BoxRec

states wrote:I seem to recall reading that he got somewhere in the region of $1,000,000. Don't quote me on that though.

Says it all doesn't it. A fighter with Toney's rep (despite his previous downs) still only got a mil.

More to the point, what did Jirov get?

Nevermind how tantalising a DH vs EM fight is to those in the know, it's small fish outside of the british fans ... hardcore british fans probably.

What is Enzo's highest purse to date? Answer that and you've got your answer as to whether 150k is unreasonable or not.

Maccarinelli isn't a Warren cash cow. I don't think Enzo has much of a future as a World Champion and if Warren can get a bit of Haye by putting Enzo in with him I think he will.

I blame Toney for the dearth of money in the cruiserweight division. He won a remarkable fight with Jirov. He was surrounded by exciting contenders, held a world title, had NO TIES to Don King, and was on HBO. He would've easily graduated from B.A.D. to proper HBO and could've made good money by fighting regularly in the c/w division.

Instead Toney has no title, an embarrassing weight problem, numerous career threatening injuries and has yet to rise abve a mediocre bunch of heavyweights, and even the judges are abandoning him...

What I'm saying is, EVERY top cruiser is now either with King (his fighters r lucky if they fight once a year, and cruisers make money by making multiple defences...) or Warriors (robbing ppl in a Florida backwater, only just got their Vegas licence).

The cruiser that made the best money must be Johnny Nelson. He kept a belt and defended it twice a year for God knows how long.



Haye and Macca could do themselves a MASSIVE favour by fighting each other, and raising one another's profiles. But you know what, boxing is more short sighted than that. it has to be 'I want the money now'.

Yes, it's a great shame that matchmaking has become so incredibly cautious these days. Fighters are treated like quail's eggs, for fear of them SHOCK HORROR getting beaten!

It used to be that a loss early in your career, or even mid career was all seen as part of the learning curve. Look at the likes of Alan Minter and Tony Sibson, both of whom went on to either win or challenge at world level. Losing might be bad for business in a promoters eyes, but lots of the biggest names in boxing had early career losses and bounced back to achieve greatness. Better to get the losses in early when you still have time to learn from them, than to suddenly discover, like Naseem, that there are guys out there who just aren't going to be intimidated by your fearsome reputation, and CAN kick your arse. Incidentally I watched that fight the other night again, christ Hamed got his bollocks kicked in, did well to last the fight.

Now you could argue of course that todays boxing names are making a lot more wedge, and this is probably true in most cases, but long term, it's not doing the sport a lot of good to have anyone with a modicum of talent and marketability being guided through a series of meaningless fights until a title shot is secured. It can work, like it did with Hatton, but chances are that a lot of other fighters, when their shot does come, just aren't going to be ready for it.

If Nicky Cook gets his title shot in the near future, will he have had the right preparation for it? His level of opposistion to date would suggest otherwise. Will it be like Michael Hunter against Steve Molitor?

Yes, I think that the realisation that they can be beaten changes a fighter's perception, and in many cases, forces changes upon them. A lot of people in all walks of life coast, in boxing if everything is coming easy, then there's going to be the temptation to keep doing everything the same way. After a loss, a fighter can reassess their career and where they are going, make changes and when a fighter starts going against them, draw on the memory of what went wrong previously.

I think the fear these days, is that because there are so few genuine stars in boxing, due to the lack of mainstream exposure for a decade, a loss can derail what was big box office. Is that opinion founded though? Any fighter is only as good as their current fight. Loss or no loss, a fighter can turn everything around with one big performance, look at Danny Williams, one win against Tyson, and suddenly he's in with a title shot at Vitali, after being hammered by Samil Sam, and losing to Sprott in a woeful fight.

I think the fans identify with a loser who turns things around. Frank Bruno's career was based as much of his valiant failures as his wins, and when he finally did achieve his dream by beating McCall, he was all over the newspapers.

Ironically, Macca & particularly Haye have learned from defeats.

I do hate this obsession with 'clean sheets' records.

So many unwatchable 'confidence builders'.

I agree, too much stock is put in unbeaten records and they are often deceptive. Jim Watt has said a loss can sometimes be the best thing to happen to a fighter.

It's fantasy really. Most unbeaten fighters have at least one lucky win, i.e. Calzaghe (vs Reid), Taylor (at least 1 of the Hops fights he should've lost).

It's like these super slick sex scenes you see in the big budget films. Everything's clean and smooth - in real life you get well sticky!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/6201549.stm

Suprise,suprise....
Knew it was too good to be true.

Apparently,Enzo is a genuine 'world champion' these days,and deserves a bigger payday than what's on offer.

I hope Haye forgets about him and just concentrates on the real world champ he has in his sights.
Enzo will drop his paper title soon enough anyway.(unless Fwank can work a few of his special opponents in as mandatories)

yiddo14 wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/6201549.stm

Suprise,suprise....
Knew it was too good to be true.

Apparently,Enzo is a genuine 'world champion' these days,and deserves a bigger payday than what's on offer.

I hope Haye forgets about him and just concentrates on the real world champ he has in his sights.
Enzo will drop his paper title soon enough anyway.(unless Fwank can work a few of his special opponents in as mandatories)

I just read that too... typical Warren. It's always a case of his fighter not getting enough or the opponent wanting too much. I wonder how much Enzo got for fighting Hobson and Dominguez? I'd bet my life both didn't add up to 150k.

fight will just never happen.

if it did though, haye blows this guy out quick time. Oddly everyone seems to think it's a 50/50 fight when it really is nothing of the sort.

That terror of losing the unbeaten record really grates with me too. Simon Brown was another who lost an early(ish) fight to Marlon Starling but how much did he learn in that losing effort?!!

I think as well as the obvious reasons it also makes a fighter less afraid of losing, the '0' is gone and they are willing to have a go.

In a way I think you see this with Haye now, he is good but also looks extremely vulnerable (as the defeat to Thompson and a couple of other showings have demonstrated) and as a consequence now seems to have a 'devil may care' attitude.

And good luck to him for it, I can't stand all this getting fighters to 35-0 before they stick them in for a WBO 'challenge'.

Look at Howard Eastman for example, 31 years old and over 30 fights and undefeated before he challenges for a world title. In my book that is phucking ludicrous, he should have been on his 3rd/4th challenge by then.

Riddick Blowe wrote:fight will just never happen.

if it did though, haye blows this guy out quick time. Oddly everyone seems to think it's a 50/50 fight when it really is nothing of the sort.

I'd agree with that, Haye seems to have a big edge in skills and power over Maccarinelli. I'd say Haye in 5.

It seems if Mr Warren meets Team Booths bottom line figure then the fight could take place ...

Here is a link from an interview which took place late last night!!!

Haye/Maccarinelli ... Takes A Step Closer

Spud wrote:It seems if Mr Warren meets Team Booths bottom line figure then the fight could take place ...

Here is a link from an interview which took place late last night!!!

Haye/Maccarinelli ... Takes A Step Closer

Getting tired of speaking to yourself Spugly? YA pudendum!

Riddick Blowe wrote:fight will just never happen.

if it did though, haye blows this guy out quick time. Oddly everyone seems to think it's a 50/50 fight when it really is nothing of the sort.

I think it's seen as 50/50 because Haye is more than capable of being knocked right out. Haye is not the Roy Jones with Earnie Shavers power that some would have you believe. He's probably both quicker and more skilled than Maccarinelli. I still don't think that makes him a winner should the two ever meet.

This fight has to happen.

If it were to go ITV's way then that's just grand too.

Make it happen Warren, don't fu*k it up for the fans.

Its good news that the fight can go out on ITV, I thought that may be the stumbling block, come on Warren please dig deep. Chuck Haye £200,000 and he'll be happy

After reading Spuds article I'm abit more optimistic on this one, hopefully Maloney and Warren can get their heads together and thrash this one out and set a precedent for UK promoters working together.......this fight has to happen!

Haye knows his own weakness, which has improved his pacing and stamina. I think he CAN go on to big things, as he has learned some good moves.

He does however give his reach away with that crouching Bob Foster stance, and I don't like it that he seems to be doing loads of muscle training when he's struggling to make 200.

IMO Haye can outbox Enzo and stop him if he lets the right shot come. But Enzo might have to be favoured if it turns into a war, bigger bloke, heavier hiter.

I wouldn't say Haye has shown any propensity for being knocked out. His stoppage loss was a classic case of poor stamina and poor tactics combined with a very game and clever opponent in Carl Thompson. For my money Maccarinelli is behind Haye in every department.

Taki... wrote:I wouldn't say Haye has shown any propensity for being knocked out. His stoppage loss was a classic case of poor stamina and poor tactics combined with a very game and clever opponent in Carl Thompson. For my money Maccarinelli is behind Haye in every department.

I don't know about that, remember Haye against that bloke he fought before Thompson, Mock or something like that? He was all over the place, looked real chinny in that one.

Taki... wrote:I wouldn't say Haye has shown any propensity for being knocked out. His stoppage loss was a classic case of poor stamina and poor tactics combined with a very game and clever opponent in Carl Thompson. For my money Maccarinelli is behind Haye in every department.

In a give and take battle, Macca's fights with Dominguez and Hobson (1) could give him a bit of an edge, but I would favour Haye, & the win over Fragomeni could be useful to him

I'd lean towards Enzo - I think the Hobson war done him good and would tide him over well for any fight with Haye.

Haye looks the business, but the Thompson loss was bad, and there are still doubts over his stamina.

I'm a bit surprised Haye and co are willing to go over to ITV with this one, but they are willing - Lets see how SN respond to this.

Goz wrote:

Taki... wrote:I wouldn't say Haye has shown any propensity for being knocked out. His stoppage loss was a classic case of poor stamina and poor tactics combined with a very game and clever opponent in Carl Thompson. For my money Maccarinelli is behind Haye in every department.

I don't know about that, remember Haye against that bloke he fought before Thompson, Mock or something like that? He was all over the place, looked real chinny in that one.

Underrated dangerman Lolenga Mock had him on queer street more than once...bit of a premature stoppage in Haye's favour.

"As far as Haye v Maccarinelli, Warren offered £125 purse and £50k in tickets. We said that we were not interested in the tickets and offered Enzo £150k Purse (after Frank said that if Maloney wanted to stage it he could)....Warren then REDUCED his offer to £100k plus £75k in tickets!!!"
Quote from Adam Booth.

Where does this scumbag motherfuc*er get off!

Warren. Bastard.

He's fuc*ed us, fuc*ed ITV and made Maccarinelli look like a douche in the process by removing the opportunity to back up his talk.