fury fights always trend on twitter when he's on. doesn't seem to happen a lot with anybody else. only way to make stars is by showing it for free, at primetime. if the man on the street doesn't know who froch is, they certainly don't know anything about burns or cleverly

Everything always trends on twitter, the guy who designed it is a genius.

I think that FW is on the slide. He seems to get fighters to the fringe of something decent and then they up and leave him. I think that the first promoter to realise that free to air television is what will revive boxing, will be the one to leave the rest trailing. Satelite and cable televison plus ppv fights has practically killed boxing. It was ok when you had established names like Hamed, Lewis and Hatton etc who's popularity was down to terrestial tv coverage, but now those names have gone no one knows anything about the next generation of fighters.

If boxing is free on television people will tune in to see it. They get to see up and coming fighters like i did with Nigel Benn, Mike Tyson, Hamed, Bruno and many many more, so that eventually if they have talent and get to a world title shot, they gain audiences in there millions. People will not pay money to watch fighters they haven't heard of fight for a domestic title. The people who make up the majority of an audience isn't your die-hards who will watch any fight, it's your casual sports fan who picks and chooses specific fights that appeal.

The bottom line is familiarity with a fighter that has been building up over a number of years, so that an audience has a connection to that fighter and will watch them as their career progresses, culminating in title fights that will draw large crowds if the fighter has talent. In order to do this, people need to watch these fighters when they are still learning and for that to happen it has to be free. The pay back isn't instant it comes later in a fighters career. If you have to pay to watch it, the audiences plummet, it's just basic common sense.

The only fighters that people will pay to watch are the top guys like Mayweather, Pacqauio, Cotto, Mosley etc and a lot of people haven't even heard of these names either. Larry Holmes said in an interview that paying to watch fights was killing boxing, because how else are people going to know who the fighters are. The talent pool is diminishing, fighters take huge amounts of time off between fights, top fighters don't fight each other, their are too many belts, too many title belts, officials look incompetent or bent and yet organistions think people will pay out for this crap.

I feel that the promotor who recognises that the future for boxing in the long term is to go back on free televison, is the promoter who will gain an advantage in the market. Can you imagine the clamour for fights involving Khan, Froch, Cleverley, Fury, DeGale, Groves etc, if they were marketed right and shown on free televsion. Years ago Bugner vs Cooper was a hige talking point and attracted big audiences, now people wouldn't have a clue who was the British heavyweight champion. A lot has to happen to boxing, but the major step is too stop charging people to watch it.

Carl Froch and Tyson Fury are obviously more popular than Nathan Cleverly and Ricky Burns.

http://www.google.com/trends/?q=%22tyso ... all&sort=0

It's very easy to spot the Warren employees in this topic.

Asterix wrote:Carl Froch and Tyson Fury are obviously more popular than Nathan Cleverly and Ricky Burns.

http://www.google.com/trends/?q=%22tyso ... all&sort=0

It's very easy to spot the Warren employees in this topic.

Go on then, who?

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

rhino222 wrote:FW has got greedy, £10 a month is expensive for the product on offer, i guarantee that for £5 a month he would get at least 2 times the amount of subscribers for TV. Or he should at least offer the product via internet for maybe 3 or 4 quid a month, as people will watch it via pc anyway......without paying a penny.

who else on here, who is not a subscriber at present, would buy the internet/smart phone variation of the product for £3 per month??

I would. As a Brit living outside the UK, I would welcome a moderately priced, reliable internet broadcaster. But there isn't one, or at least not a legal one. Allegedly channel isn't available online at any price yet, Primetime is only available in the UK and Ireland, which is pointless because surely the only people who'd take the web service over the TV one would be outside of those countries, and others who offer good streams do it live only, without the choice to watch on demand later, which again would suit people in different time zones.

10 quid? 5 quid? Whatever.

There are some very very strange characters on boxing forums. There are people who are such big fans of boxing that they have 10's of thousands of posts on boxing forums, but when a dedicated boxing channel comes along, what do they do?


Act like its the end of civilization as we know it, because it costs 10 quid a month.

Since encryption, in 2 months and therefore, at a cost of £20, BN have delivered:

Dereck Chisora v Robert Helenius
Miguel Cotto v Antonio Margarito II / John Murray v Brandon Rios
Gennaday Golovkin v Lajuan Simon
Lee Selby v John Simpson
Leon Williams v Shane McPhilbin
Robert Stieglitz v Henry Weber
Derry Matthews v Ermano Marsili

and about 8 hours of live Steve Bunce.

I pay my money, it won't break the bank, but I can complain that it is not a value for money service, or at least it hasn't been over the last 2 months. For me, its a case of quantity over quality at the moment. I'd happily have sacrificed 6 of the above cards (and all of Bunce) for the one card of real interest since the beginning of December, namely this weekends Chavez Jnr v Rubio / Donaire v Vazquez / Vanes Martirosyan card. Instead, this weekend we have Dodson v McKenzie and the Cunningham rematch from Germany.

Asterix wrote:Carl Froch and Tyson Fury are obviously more popular than Nathan Cleverly and Ricky Burns.

http://www.google.com/trends/?q=%22tyso ... all&sort=0

It's very easy to spot the Warren employees in this topic.

thank you, and good post Quixall

Quixall wrote:I think that FW is on the slide. He seems to get fighters to the fringe of something decent and then they up and leave him. I think that the first promoter to realise that free to air television is what will revive boxing, will be the one to leave the rest trailing. Satelite and cable televison plus ppv fights has practically killed boxing. It was ok when you had established names like Hamed, Lewis and Hatton etc who's popularity was down to terrestial tv coverage, but now those names have gone no one knows anything about the next generation of fighters.

If boxing is free on television people will tune in to see it. They get to see up and coming fighters like i did with Nigel Benn, Mike Tyson, Hamed, Bruno and many many more, so that eventually if they have talent and get to a world title shot, they gain audiences in there millions. People will not pay money to watch fighters they haven't heard of fight for a domestic title. The people who make up the majority of an audience isn't your die-hards who will watch any fight, it's your casual sports fan who picks and chooses specific fights that appeal.

The bottom line is familiarity with a fighter that has been building up over a number of years, so that an audience has a connection to that fighter and will watch them as their career progresses, culminating in title fights that will draw large crowds if the fighter has talent. In order to do this, people need to watch these fighters when they are still learning and for that to happen it has to be free. The pay back isn't instant it comes later in a fighters career. If you have to pay to watch it, the audiences plummet, it's just basic common sense.

The only fighters that people will pay to watch are the top guys like Mayweather, Pacqauio, Cotto, Mosley etc and a lot of people haven't even heard of these names either. Larry Holmes said in an interview that paying to watch fights was killing boxing, because how else are people going to know who the fighters are. The talent pool is diminishing, fighters take huge amounts of time off between fights, top fighters don't fight each other, their are too many belts, too many title belts, officials look incompetent or bent and yet organistions think people will pay out for this crap.

I feel that the promotor who recognises that the future for boxing in the long term is to go back on free televison, is the promoter who will gain an advantage in the market. Can you imagine the clamour for fights involving Khan, Froch, Cleverley, Fury, DeGale, Groves etc, if they were marketed right and shown on free televsion. Years ago Bugner vs Cooper was a hige talking point and attracted big audiences, now people wouldn't have a clue who was the British heavyweight champion. A lot has to happen to boxing, but the major step is too stop charging people to watch it.

I think the "free tv" argument is very overplayed these days.

We had Hennessey on the BBC and FW on ITV a few years ago and i thought it was a step back from the skysports days.



Free TV is boxings white elephant.

pa

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

Quixall wrote:I think that FW is on the slide. He seems to get fighters to the fringe of something decent and then they up and leave him. I think that the first promoter to realise that free to air television is what will revive boxing, will be the one to leave the rest trailing. Satelite and cable televison plus ppv fights has practically killed boxing. It was ok when you had established names like Hamed, Lewis and Hatton etc who's popularity was down to terrestial tv coverage, but now those names have gone no one knows anything about the next generation of fighters.

If boxing is free on television people will tune in to see it. They get to see up and coming fighters like i did with Nigel Benn, Mike Tyson, Hamed, Bruno and many many more, so that eventually if they have talent and get to a world title shot, they gain audiences in there millions. People will not pay money to watch fighters they haven't heard of fight for a domestic title. The people who make up the majority of an audience isn't your die-hards who will watch any fight, it's your casual sports fan who picks and chooses specific fights that appeal.

The bottom line is familiarity with a fighter that has been building up over a number of years, so that an audience has a connection to that fighter and will watch them as their career progresses, culminating in title fights that will draw large crowds if the fighter has talent. In order to do this, people need to watch these fighters when they are still learning and for that to happen it has to be free. The pay back isn't instant it comes later in a fighters career. If you have to pay to watch it, the audiences plummet, it's just basic common sense.

The only fighters that people will pay to watch are the top guys like Mayweather, Pacqauio, Cotto, Mosley etc and a lot of people haven't even heard of these names either. Larry Holmes said in an interview that paying to watch fights was killing boxing, because how else are people going to know who the fighters are. The talent pool is diminishing, fighters take huge amounts of time off between fights, top fighters don't fight each other, their are too many belts, too many title belts, officials look incompetent or bent and yet organistions think people will pay out for this crap.

I feel that the promotor who recognises that the future for boxing in the long term is to go back on free televison, is the promoter who will gain an advantage in the market. Can you imagine the clamour for fights involving Khan, Froch, Cleverley, Fury, DeGale, Groves etc, if they were marketed right and shown on free televsion. Years ago Bugner vs Cooper was a hige talking point and attracted big audiences, now people wouldn't have a clue who was the British heavyweight champion. A lot has to happen to boxing, but the major step is too stop charging people to watch it.

I think the "free tv" argument is very overplayed these days.

We had Hennessey on the BBC and FW on ITV a few years ago and i thought it was a step back from the skysports days.



Free TV is boxings white elephant.

But you and i are the diehards, it's the casual fight fan that the sport needs to capture and that person will not spend money and watching Cleverley vs Bellew or Burns vs Katsidis, only if it was free. If the likes of Groves, DeGale, Price, Mitchel, Barker, Murray are to gain reaal exposure that would attract big audiences to watch them, the free television is the only answer. There is enough money to be made through commercials, sensible ticket prices and promorters not charging tyhe kind of sums that sends the likes of the bbc and itv running to the hills. As i say, these fighters need to build up an audience that is beyond the diehard boxing fan, which means people need to be watching their fights now, against relatively unknown fighters and your casual sports fan isn't going to pay money to do that, so the amount of people watching your Grove's, DeGale's is a limited audience, one that cannot sustain boxing into the future, at least small time domestic boxing.

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

Asterix wrote:Carl Froch and Tyson Fury are obviously more popular than Nathan Cleverly and Ricky Burns.

http://www.google.com/trends/?q=%22tyso ... all&sort=0

It's very easy to spot the Warren employees in this topic.

Go on then, who?

You.

Nah, only kidding.

Samuel Brooks and jabnmove.

sweetscience wrote:

Wake up call wrote:Eddie Hearn is Britain's biggest boxing promoter now.

he has done absolutley ZERO so far ???

if he is the biggest boxing in the UK is fucked

Just signed Scott Cardle. Quality signing.

Got Kell a fanbase at home. Kell's happy now, he wasn't with FW.

That's something.

Wake up call wrote:

sweetscience wrote:

Wake up call wrote:Eddie Hearn is Britain's biggest boxing promoter now.

he has done absolutley ZERO so far ???

if he is the biggest boxing in the UK is fucked

Just signed Scott Cardle. Quality signing.

Got Kell a fanbase at home. Kell's happy now, he wasn't with FW.

That's something.

I've heard more in 2 hours about Scott Cardle turning over than I have in 2 months since former olympian Bradley Saunders did the same. How many on here know he has his debut coming up on one of Warrens cards?

Warrens reluctance to embrace social networking can surely not help his fighters/promotions. I know it's new-fangled and difficult to love, but the kids love twitter, facebook and the like and being able to engage them is going to be critical to securing a new audience. Warren has publically shared his distrust of internet-based views, but he needs to realise that it is an economic, efficient and effective manner of connnecting potential fans to the sport.

Wake up call wrote:

sweetscience wrote:

Wake up call wrote:Eddie Hearn is Britain's biggest boxing promoter now.

he has done absolutley ZERO so far ???

if he is the biggest boxing in the UK is fucked

Just signed Scott Cardle. Quality signing.

Got Kell a fanbase at home. Kell's happy now, he wasn't with FW.

That's something.

I think you need a Wake up Call and stop dreaming, How can you call Eddie Hearn the biggest promoter right now, what has he done, nothing so far apart from signing Froch, Brook and Barker from other promoters who have spend time and money.He hasn't promoted any of Frochs fights yet, fat mick done all the hard work to get him in the super six but never seems to get a pat on the back for it. He feed Barker to martinez when Barker could of gone for a easier route to a world title, making him and matchroom more money by defending it before fighting Martinez. OK Brook, so far not too bad, starting to gain interest in him but then again I don't believe his is any better known to the gerenal public then when he was with W***en.

h smithy wrote:He feed Barker to martinez when Barker could of gone for a easier route to a world title, making him and matchroom more money by defending it before fighting Martinez.

Warren feed Murray and Chisora to Rios and Vitali when Murray and Chisora could of gone for a easier route to a world title, making them and FWP more money by defending it before fighting Rios and Vitali.

Sic.

earsjohn wrote:

h smithy wrote:He feed Barker to martinez when Barker could of gone for a easier route to a world title, making him and matchroom more money by defending it before fighting Martinez.

Warren feed Murray and Chisora to Rios and Vitali when Murray and Chisora could of gone for a easier route to a world title, making them and FWP more money by defending it before fighting Rios and Vitali.

Sic.

But where was Murray going, nowhere he was found out against Mitchell and was his only option, again with Chisora, after losing to Fury then Helenius in his last 3 fights where could he go, price is next for Fury, so the british and commonwealth was not an option, just lost the european so that not an option, so he has nothing to lose against Vitali unless he wanted to go back fighting for the English title. Barker on the other hand could of gone for Geale, Strum or Chavez, won a world title, defended it against Murray or Macklin and made a name for himself in Britain, bagged more money and then gone for Martinez.

h smithy wrote:

Wake up call wrote:

sweetscience wrote: he has done absolutley ZERO so far ???

if he is the biggest boxing in the UK is fucked

Just signed Scott Cardle. Quality signing.

Got Kell a fanbase at home. Kell's happy now, he wasn't with FW.

That's something.

I think you need a Wake up Call and stop dreaming, How can you call Eddie Hearn the biggest promoter right now, what has he done, nothing so far apart from signing Froch, Brook and Barker from other promoters who have spend time and money.He hasn't promoted any of Frochs fights yet, fat mick done all the hard work to get him in the super six but never seems to get a pat on the back for it. He feed Barker to martinez when Barker could of gone for a easier route to a world title, making him and matchroom more money by defending it before fighting Martinez. OK Brook, so far not too bad, starting to gain interest in him but then again I don't believe his is any better known to the gerenal public then when he was with W***en.

Hi Mr Ayling.

You stopped using your Boxingchat login now?

Wake up call wrote:

h smithy wrote:

Wake up call wrote: Just signed Scott Cardle. Quality signing.

Got Kell a fanbase at home. Kell's happy now, he wasn't with FW.

That's something.

I think you need a Wake up Call and stop dreaming, How can you call Eddie Hearn the biggest promoter right now, what has he done, nothing so far apart from signing Froch, Brook and Barker from other promoters who have spend time and money.He hasn't promoted any of Frochs fights yet, fat mick done all the hard work to get him in the super six but never seems to get a pat on the back for it. He feed Barker to martinez when Barker could of gone for a easier route to a world title, making him and matchroom more money by defending it before fighting Martinez. OK Brook, so far not too bad, starting to gain interest in him but then again I don't believe his is any better known to the gerenal public then when he was with W***en.

Hi Mr Ayling.

You stopped using your Boxingchat login now?

Sorry to disappoint but I'm not Mr Ayling, but what makes you think I am, just because I don't rate Eddie like you?

h smithy wrote:

Wake up call wrote:

h smithy wrote:
I think you need a Wake up Call and stop dreaming, How can you call Eddie Hearn the biggest promoter right now, what has he done, nothing so far apart from signing Froch, Brook and Barker from other promoters who have spend time and money.He hasn't promoted any of Frochs fights yet, fat mick done all the hard work to get him in the super six but never seems to get a pat on the back for it. He feed Barker to martinez when Barker could of gone for a easier route to a world title, making him and matchroom more money by defending it before fighting Martinez. OK Brook, so far not too bad, starting to gain interest in him but then again I don't believe his is any better known to the gerenal public then when he was with W***en.

Hi Mr Ayling.

You stopped using your Boxingchat login now?

Sorry to disappoint but I'm not Mr Ayling, but what makes you think I am, just because I don't rate Eddie like you?

Because you act like a FW employee.

But I've just been told that you work for Hennessy. No wonder you are so hateful of Eddie. After all, he signed your two best fighters.

h smithy wrote:

earsjohn wrote:

h smithy wrote:He feed Barker to martinez when Barker could of gone for a easier route to a world title, making him and matchroom more money by defending it before fighting Martinez.

Warren feed Murray and Chisora to Rios and Vitali when Murray and Chisora could of gone for a easier route to a world title, making them and FWP more money by defending it before fighting Rios and Vitali.

Sic.

But where was Murray going, nowhere he was found out against Mitchell and was his only option, again with Chisora, after losing to Fury then Helenius in his last 3 fights where could he go, price is next for Fury, so the british and commonwealth was not an option, just lost the european so that not an option, so he has nothing to lose against Vitali unless he wanted to go back fighting for the English title. Barker on the other hand could of gone for Geale, Strum or Chavez, won a world title, defended it against Murray or Macklin and made a name for himself in Britain, bagged more money and then gone for Martinez.

Murray was signed by Warren and he said he can be massive star in Manchester. First fight under new promotional outfit was at York hall second Mitchell in Liverpool then thrown at Rios possibly to get Cotto fight on the channel. Murray would been better staying with Mick.

Wake up call wrote:

h smithy wrote:

Wake up call wrote: Hi Mr Ayling.

You stopped using your Boxingchat login now?

Sorry to disappoint but I'm not Mr Ayling, but what makes you think I am, just because I don't rate Eddie like you?

Because you act like a FW employee.

But I've just been told that you work for Hennessy. No wonder you are so hateful of Eddie. After all, he signed your two best fighters.

Again sorry to disappoint you but I don't work for Hennessey or any other promoter, i'm actullay unemployed at the moment, so I wouldn't listen to rumours. I just look at the bigger picture. And to set the record straight I don't hate Eddie just see him for what he is, it pains me to keep reading posts all day long backing him when he hasn't achieved anything as yet.

leforge wrote:

h smithy wrote:

earsjohn wrote: Warren feed Murray and Chisora to Rios and Vitali when Murray and Chisora could of gone for a easier route to a world title, making them and FWP more money by defending it before fighting Rios and Vitali.

Sic.

But where was Murray going, nowhere he was found out against Mitchell and was his only option, again with Chisora, after losing to Fury then Helenius in his last 3 fights where could he go, price is next for Fury, so the british and commonwealth was not an option, just lost the european so that not an option, so he has nothing to lose against Vitali unless he wanted to go back fighting for the English title. Barker on the other hand could of gone for Geale, Strum or Chavez, won a world title, defended it against Murray or Macklin and made a name for himself in Britain, bagged more money and then gone for Martinez.

Murray was signed by Warren and he said he can be massive star in Manchester. First fight under new promotional outfit was at York hall second Mitchell in Liverpool then thrown at Rios possibly to get Cotto fight on the channel. Murray would been better staying with Mick.

Bloody hell leforge I agree with you for once.

Google Search Results (no of pages found):

Amir Khan 18.5m
George Groves 14.4m
Tyson Fury 2.85m
Ricky Hatton 2.84m
David Haye 1.69m
Dereck Chisora 0.77m
Audley Harrison 0.57m
Carl Froch 0.39m
James Degale 0.36m
Joe Calzaghe 0.25m
Nathan Cleverly 0.19m

johnswan1 wrote:Google Search Results (no of pages found):

Amir Khan 18.5m
George Groves 14.4m
Tyson Fury 2.85m
Ricky Hatton 2.84m
David Haye 1.69m
Dereck Chisora 0.77m
Audley Harrison 0.57m
Carl Froch 0.39m
James Degale 0.36m
Joe Calzaghe 0.25m
Nathan Cleverly 0.19m

Wow, staggered by groves position, always had a big crowd in the ams but that's impressive.

JamesH wrote:

johnswan1 wrote:Google Search Results (no of pages found):

Amir Khan 18.5m
George Groves 14.4m
Tyson Fury 2.85m
Ricky Hatton 2.84m
David Haye 1.69m
Dereck Chisora 0.77m
Audley Harrison 0.57m
Carl Froch 0.39m
James Degale 0.36m
Joe Calzaghe 0.25m
Nathan Cleverly 0.19m

Wow, staggered by groves position, always had a big crowd in the ams but that's impressive.

Yes but when you have a name like that, sites will come up on leafy groves, perry groves, st george, the George and Dragon pub etc etc.

He actually only gets 205,000 hits if you use an advanced search for "George Groves".