BoxRec

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

Deserter wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:The channel had been financially successful so far.

KG, how to undermine your credibility in one easy move.

What credibility???

A fair point

exittored wrote:

Johnswan1: What goes on tour stays on tour.

Given some of the opinions on here, I'd hate to go on an overseas stag party with some of you lot!

Talk of punishments, having to behave in a certain manner etc., give me a break!

Chisora has a history of convictions for violent crimes, slapped Klitschko and brawled with Haye. These are facts.

I believe that Chisora should be punished for that and just because him and Haye want to fight, we shouldn't forget the bad things that Derek has done.

Can someone who disagrees with me please explain the following.

Would you have punished him?

and if not.....

What would he have to do to be punished?

Deserter wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:The channel had been financially successful so far.

KG, how to undermine your credibility in one easy move.

With the recent carve up and cuts to SKY boxing shows; really, what could HE do? Do you imagine that HE could keep his boxers busy with meaningful bouts off TV? Really buying up a platform was a pretty risky and ballsy thing to do. HE may not be the most likable of men BUT he has delivered the goods to boxers and fans over the last 25 years. The top men in any profession are pretty venal and self serving. If the B ox N ation channel goes under is it good for boxing?

Chisora and Haye are professional boxers; men who are paid to have a fight. They are not priests or role models; they are not paragons of virtue. Pay them enough and they would most likely fight a monster in someones back garden. The rules should be there primarly for safety and ensure a level playing field, not to have lawyer types wetting themselves that someones' juristidiction is being impinged upon. If you think the bout is a crap one; don't watch it, if it hurt your sense of morality don't watch it. In a big bout people make money from it; that's been the case for over a hundred years; that's the rub of it being professional boxing.

palooka wrote:

Deserter wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:The channel had been financially successful so far.

KG, how to undermine your credibility in one easy move.

With the recent carve up and cuts to SKY boxing shows; really, what could HE do? Do you imagine that HE could keep his boxers busy with meaningful bouts off TV? Really buying up a platform was a pretty risky and ballsy thing to do. HE may not be the most likable of men BUT he has delivered the goods to boxers and fans over the last 25 years. The top men in any profession are pretty venal and self serving. If the B ox N ation channel goes under is it good for boxing?

Chisora and Haye are professional boxers; men who are paid to have a fight. They are not priests or role models; they are not paragons of virtue. Pay them enough and they would most likely fight a monster in someones back garden. The rules should be there primarly for safety and ensure a level playing field, not to have lawyer types wetting themselves that someones' juristidiction is being impinged upon. If you think the bout is a crap one; don't watch it, if it hurt your sense of morality don't watch it. In a big bout people make money from it; that's been the case for over a hundred years; that's the rub of it being professional boxing.

Great post

It's the usual suspects in the media and who post on boxrec that have got their knickers in a twist about nothing. From some of the comments you'd think both fighters had murdered and raped a group of nuns when the truth is their indiscrections based around the Vitali fight are very minor indeed.

This is a great match-up and it'll be a fun night of British boxing at it's best.

^ ^ yep, your bang on

johnswan1 wrote: Fighters getting banned for fighting, whatever next?
Why should Chisora be banned from being able to make a living for any amount of time?

if margarito got through with his hand wraps should he not be banned because he was fighting?
what about the other fighters that are contracted to the same promoter but arnt getting fights? isnt that restriction of trade also?

Adamj1987 wrote: what about the other fighters that are contracted to the same promoter but arnt getting fights? isnt that restriction of trade also?

I have no idea, but it is a great point.

Adamj1987 wrote:

johnswan1 wrote: Fighters getting banned for fighting, whatever next?
Why should Chisora be banned from being able to make a living for any amount of time?

if margarito got through with his hand wraps should he not be banned because he was fighting?
what about the other fighters that are contracted to the same promoter but arnt getting fights? isnt that restriction of trade also?

Because he broke the rules. Same as Joey Barton getting a 12 match ban.

JamesH wrote:

Adamj1987 wrote: what about the other fighters that are contracted to the same promoter but arnt getting fights? isnt that restriction of trade also?

I have no idea, but it is a great point.

I'd have imagned that it would be a logistical nightmare; getting every fighter a real run out regularly. It is certainly a shame that Jamie Cox can't seem to get meaningful bouts and is very disillusioned; I imagine that ther're more like him. I can imagine that not every 'thing' is ultimately down to the head honcho though; the sport is changing, there are less shows, less televised shows, more expense, a big eff off recession, people watching shows on a feed etc etc + although some promising boxers train very hard and keep themselves in excellent condition ready for a call up; some do not. It seems to happen that a boxer has a chance of a run out but can't get in shape or down to weight with 4 weeks notice. Whose fault is that? I understand that for most boxers, boxing is a second job and they cannot account for injuries or out of ring problems. (Massive respect to Darren Hamilton ).

I'm sure that anyone with a stable of boxers would want to have them boxing regularly and improving; the boxers support the firm and vice versa; a symbiotic relationship. I'm no W arren apologist but we seem to get a very one sided view of things and I'm sure it is more nuanced than that + the man is not the Devil with a secret anti British boxing agenda.

exittored wrote:It's the usual suspects in the media and who post on boxrec that have got their knickers in a twist about nothing.

I wouldn't describe the potential ramifications of this fight as 'nothing'.

This is a great match-up and it'll be a fun night of British boxing at it's best.

Not for me it isn't, and I doubt it very much. There's a lot of hype and bollocks surrounding it though.

Some promoters take on to many boxers, Jamie cox should be way more forward by now, brook and bellow got out because they don't want 30,000 viewers in the peak of there careers, but normally the cream rises to the top

palooka wrote:
Chisora and Haye are professional boxers; men who are paid to have a fight. They are not priests or role models; they are not paragons of virtue. Pay them enough and they would most likely fight a monster in someones back garden. The rules should be there primarly for safety and ensure a level playing field, not to have lawyer types wetting themselves that someones' juristidiction is being impinged upon. If you think the bout is a crap one; don't watch it, if it hurt your sense of morality don't watch it. In a big bout people make money from it; that's been the case for over a hundred years; that's the rub of it being professional boxing.

nicely put , I'm slightly sick of the hand wringers and morality police passing judgement.
Fact is it's a fight that had to happen NOW.
Chisora has been stalking Haye around town it was going to go down no matter what, stick them in a ring with gloves on and a referee better that than someone getting killed on the streets.
The BBBofC would be better off letting this one go by..

The big problem for many is it's been orchestrated by the enfant terrible of British boxing some people are so OBSESSED by him they can probably be found on a Friday night rooting through his dustbins with a roll of stickytape!! How much does he make, how many subscribers does his channel have, who does he pay who doesn't he pay

I love to watch boxing and FW makes fights happen (when he wants too), British Boxing will miss him when he's gone

jessi wrote:Some promoters take on to many boxers, Jamie cox should be way more forward by now, brook and bellow got out because they don't want 30,000 viewers in the peak of there careers, but normally the cream rises to the top

I agree with your first point jessi; promoters take on as many boxers as will sign with them; lawyers take on as many clients as possible, accountants take on as many as possible, dentist do the same, so do doctors and window cleaners. 'Make hay while the sun shines'; there is risk involved however and there have been some very big, high up changes to the UK boxing scene far beyond the wit and reach of any one man. At one time it was a pretty easy bet who any top amateur would sign for. That promoter had the TV dates, the big shows and the international contacts. He also had money to pay sign on fees and 'wages'. Boxing has been in transition and things have changed in a way that would have been difficult for fans to believe from 4 years ago.

Jamie Cox should have a higher profile and been involved in some very exciting and profile raising and lucrative bouts; that he hasn't is a shame and has cost him, and I imagine his manager and promoter; I feel they had expected more from Jamie as well. Cox has not been the model professional and may have reached his level. Excellent boxer he is, even better than Jamie have retired disillusioned; he can blame his promoter etc but has had a hand inthings himself.

Best of luck to both Kell Brook and Tony Bellew; both are very good and exciting fighters and ought to be on big shows; they've not ballsed things up in a big way and a rival has signed them up. I look forward to watching them box as they get stuck in. If they can do better elsewhere and the grass is greener then who can judge them? Boxing is a short career (not for the promoters though!) Hope Jamie Cox reconsiders retiring and gets a run out, whoever it is with.

palooka wrote:

Deserter wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:The channel had been financially successful so far.

KG, how to undermine your credibility in one easy move.

With the recent carve up and cuts to SKY boxing shows; really, what could HE do? Do you imagine that HE could keep his boxers busy with meaningful bouts off TV? Really buying up a platform was a pretty risky and ballsy thing to do. HE may not be the most likable of men BUT he has delivered the goods to boxers and fans over the last 25 years. The top men in any profession are pretty venal and self serving. If the B ox N ation channel goes under is it good for boxing?

Well, given his previously established business prowess, what I wouldn't expect him to do is embark on an incredibly risky venture in a highly competitive space with no apparent research, and then to execute it incredibly poorly on so many levels.
I also love the way you're effectively absolving FW of any responsibility for ending up in that situation in the first place. I suspect the way he conducted his relationships with TV in the past played at least some part in that.
Finally, in terms of him delivering (and relating to my last point), you're glossing over the countless TBAs, the bills that never appear as advertised, the lack of investment in the experience on-site etc. As I and many others have said on here countless times, most businesses grasp that customer service is a cornerstone of success, but FW has historically given the impression of treating the paying public with contempt.
I've said before that you have to admire what he's achieved as a businessman in the past, and he's put on some great matches during that time, but that in no way, shape or form means the things I've outlined above should be glossed over.

palooka wrote:

JamesH wrote:

Adamj1987 wrote: what about the other fighters that are contracted to the same promoter but arnt getting fights? isnt that restriction of trade also?

I have no idea, but it is a great point.

I'd have imagned that it would be a logistical nightmare; getting every fighter a real run out regularly. It is certainly a shame that Jamie Cox can't seem to get meaningful bouts and is very disillusioned; I imagine that ther're more like him. I can imagine that not every 'thing' is ultimately down to the head honcho though; the sport is changing, there are less shows, less televised shows, more expense, a big eff off recession, people watching shows on a feed etc etc + although some promising boxers train very hard and keep themselves in excellent condition ready for a call up; some do not. It seems to happen that a boxer has a chance of a run out but can't get in shape or down to weight with 4 weeks notice. Whose fault is that? I understand that for most boxers, boxing is a second job and they cannot account for injuries or out of ring problems. (Massive respect to Darren Hamilton ).

I'm sure that anyone with a stable of boxers would want to have them boxing regularly and improving; the boxers support the firm and vice versa; a symbiotic relationship. I'm no W arren apologist but we seem to get a very one sided view of things and I'm sure it is more nuanced than that + the man is not the Devil with a secret anti British boxing agenda.

How often has chisora fought anyway? 3 times a year roughly? He could of fitted in 2 fights after his ban and also if he had 2 fights this year (assuming the BBBC gave him his licence back early or on first reapplication) he would lose 1 fight at most. So he wouldnt of been losing trade. Now if he fought monthly or weekly yes but once every 4 months isnt that bad

Sorry im not directing it straight at you just generally to the thread, i just wanted it in context

Anyone else heard the rumour going around now that Haye has insisted he's paid in full 7 days before the contest ?
Why ?

I am an armchair fan and no W arren lover; there are many very knowledgable posters on here and some of them seem to be insiders with an axe to grind and scores to settle.

Who would have done better for the fans than W arren? Did Jarvis Astaire and Mickey Duff? What about Eddies dad? Boxing fans get treat as mug punters because they love the sport; I do not go to live shows and the sport costs me every month; SKY,allegedly, Boxing News and Monthly, PPV etc. Football fans are fleeced, it doesn't make it right but it is how it is regardless of who you support and who is owner/manager.

Would boxing be better as a UK fan without allegedly?

I'm not digging, these are genuine questions.

twenty six wrote:Anyone else heard the rumour going around now that Haye has insisted he's paid in full 7 days before the contest ?
Why ?

Who the fornicate is going to give someone who lives in North Cyprus half a million quid a week before a bout? What if he gets injured? Everyone in the real world gets paid after the job is done (I have to wait 2 months for some customers and other people are pissed about more).

palooka wrote:I am an armchair fan and no W arren lover; there are many very knowledgable posters on here and some of them seem to be insiders with an axe to grind and scores to settle.

Who would have done better for the fans than W arren? Did Jarvis Astaire and Mickey Duff? What about Eddies dad? Boxing fans get treat as mug punters because they love the sport; I do not go to live shows and the sport costs me every month; SKY,Allegedly Channel, Boxing News and Monthly, PPV etc. Football fans are fleeced, it doesn't make it right but it is how it is regardless of who you support and who is owner/manager.

Would boxing be better as a UK fan without Allegedly Channel?

I'm not digging, these are genuine questions.

I think onyl 'big' promoter that offers more to the fans is maloney but thats just my stance though the mag 7 show was great.

I go to live shows when i can but i cant afford thetv channels ( means i cant watch f1 either). I dont think it would be better without it far from it, it gives the boxers a platform but its just too mich to pay for sky then the channel again. Maybe a pay channel on freeview would be better and available in more houses. I have no axe to grind against warren BTW

palooka wrote:

twenty six wrote:Anyone else heard the rumour going around now that Haye has insisted he's paid in full 7 days before the contest ?
Why ?

Who the eff is going to give someone who lives in North Cyprus half a million quid a week before a bout? What if he gets injured? Everyone in the real world gets paid after the job is done (I have to wait 2 months for some customers and other people are pissed about more).

Indeed maybe this is a way haye gets publicity and can save face.?

twenty six wrote:Anyone else heard the rumour going around now that Haye has insisted he's paid in full 7 days before the contest ?
Why ?

The money would be held in a holding account, before being released after the event.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

twenty six wrote:Anyone else heard the rumour going around now that Haye has insisted he's paid in full 7 days before the contest ?
Why ?

The money would be held in a holding account, before being released after the event.

So you think he may be making sure the promoter has the money to pay him?

Adamj1987 wrote:

palooka wrote:I am an armchair fan and no W arren lover; there are many very knowledgable posters on here and some of them seem to be insiders with an axe to grind and scores to settle.

Who would have done better for the fans than W arren? Did Jarvis Astaire and Mickey Duff? What about Eddies dad? Boxing fans get treat as mug punters because they love the sport; I do not go to live shows and the sport costs me every month; SKY,Allegedly Channel, Boxing News and Monthly, PPV etc. Football fans are fleeced, it doesn't make it right but it is how it is regardless of who you support and who is owner/manager.

Would boxing be better as a UK fan without Allegedly Channel?

I'm not digging, these are genuine questions.

I think onyl 'big' promoter that offers more to the fans is maloney but thats just my stance though the mag 7 show was great.

I go to live shows when i can but i cant afford thetv channels ( means i cant watch f1 either). I dont think it would be better without it far from it, it gives the boxers a platform but its just too mich to pay for sky then the channel again. Maybe a pay channel on freeview would be better and available in more houses. I have no axe to grind against warren BTW

Cheers for a honest and open answer

The state of Uk televised boxing is a bone of contention to me; I'm sure I can remember it better and less expensive.

It sometimes seems on here that W arren is a man to reflexively hate; nothing is good enough, the cup is half full etc etc and some of the posters have agendas; maybe work in boxing or have grievances. W arren is not responsible for the decline in British or World boxing; lots could have been done better and fans could have been loved and appreciated more. Is it better in Germany? The USA? South America? Anywhere? Really?

Adamj1987 wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

twenty six wrote:Anyone else heard the rumour going around now that Haye has insisted he's paid in full 7 days before the contest ?
Why ?

The money would be held in a holding account, before being released after the event.

So you think he may be making sure the promoter has the money to pay him?

Put it this way Adam. I would be VERY concerned about getting my money from allegedly.