BoxRec

I know I give him shit but I dont think this interview puts him in the best light in regards to his attitude to boxing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6VtQaJ5giM

How so? I find his enthusiasm refreshing.

I preferred those halcyon days of Joe Calzaghe vs Evans Ashira topping the bill with Enzo vs Rich LaMontagne as chief support.

jameswilson wrote:I preferred those halcyon days of Joe Calzaghe vs Evans Ashira topping the bill with Enzo vs Rich LaMontagne as chief support.

I suppose Quigg's opponent is far superior then.

FFS Columbo

columbo wrote:

jameswilson wrote:I preferred those halcyon days of Joe Calzaghe vs Evans Ashira topping the bill with Enzo vs Rich LaMontagne as chief support.

I suppose Quigg's opponent is far superior then.

Yeah you're right columbo, because of one naff fight the entire card is worse than a bill full of naff fights.

jameswilson wrote:

columbo wrote:

jameswilson wrote:I preferred those halcyon days of Joe Calzaghe vs Evans Ashira topping the bill with Enzo vs Rich LaMontagne as chief support.

I suppose Quigg's opponent is far superior then.

Yeah you're right columbo, because of one naff fight the entire card is worse than a bill full of naff fights.

No, James you specifically named a main event and chief support from a FW bill. I therefore highlighted the chief support from that bill and compared it with the chief support from the upcoming bill. Anyway, where's all these great fights outside of Froch vs Groves on this bill then?

columbo wrote:

jameswilson wrote:

columbo wrote: I suppose Quigg's opponent is far superior then.

Yeah you're right columbo, because of one naff fight the entire card is worse than a bill full of naff fights.

No, James you specifically named a main event and chief support from a FW bill. I therefore highlighted the chief support from that bill and compared it with the chief support from the upcoming bill

So you ignored the disparity in the main events for the benefit of your own argument.

Those two fights didn't actually happen on the same bill (if it was then it's pure pot luck on my behalf, I was just posting a random Calzaghe fight and a random Enzo fight.)

To answer your last point tho I like the Crolla v Gethin fight personally, for a third fight down the bill that's good going. I'v no issue with Froch v Groves, so off the top 3 fights it's just the Quigg fight that is sub standard (beneath the top 3 fights it is nearly always going to be guys on the way up fighting mismatches.) Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh that's an outrage, Hearn pound note etc etc etc!


Is the card loaded with 50-50 World class fights? No, but apart from Mayweather cards that doesn't happen. Or does it? Have the other UK promoters loaded 3 quality 50-50 12 round fights as the top 3 fights on their bills? I thought Billy Joe v O'Sullivan and Chisora v Scott were 2 ok fights.....oh no wait Saunders was always gonna win so that isn't acceptable. And obviously beneath that we had Frank Buglioni in an 8 rounder along with the rest of the up and comers fighting their mismatches (which like I say at that stage of their careers is fine.)

Hennessy back in the day used to put on some good cards I think. I remember Witter v Bradley, Froch v Rybacki being on the same card, oh no wait Froch v Rybacki isn't 50-50 is it, so that's not acceptable as a chief support.....

Just gone and looked at the records now and Enzo v LaMontagne was actually a main event. Tony Doherty was chief support in both that fight and the Calzaghe v Ashira one.

How in the World did we put up with month after month of that back in the day.

jameswilson wrote:

columbo wrote:

jameswilson wrote:
Yeah you're right columbo, because of one naff fight the entire card is worse than a bill full of naff fights.

No, James you specifically named a main event and chief support from a FW bill. I therefore highlighted the chief support from that bill and compared it with the chief support from the upcoming bill

So you ignored the disparity in the main events for the benefit of your own argument.

Those two fights didn't actually happen on the same bill (if it was then it's pure pot luck on my behalf, I was just posting a random Calzaghe fight and a random Enzo fight.)

To answer your last point tho I like the Crolla v Gethin fight personally, for a third fight down the bill that's good going. I'v no issue with Froch v Groves, so off the top 3 fights it's just the Quigg fight that is sub standard (beneath the top 3 fights it is nearly always going to be guys on the way up fighting mismatches.) Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh that's an outrage, Hearn pound note etc etc etc!


Is the card loaded with 50-50 World class fights? No, but apart from Mayweather cards that doesn't happen. Or does it? Have the other UK promoters loaded 3 quality 50-50 12 round fights as the top 3 fights on their bills? I thought Billy Joe v O'Sullivan and Chisora v Scott were 2 ok fights.....oh no wait Saunders was always gonna win so that isn't acceptable. And obviously beneath that we had Frank Buglioni in an 8 rounder along with the rest of the up and comers fighting their mismatches (which like I say at that stage of their careers is fine.)

Hennessy back in the day used to put on some good cards I think. I remember Witter v Bradley, Froch v Rybacki being on the same card, oh no wait Froch v Rybacki isn't 50-50 is it, so that's not acceptable as a chief support.....

We weren't asked to pay £15 to watch those, people rightly expect more from a PPV.

This love in between Kugan and Hearn is getting dull now.

Just over a week to go and far to many ''big name prospects'' v TBA the way people are gushing over this card shows how much Eddie is a great salesman

expe wrote:

jameswilson wrote:

columbo wrote: No, James you specifically named a main event and chief support from a FW bill. I therefore highlighted the chief support from that bill and compared it with the chief support from the upcoming bill

So you ignored the disparity in the main events for the benefit of your own argument.

Those two fights didn't actually happen on the same bill (if it was then it's pure pot luck on my behalf, I was just posting a random Calzaghe fight and a random Enzo fight.)

To answer your last point tho I like the Crolla v Gethin fight personally, for a third fight down the bill that's good going. I'v no issue with Froch v Groves, so off the top 3 fights it's just the Quigg fight that is sub standard (beneath the top 3 fights it is nearly always going to be guys on the way up fighting mismatches.) Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh that's an outrage, Hearn pound note etc etc etc!


Is the card loaded with 50-50 World class fights? No, but apart from Mayweather cards that doesn't happen. Or does it? Have the other UK promoters loaded 3 quality 50-50 12 round fights as the top 3 fights on their bills? I thought Billy Joe v O'Sullivan and Chisora v Scott were 2 ok fights.....oh no wait Saunders was always gonna win so that isn't acceptable. And obviously beneath that we had Frank Buglioni in an 8 rounder along with the rest of the up and comers fighting their mismatches (which like I say at that stage of their careers is fine.)

Hennessy back in the day used to put on some good cards I think. I remember Witter v Bradley, Froch v Rybacki being on the same card, oh no wait Froch v Rybacki isn't 50-50 is it, so that's not acceptable as a chief support.....

We weren't asked to pay £15 to watch those, people rightly expect more from a PPV.

I dunno if I mentioned but I think the Froch v Groves bill is better than the bills I mentioned there. And the Froch v Kessler bill was definitely better.

expe wrote:We weren't asked to pay £15 to watch those, people rightly expect more from a PPV.

To be honest, I agree with Eddie in that I reckon 99% of the people who will pay the PPV will do so for the main fight only.

Ok, the undercard is a bonus, however very few will pay the fee to watch an undercard fight only and put match of the day on when the main event comes on (unless you are a mate of one of the fighters).

bripez wrote:

expe wrote:We weren't asked to pay £15 to watch those, people rightly expect more from a PPV.

To be honest, I agree with Eddie in that I reckon 99% of the people who will pay the PPV will do so for the main fight only.

Ok, the undercard is a bonus, however very few will pay the fee to watch an undercard fight only and put match of the day on when the main event comes on (unless you are a mate of one of the fighters).

Then just have the main bout on PPV and the rest of the card on normal SKY and see; to pay 15 quid just for a main event that can end in a minute is a gamble - a good undercard means that if that happens people are not overly unhappy. They are so greedy they will balls it up for theirselves, at least 2 good competitive bouts and the rest can be a showcase.

I don't understand how anyone could get the hump with him being completely blunt about securing his stable the very best money and opportunities that he can.

I remember when people slated him for getting Darren Barker a career-high payday that paid his house off against Sergio Martinez, and even let him keep his % from it. All he took out of it was flights and the Sky payment to air it which paled in significance to what Darren came away with.

Then everyone slagged him saying "anyone can send their fighter abroad to get knocked out" and that Barker was now ruined / finished.

And then Hearn does it again and gets the Geale fight made and now Darren is IBF champion on merit. That first loss probably galvanised him and made him hungrier than ever and aided his effort the second time around. He knew what he had to put into the training camp and the fight itself to win that time.

Now he is picking up a massive wedge to fight Sturm and they have brokered a rematch built-in and neutrality on the officials.

Then I read "duh eddie is tosspot" when like i said, him letting barker keep his cut was a class act , never mentioned anywhere.

G0mez wrote:I don't understand how anyone could get the hump with him being completely blunt about securing his stable the very best money and opportunities that he can.

I remember when people slated him for getting Darren Barker a career-high payday that paid his house off against Sergio Martinez, and even let him keep his % from it. All he took out of it was flights and the Sky payment to air it which paled in significance to what Darren came away with.

Then everyone slagged him saying "anyone can send their fighter abroad to get knocked out" and that Barker was now ruined / finished.

And then Hearn does it again and gets the Geale fight made and now Darren is IBF champion on merit. That first loss probably galvanised him and made him hungrier than ever and aided his effort the second time around. He knew what he had to put into the training camp and the fight itself to win that time.

Now he is picking up a massive wedge to fight Sturm and they have brokered a rematch built-in and neutrality on the officials.

Then I read "duh eddie is tosspot" when like i said, him letting barker keep his cut was a class act , never mentioned anywhere.

if true, nice point

Wasn't groves v degale ppv?? Can't remember
Two world title fights & two gold medalists & a great dust up with crolla v gethin is a good spectacle it will be a great atmosphere

Counter-puncher wrote:

G0mez wrote:I don't understand how anyone could get the hump with him being completely blunt about securing his stable the very best money and opportunities that he can.

I remember when people slated him for getting Darren Barker a career-high payday that paid his house off against Sergio Martinez, and even let him keep his % from it. All he took out of it was flights and the Sky payment to air it which paled in significance to what Darren came away with.

Then everyone slagged him saying "anyone can send their fighter abroad to get knocked out" and that Barker was now ruined / finished.

And then Hearn does it again and gets the Geale fight made and now Darren is IBF champion on merit. That first loss probably galvanised him and made him hungrier than ever and aided his effort the second time around. He knew what he had to put into the training camp and the fight itself to win that time.

Now he is picking up a massive wedge to fight Sturm and they have brokered a rematch built-in and neutrality on the officials.

Then I read "duh eddie is tosspot" when like i said, him letting barker keep his cut was a class act , never mentioned anywhere.

if true, nice point

Yeah I agree too. Sounds like a cool guy to me

Counter-puncher wrote:

G0mez wrote:I don't understand how anyone could get the hump with him being completely blunt about securing his stable the very best money and opportunities that he can.

I remember when people slated him for getting Darren Barker a career-high payday that paid his house off against Sergio Martinez, and even let him keep his % from it. All he took out of it was flights and the Sky payment to air it which paled in significance to what Darren came away with.

Then everyone slagged him saying "anyone can send their fighter abroad to get knocked out" and that Barker was now ruined / finished.

And then Hearn does it again and gets the Geale fight made and now Darren is IBF champion on merit. That first loss probably galvanised him and made him hungrier than ever and aided his effort the second time around. He knew what he had to put into the training camp and the fight itself to win that time.

Now he is picking up a massive wedge to fight Sturm and they have brokered a rematch built-in and neutrality on the officials.

Then I read "duh eddie is tosspot" when like i said, him letting barker keep his cut was a class act , never mentioned anywhere.

if true, nice point

If it's not been mentioned anywhere how do you know about it?

If it's true it's nice and maybe he'll do it for other boxers - it's like being a dad, you got to treat people the same.

not to mention that Martin Murray, Jamie McDonnell are on the bill and i imagine will be facing decent fighters also Joshua, Campbell , Yafai and Smith i think its a very good bill.
Dont see everyones problem with hearn

It was common knowledge at the time Eddie let Barker keep his cut.

Rogers21 wrote:not to mention that Martin Murray, Jamie McDonnell are on the bill and i imagine will be facing decent fighters also Joshua, Campbell , Yafai and Smith i think its a very good bill.
Dont see everyones problem with hearn

McDonnell seems to be off the bill because of his legal troubles and Murray will be in a keep busy fight, they won't bring anyone decent over at 9 days notice. If it was on normal Sky, it would be a great show, but for £15 it's quite frankly shocking, no single fight is worthy of PPV and the entire bill combined isn't either.

expe wrote:

Rogers21 wrote:not to mention that Martin Murray, Jamie McDonnell are on the bill and i imagine will be facing decent fighters also Joshua, Campbell , Yafai and Smith i think its a very good bill.
Dont see everyones problem with hearn

McDonnell seems to be off the bill because of his legal troubles and Murray will be in a keep busy fight, they won't bring anyone decent over at 9 days notice. If it was on normal Sky, it would be a great show, but for £15 it's quite frankly shocking, no single fight is worthy of PPV and the entire bill combined isn't either.

No way is it shocking, people have paid for (and complained about far less) that MUCH sh*ttier cards than this. Big shows in america may have better undercards - but you pay $70/80 for the priviledge.

Lets be honest, most of you complaining will stream it anyway. And would have regardless. Its because its Hearn, and you just can't stand it.

What about that interview warranted a thread about not coming across in the best light? I for one was happy to see a enthusiastic promoter who seemed (though some doubt it) to love his job and his fighters.

DMA1987 wrote:
What about that interview warranted a thread about not coming across in the best light? .

it's just that columbo's got that, ummm, scorned-woman type resentment towards Eddie. for reasons that are opaque to me.