BoxRec

stujones wrote:Well there was Tyson Fury also - on the Undercard of Froch vs Pascal.. if you want to be pedantic at it.... but your post is generally completely correct. I'm also fed up with people saying how badly Froch has been promoted - he has one of the most exposed fighters from the UK in recent years. Nobody, possibly aside from Khan and Harrison, in the last 20 years has had more fights on primetime terrestial TV.

Although there is a big difference between Sky and Primetime. Sky can advertise on the other Sky channels (and have done with Froch this time).

One thing I have noticed though since Froch has left Hennessy is the exposure in the general media - There seems to be a BBC reporter following him around America - this all adds to the exposure. Question I have is where the eff were the BBC when Froch was a BBC fighter!

apophenic wrote:the pascal fight is the only one that was 'promoted' correctly....

the taylor and dirrell fights were on a 24hr delay ffs - that's hardly primetime!

it's not just about getting the exposure...it's also about getting his name out there and hennessey sports didnt not seem to be very good in that regard.

Glyn Leach wrote:This repeated accusation that Mick didn't promote Frochy properly gets to me. He got him to the most highly respected title out there, on ITV where the fight was watched by (I believe) 5 million-plus, yet people seem to think Frochy would be more popular if he had been watched by 400,000 people on Sky. Go figure that one out.

Again, Mick did everything right but then ITV suffered a massive loss for the year 2008 and dropped boxing. At that time, Sky already had deals in place with other promoters and was not willing to break its structure in order to bring the Hennessy stable onboard. That wasn't Mick's fault, it was plain bad luck. He couldn't force Sky to break their structure and give him a deal, could he.

In regards to Froch having fought most of his Super Six bouts abroad, people aren't taking into account a) the difficulty in promoting a major show without proper TV backing, by which I mean money (No disrespect to Primetime) b) the demands of Showtime and c) Froch opponents such as Kessler and Abraham having strong TV backing and a higher degree of public support in their own countries than Froch has in Britain — let's not kid ourselves here, I was at Nottingham Arena for the Pascal fight and there were a good few empty seats.

I dunno, I just think Mick gets a raw deal from a lot of you sometimes. To me he was forward thinking, doing everything the right way, then it all went wrong and he was left in a hole he couldn't get out of through no fault of his own, resulting in everyone else, including Sky who had ignored Froch for years (which kind of sticks in the throat when you see how up his arse they are now they've finally decided to televise him when at one stage he couldn't buy a mention on Sky Sports News), cherry picking Hennessy's best fighters after he had done all the work in building them.

Apologies for the mini rant, but this subject really does get to me.

King Geedorah wrote:The general view if that Froch was well managed but suffered a little in terms of exposure, which would come under the blanket term 'promotion'.

Mick did a great job of getting Froch and others into position but may have lacked a little clout when it came to getting the pressers into the nationals and online on a regular basis.

It is a case of perspective. Some view Mick as a great manager but not quite as great as a promoter. A lot think he's a brilliant promoter who has been handicapped by TV deals going south. Others point to his last Wembley show as a sign that he is refusing to cut his cloth according to demand, there were a lot of empty seats and it killed the atmosphere. I think he should put his shows on at Ally Pally, decent sized venue and realistic in terms of getting people in and generating an atmosphere.

Sky TV have made it known that they like atmosphere and colour so perhaps a few packed out shows with plenty of noise will see Mick boost his standing with the Sky bods when the new contracts are sorted out.

Primetime carried the Khan fight and it received a lot of publicity so maybe there is something to the bits of criticism.

The third viewpoint, that of the fighters who have moved on, should also be taken into account, they clearly felt that something was lacking, although some of us may say that what was lacking was gratitude on their parts.

I don't know. It is a subject for the more sensible/intelligent amongst us. It is not a black and white issue. When ever I do an article on Froch or a former Mick H fighter I always add, when they talk about exposure, that their fights were carried by ITV in the first instance and then Primetime and Premiersports.

To be fair, I've had Premiersports for a few months now, since Froch-Abraha, and sometimes forget that I have it. The channels have to carry some responsibility for promoting their products. Khan's Primetime tilt was heavily publicised due to the Sky debacle.

As for fighter's loyalty. It works both ways. A promoter may tolerate 2-3 losses but that is it. When a fighter fades they get put to oneside or fed to a prospect, either one from their own camp or another camp, so it does not do to be too loyal in boxing.

Boxing, unlike other walks of life, does not generally reward loyalty or selflessness. Fighters have a small window of opportunity so they have to do what they have to do. As do promoters.

IRLangmaid25 wrote:If my memory serves me correctly some of Froch's fights have been on the BBC, before the BBC were put off Boxing courtesy fo Audley Harrison as I seem to remember Froch saying that Harrison "dropped the ball" after getting his TV deal with the BBC after he won gold, but he has been on Sky prior to being on ITV before being shunted onto Primetime after ITV pulled the plug on their boxing before reappearing on Sky since leaving Hennessy Sport to join Matchroom.

Glyn Leach wrote:This repeated accusation that Mick didn't promote Frochy properly gets to me. He got him to the most highly respected title out there, on ITV where the fight was watched by (I believe) 5 million-plus, yet people seem to think Frochy would be more popular if he had been watched by 400,000 people on Sky. Go figure that one out.

Again, Mick did everything right but then ITV suffered a massive loss for the year 2008 and dropped boxing. At that time, Sky already had deals in place with other promoters and was not willing to break its structure in order to bring the Hennessy stable onboard. That wasn't Mick's fault, it was plain bad luck. He couldn't force Sky to break their structure and give him a deal, could he.

In regards to Froch having fought most of his Super Six bouts abroad, people aren't taking into account a) the difficulty in promoting a major show without proper TV backing, by which I mean money (No disrespect to Primetime) b) the demands of Showtime and c) Froch opponents such as Kessler and Abraham having strong TV backing and a higher degree of public support in their own countries than Froch has in Britain — let's not kid ourselves here, I was at Nottingham Arena for the Pascal fight and there were a good few empty seats.

I dunno, I just think Mick gets a raw deal from a lot of you sometimes. To me he was forward thinking, doing everything the right way, then it all went wrong and he was left in a hole he couldn't get out of through no fault of his own, resulting in everyone else, including Sky who had ignored Froch for years (which kind of sticks in the throat when you see how up his arse they are now they've finally decided to televise him when at one stage he couldn't buy a mention on Sky Sports News), cherry picking Hennessy's best fighters after he had done all the work in building them.

Apologies for the mini rant, but this subject really does get to me.

Glyn Leach wrote:This repeated accusation that Mick didn't promote Frochy properly gets to me. He got him to the most highly respected title out there, on ITV where the fight was watched by (I believe) 5 million-plus, yet people seem to think Frochy would be more popular if he had been watched by 400,000 people on Sky. Go figure that one out.

Again, Mick did everything right but then ITV suffered a massive loss for the year 2008 and dropped boxing. At that time, Sky already had deals in place with other promoters and was not willing to break its structure in order to bring the Hennessy stable onboard. That wasn't Mick's fault, it was plain bad luck. He couldn't force Sky to break their structure and give him a deal, could he.

In regards to Froch having fought most of his Super Six bouts abroad, people aren't taking into account a) the difficulty in promoting a major show without proper TV backing, by which I mean money (No disrespect to Primetime) b) the demands of Showtime and c) Froch opponents such as Kessler and Abraham having strong TV backing and a higher degree of public support in their own countries than Froch has in Britain — let's not kid ourselves here, I was at Nottingham Arena for the Pascal fight and there were a good few empty seats.

I dunno, I just think Mick gets a raw deal from a lot of you sometimes. To me he was forward thinking, doing everything the right way, then it all went wrong and he was left in a hole he couldn't get out of through no fault of his own, resulting in everyone else, including Sky who had ignored Froch for years (which kind of sticks in the throat when you see how up his arse they are now they've finally decided to televise him when at one stage he couldn't buy a mention on Sky Sports News), cherry picking Hennessy's best fighters after he had done all the work in building them.

Apologies for the mini rant, but this subject really does get to me.

Glyn Leach wrote:This repeated accusation that Mick didn't promote Frochy properly gets to me. He got him to the most highly respected title out there, on ITV where the fight was watched by (I believe) 5 million-plus, yet people seem to think Frochy would be more popular if he had been watched by 400,000 people on Sky. Go figure that one out.

Again, Mick did everything right but then ITV suffered a massive loss for the year 2008 and dropped boxing. At that time, Sky already had deals in place with other promoters and was not willing to break its structure in order to bring the Hennessy stable onboard. That wasn't Mick's fault, it was plain bad luck. He couldn't force Sky to break their structure and give him a deal, could he.

In regards to Froch having fought most of his Super Six bouts abroad, people aren't taking into account a) the difficulty in promoting a major show without proper TV backing, by which I mean money (No disrespect to Primetime) b) the demands of Showtime and c) Froch opponents such as Kessler and Abraham having strong TV backing and a higher degree of public support in their own countries than Froch has in Britain — let's not kid ourselves here, I was at Nottingham Arena for the Pascal fight and there were a good few empty seats.

I dunno, I just think Mick gets a raw deal from a lot of you sometimes. To me he was forward thinking, doing everything the right way, then it all went wrong and he was left in a hole he couldn't get out of through no fault of his own, resulting in everyone else, including Sky who had ignored Froch for years (which kind of sticks in the throat when you see how up his arse they are now they've finally decided to televise him when at one stage he couldn't buy a mention on Sky Sports News), cherry picking Hennessy's best fighters after he had done all the work in building them.

Apologies for the mini rant, but this subject really does get to me.

Glyn Leach wrote: Hennessy's made of stronger stuff, he genuinely loves the sport. He'll have his day again, I'm sure of that.

h smithy wrote:Am I the only one who is getting fed up with reading reports on the internet that are factually incorrect, I have followed Froch since he fought Robin Reid and think he is the best fighter in britain today, but these web writers are not helping Froch by not telling the whole story.

Just read an article on Fanhouse.co.uk by Chris McKenna and he has stated that "after years of obscurity on fringe pay-per-view channels or no coverage at all in the UK." This is an incorrect statement, wish these guys would do their research.

how many uk fighters have been showcased on UK terrestrial tv over the last 3 years? If I'm right, apart from Froch, Khan is the only one, since 2008 Frochs fights against Rybacki, pascal, taylor and dirrell were shown primetime on ITV, yes i know the Taylor and Dirrell fights were shown on a delay basis but were still shown primetime, it was only the Kessler and Abraham fights that were shown in the UK soley on Primetime, but then again I think both of these fights were shown on
eurosport afterward. so prove me wrong and tell me what other UK fighter has had this amount of exposure. And Carl has been showcased around europe, canada and the US. Was Hayes last fights shown in north america????

And what is the difference between Sky, Sky Box Office and Primetime, I know Primetime is new, had a few teething problems and I know of friends who had problems at the start but that seems to have been sorted now, fair play to them for stepping up. All 3 are on the sky platform, all available on virgin, so all three are available to the same audience.

It bugs me as the public seem to be missing this point. And it bugs me that everyone thinks that Froch is now going to get the recognition he deserves by fighting on Sky, what is sky going to do different, put him on soccer am which has about 50,000 veiwers per week, hasn't he had more exposure than most fighters over the last 3 years already, wasn't he on question of sport a few weeks ago, and i remember seeing him on let's dance last year on primetime BBC and wasn't he on bbc breakfast after his fight against Abraham, so he has had the exposure.

As I said I have followed Froch since the Reid fight, and I remember Froch was once slagged off by people on here righting him off, saying he wouldn't make it because of his defence, low hands ect.

lets not forget that only the people who pay for skysports will be able watch this tomorrow night . So no different to Primetime. People moan about sky box office but still pay, so why paying for primetime so different, yes i know that the quailty isn't great but then again sbo isn't perfect, u only get the same amount of fights for the same amount of cash.

I haven't got skysports and was looking forward to listening to this on the radio like i did for the last 2 of frochs fights and hayes and khans but I noticed that it is not on the radio this time, so us who don't have skysports still aren't going to be able to watch the fight.

So much for having more exposure now, it seems to have gone the other way for Froch.!!

It pains me to say it but Froch will never be another, Hatton, Khan, Haye or Calzaghe due to his cold and stern personality, (Fat Mick cannot be blamed for this) but he will go down as one of the great british fighters. (but we can blame Fat Mick for getting him the British, Commonwealth, WBC titles as well as in to the Super Six)

Come on the Cobra!!

Glyn Leach wrote:I'm not saying Mick H will get back to being a major player quickly, he obviously has major difficulties at the moment. But he's not going away and I'm sure he'll get back into a stronger position eventually.
And of course it wasn't hard signing Froch to the S6, it was getting him to that stage which was the achievment. A vacant title fight at home for the belt fighters seem to value most is no mean feat.
The major knock I've heard against Mick is that he has tended to negotiate too hard for today's breed of yuppy TV execs, but I don't know if that's true, it's just what I've heard.
Issues of loyalty aside, and we know better than to expect it in boxing, Carl had very little choice but to leave him if he wanted to be on Sky, who were openly expressing their interest through the media but, as I keep pointing out, Sky will not break their deal structure until summer 2012, when the current deals expire. I don't blame Sky for that, but it was another nail in the coffin for Hennessy - his fighters had to choose between signing with a promoter who had a Sky deal or not being shown by that network.
Again, Mick H was unlucky to have been under contract to ITV when the current Sky deals were signed. But I don't think being watched by millions instead of thousands can be called bad promotion. He just had a bad break when ITV dropped boxing in 2009 and he's still suffering for it today.