BoxRec

Counter-puncher wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:

Mick Hennessey is (one of) boxings shining lights and is demonstrating how the sport should be taken forward IMO, OK he doesn't always have the best of luck when trying to land the BIG names, but I believe that he's promoting principles and intentions are always bang on. He's always looking to put his fighters in competitive fights throughout their career and from what we've seen so far he wants his stars to be in BIG fights and doesn't mind them travelling if it's what's right for the boxers career (i.e. he's not a cash-cower)

not sure if this rings quite true though chambers

froch has had- what?- 3 truly competitive fights in 24?

Murray, 3 or 4 in 26

Siddique managed something like 24 without a single competitive fight

witter, Hennessy managed to get him a vacant vs Corley (!) then defences vs Morua (!!!) and a half-dead Harris.

if thats the kind of competitive matchmaking that gets kudos from fans I worry for the future of the game.

I mean, i know we are desperate for any promoter whose name isn't allegedly frank whosibob but sometimes i wonder if people don't make hennesy out to be some latterday robin hood. i mean just because allegedly fwank whosibob is perfect for the role of sherriff of nottingham ('cancel christmas' i can just see it now :P ) doesn't mean hennessy is robin hood.

lets face it its not like Froch or any other hennessy fighter has been fighting 50/50's for their past 8 or anything like that.

in fact you doubtless won't need me to remind you that before pascal froch's last 4 fights went a total of what was it? about 14 rounds between them? competitve matchmaking at its finest :)

seems to me its the same as most promoters, 50/50s are all well and good but 60/40 is infinitely preferable from any promoter's perspective, and infinitely more common, even with our 'man of the people, boxing's future, greedy cynical eff charging £45 for a fight in a birmingham sports centre' hennessy with his supposedly impeccable promoting principles and intentions.

Counter-puncher wrote:[
in fact you doubtless won't need me to remind you that before pascal froch's last 4 fights went a total of what was it? about 14 rounds between them? competitve matchmaking at its finest :)

Counter-puncher wrote:

fair enough mate

ironically while you were thinking of Monaghan etc (good match for 8th fight)

i was thinking more like Matthew Barney or Dodson etc, not particularly competitve for his c17th or c20th fights

also the last henessay show i went to the u/c wasn't that good but i take your point in general

Autobarn wrote:I6000 words seems to border on obsessive. It's half a dissertation.

Counter-puncher wrote:witter, Hennessy managed to get him a vacant vs Corley (!) then defences vs Morua (!!!) and a half-dead Harris.

Counter-puncher wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:

Mick Hennessey is (one of) boxings shining lights and is demonstrating how the sport should be taken forward IMO, OK he doesn't always have the best of luck when trying to land the BIG names, but I believe that he's promoting principles and intentions are always bang on. He's always looking to put his fighters in competitive fights throughout their career and from what we've seen so far he wants his stars to be in BIG fights and doesn't mind them travelling if it's what's right for the boxers career (i.e. he's not a cash-cower)

not sure if this rings quite true though chambers

froch has had- what?- 3 truly competitive fights in 24?

Murray, 3 or 4 in 26

Siddique managed something like 24 without a single competitive fight

witter, Hennessy managed to get him a vacant vs Corley (!) then defences vs Morua (!!!) and a half-dead Harris.

if thats the kind of competitive matchmaking that gets kudos from fans I worry for the future of the game.

I mean, i know we are desperate for any promoter whose name isn't allegedly frank whosibob but sometimes i wonder if people don't make hennesy out to be some latterday robin hood. i mean just because allegedly fwank whosibob is perfect for the role of sherriff of nottingham ('cancel christmas' i can just see it now :P ) doesn't mean hennessy is robin hood.

lets face it its not like Froch or any other hennessy fighter has been fighting 50/50's for their past 8 or anything like that.

in fact you doubtless won't need me to remind you that before pascal froch's last 4 fights went a total of what was it? about 14 rounds between them? competitve matchmaking at its finest :)

seems to me its the same as most promoters, 50/50s are all well and good but 60/40 is infinitely preferable from any promoter's perspective, and infinitely more common, even with our 'man of the people, boxing's future, greedy cynical eff charging £45 for a fight in a birmingham sports centre' hennessy with his supposedly impeccable promoting principles and intentions.

CAN 'FREE' BOXING FREE BOXING?
HBO hopes less PPV means more fans

By Ben Grossman

With the sport of boxing and the U.S. economy both taking a beating, HBO is shifting its strategy and relocating many of its big fights from pay-per-view (PPV) to its network.

HBO Sports chief Ross Greenburg hopes the move to make more top-tier fights available to HBO customers will infuse some life into the sport.

"The sport needs more eyeballs," he says. "It's ironic, but while in bad times you'd expect the sport to suffer, it could actually trigger the opposite effect."

"It's tough to get people excited about dishing out 50 bucks every month in this economy," Greenburg says. "Everyone overreached in 2008; there were too many pay-per-view events."

The first example of HBO's strategy is its World Championship Boxing airing of the Jan. 24 bout between "Sugar" Shane Mosley and Antonio Margarito, which Greenburg says would have absolutely been on PPV last year.

Terence wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

Autobarn wrote:I6000 words seems to border on obsessive. It's half a dissertation.

Or quarter a Terry Dooley article, in today's money ;)

Hey, they have been much shorter in 2009. I think Hauser is far more capable than most of holding attention for a decent span. It is fortunate that Melville did not submit Moby Dick in the modern climate, "eff all the whale anatomy stuff mate, trim it down to two pages and make sure you leave space on the sides for Viagra ads." Not that I'm comparing Hauser to Melville, but you get me drift.

The Duddy one is long, but it is a complex issue, it needed more than a 'Duddy's team sucks ass' Current Scene thread

Chambers2 wrote:http://www.broadcastnewsroom.com/articl ... ?id=633424

CAN 'FREE' BOXING FREE BOXING?
HBO hopes less PPV means more fans

By Ben Grossman

With the sport of boxing and the U.S. economy both taking a beating, HBO is shifting its strategy and relocating many of its big fights from pay-per-view (PPV) to its network.

HBO Sports chief Ross Greenburg hopes the move to make more top-tier fights available to HBO customers will infuse some life into the sport.

"The sport needs more eyeballs," he says. "It's ironic, but while in bad times you'd expect the sport to suffer, it could actually trigger the opposite effect."

"It's tough to get people excited about dishing out 50 bucks every month in this economy," Greenburg says. "Everyone overreached in 2008; there were too many pay-per-view events."

The first example of HBO's strategy is its World Championship Boxing airing of the Jan. 24 bout between "Sugar" Shane Mosley and Antonio Margarito, which Greenburg says would have absolutely been on PPV last year.

oliverfennell wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:witter, Hennessy managed to get him a vacant vs Corley (!) then defences vs Morua (!!!) and a half-dead Harris.

Two fights that a lot - if not the majority - of people picked Witter to lose. Hindsight's so malleable, isn't it.

oliverfennell wrote:So did everybody else, after they happened!

I'm sure you did beforehand, but you know what I mean.

Lacy's gonna kill Calzaghe/Lacy's a one-dimensional bum, and I always said so
De La Hoya's gonna squash Pacquaio/De La Hoya is shot and I always knew he'd lose
Tyson KO1 Lewis/Everybody knew Tyson was there for the taking, and if you didn't, you're an idiot

D

Counter-puncher wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:So did everybody else, after they happened!

I'm sure you did beforehand, but you know what I mean.

Lacy's gonna kill Calzaghe/Lacy's a one-dimensional bum, and I always said so
De La Hoya's gonna squash Pacquaio/De La Hoya is shot and I always knew he'd lose
Tyson KO1 Lewis/Everybody knew Tyson was there for the taking, and if you didn't, you're an idiot

D

:P

i know what you mean OF, i am pretty sure the bookies for both the harris and corley fights had witter favourite to add to my own authoritative prediction.... :)

i would also add, had it been warren who served up a Corley to Hatton at that point in his career (never won a meaningful fight since, i know, its hindsight again but..) or Harris, ditto never winning a real fight again....

i think if warren served up something like that for Hatton there would be people using the same old protected fighter, padded record, easiest risk/reward option criticisms

people seem willing to give Hennessy a 'bye' on things they would hammer warren for , IMO