BoxRec

OK, so now the dust has settled on the biggest British boxing event in years. I am curious as to what others think about why it was such an attraction?
I have to admit that when I heard Wembley was chosen for the event and Eddie was talking of a sell out, I was thinking that he was mad.
Benn v Eubank 2, Hatton v Lazcano and Bruno v McCall were all held outdoors and didn't do anywhere near 80k and arguably these are some of Britain's most popular and well known fighters.
The Haye v Chisora bust up got national attention and the inevitable grudge match set up at Upton Park only got 20+ thousand.
So why did this rematch grab the public's attention? The first fight was PPV therefore shown to a limited audience, neither Froch nor Groves are massive household names and as for the dodgy stoppage, well, we get them on a regular basis in the UK.

So why did Froch v Groves 2 do so well?

Hype.

Eddie is good at hyping events and creating a buzz with a bit of controversy. He is clearly a very good promoter. He also interacts with fans on a daily basis via social networks (e.g. Twitter) to build up the hype.

The Law wrote:Eddie is good at hyping events and creating a buzz with a bit of controversy. He is clearly a very good promoter. He also interacts with fans on a daily basis via social networks (e.g. Twitter) to build up the hype.

Agreed. People are constantly on his back because of the silver spoon but he's charismatic like his dad and forward thinking. He's not the type of bloke I'd like to spend any time with but he's a very good promoter. He made the fight as big as it was. You could see the lightbulb when the boo boys were at it following the stoppage first time round and by the time the post-fight presser was going he'd got his sights set on making the rematch. He didn't allow the momentum to stop.

cos Eddie said it was

My view is that having it at Wembley helped massively - big shiney 'new' stadium with good sightlines and an iconic venue. People have got used to going to 'big' events such as the Olympics etc.

The internet simple really

The first fight was such exciting action plus controversial ending it got people talking.then the re-runs 7 days of solid hype on Sky Sports last week, News, Radio 1, Talk Sport, Twitter, Wembley all added up to a huge event. Great for boxing and a decent bill. No real stinkers.

I think everyone has explained.

Although, to add to Milpool's post I think all those fights you mentioned would have got 80,000 had they been at venues with such a capacity. Remember Hatton vs Lazcano sold out in minutes.

it was also pretty fairly priced

Hearn is a good promoter......he knows how to market a fight and is also well-connected as well when it comes to having the entire News International machine behind him; Sky, The Sun, The Times and Sunday Times.

That's a seriously powerful line-up of media that makes sure you reach nearly every household in some shape or form. SMW is also a popular division with us Brits because it has given us some of the best domestic rivalries and characters....so Carl and George benefitted from that as well.

I think the knockdown, and the nature of it, was crucial. It added drama to the first fight and gave the uninitiated a visual shorthand of the perceived injustice. Think how many times we've been shown it. If Groves had provided a master class of skill as opposed to landing some heavy shots the narrative would've been far less intriguing. Plus for the initiated there was the speculation that we were potentially going to witness the self-proclaimed 'warrior' Froch be kayoed.

I never understand what the big fuss is about Promoters. Just what exactly are the special talents that they possess? Book a venue, go on tele, talk about it...etc etc.... I've seen plenty of slick dressed promoters on TV and in papers but I've never thought "OMG! he just put a fight on between 2 top boxers and 15,000 boxing fans in a country of 60m turned up to watch!"

I think (apart from the fact social media is MASSIVE the WORLD OVER just about) the other big reason is that Carl Froch is a bigger name with the mainstream than some people think. He is reputedly tough, and here we have a young chappie who turned up and put him straight on his backside - and a lot thought had a very good chance of doing the same again.

Most casual fans had never heard of George Groves which makes it even more impressive

Yep a great promotion where everyone played their part, both boxers did a great job doing all the interviews and really selling the fight, Groves did great playing the panto wind-up merchant, also Hearn did a great job and is a great talker and Sky really ramped it up. Also big thanks to Howard Foster who made both those boxers a career best payday with his contorversial stoppage in the first fight.

I must have seen the Froch 1st round knockdown about 800 times they showed it that much on those Sky adverts so I just think it really crossed over into the mainstream, great for the sport of boxing, though not so great for people like me who don't particularly wana go and stand in a stadium and need binoculars to see it = watched it on PPV.

Anyone think froch will thank George for his promotion of this bout one day?

Bit like benn with eubank now, you can tell he turned a corner and loves eubank for the way he sold the fights

Because the first fight was a belter and the stoppage was so controversial.

The rematch pretty much sold itself wherever it would of been but throw in the whole wembley thing and some tasty build up (gloves are off), plenty of Facebook and twitter hype and you've got one of the biggest fights here for a long time.


couldn't help but think, when watching the sky coverage, i bet david haye is gutted its not his night tonight

stujones wrote:I think everyone has explained.

Although, to add to Milpool's post I think all those fights you mentioned would have got 80,000 had they been at venues with such a capacity. Remember Hatton vs Lazcano sold out in minutes.

Bruno v McCall was at Wembley and attracted an audience of about 25k

Hype, and that lucky fluster in the first round of the first fight. If Groves should have knocked Froch out Froch would have retired, there would not have been any rematch, imo

Because of Howard Foster.

earsjohn wrote:

stujones wrote:I think everyone has explained.

Although, to add to Milpool's post I think all those fights you mentioned would have got 80,000 had they been at venues with such a capacity. Remember Hatton vs Lazcano sold out in minutes.

Bruno v McCall was at Wembley and attracted an audience of about 25k

That was at the old wembley which was falling to bits - not one of the bet new stadiums in the world.

mimmy123 wrote:Hype, and that lucky fluster in the first round of the first fight. If Groves should have knocked Froch out Froch would have retired, there would not have been any rematch, imo

I would agree - I think Froch said it himself (that he'd retire) 4 weeks into retirement tho he'd been prowling round his house saying "that f*cking George Groves knocked me out "....and he'd be back in training. He said he's a prizefighter and not in it for fun but I just couldn't see Froch being settled with George Groves LKO1, on his resume.

This fight was hotly anticipated from across the pond here in the US as well. I think the buzz was simply organic due to how the first fight unfolded.