BoxRec

We all know Sky and Eddie have fed us some tripe over the years but that's another argument but I don't think theres any doubt Eddie Hearn is the worlds leading promoter, for putting on big shows on a regular basis, sure the hardcore know some of them are pony and the PPVs are disgraceful at times but I'm talking about actual promoting, Hearn is lucky he has the Sky model to pedal his product, incredibly lucky infact because him along with Sky he has had the tools for the past 6/7 years or so make every show have that big fight feel to it, all his shows are in arenas or stadiums, the Reece Bellotti/Dai Davies card a few weks ago was the 1st small hall show Sky have shown in years outwith Prizefighter

And because it has been a while Matchroom have had the Sky monopoly he has built fighters like AJ from scratch and took other fighters who were established and still unknown and made them rich, he's got dozens of fighters world title fights, most of his world champs you would never have predicted as future world titlists,

His constant presence on social media cant be denied either, he's at the forefront of new age promoting, Sky Sports News is invaluable too and probably one of the main reasons fights get exposure because most guys including myself have that on constantly in the background when in the house dong other things, constantly being reminded about the weekends upcoming fights and if its PPV then its in overdrive

The Sky/Eddie relationship has took a lot of flak since it began but without it would these Wembley shows be possible? I just couldn't have seen these shows happening 7 years ago and a worse thought is, Is Eddie Hearn solely responsible for the UK being the leading force in world boxing??

I just cant imagine Wazza making as much of a success with a monopoly with Sky that Eddie has, his foreign opposition would be a lot worse than Hearns

Not solely responsible, no.

Two gentlemen named Froch and Joshua have a little bit to do with it. I also blame George Groves.

But they do have a lot to do with it. Even I will admit that.

Counter-puncher wrote:Not solely responsible, no.

Two gentlemen named Froch and Joshua have a little bit to do with it. I also blame George Groves.

But they do have a lot to do with it. Even I will admit that.

That's the 1st step CP admitting it

Groves is still relatively unknown and Froch still doesn't seem like a household name, yet they sold out Wembley

handsofstone wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:Not solely responsible, no.

Two gentlemen named Froch and Joshua have a little bit to do with it. I also blame George Groves.

But they do have a lot to do with it. Even I will admit that.

That's the 1st step CP admitting it

Rob McCracken and everyone else involved at Sheffield and the GB squad set up and the parties that have funded it are responsible. They have created most of the talent- Eddie and Sky just manipulate it once they get it.

I see it as more to do with the raw material they are working with (ie super-heavyweight gold medallist at London Olympics (who's a media good guy to boot) etc.) Killing off/weakening rival promoters has led to a bigger stable and therefore the foundations to put on bigger shows. That wouldn't necessarily have mattered if rival promoters worked together.

Eddie Hearn is just a Sky yes-man who inherited a business from his father.

The promotional muscle comes from Sky. They've lost so much revenue to BT the bosses at Sky have found a way to claw back losses by flogging a saturday night scrap to british football fans.

BT are probably going to emulate the same model now with Frank taking the Yes man role.

Cholo_cws wrote:I see it as more to do with the raw material they are working with (ie super-heavyweight gold medallist at London Olympics (who's a media good guy to boot) etc.) Killing off/weakening rival promoters has led to a bigger stable and therefore the foundations to put on bigger shows. That wouldn't necessarily have mattered if rival promoters worked together.

very well said

Supremo wrote:Rob McCracken and everyone else involved at Sheffield and the GB squad set up and the parties that have funded it are responsible. They have created most of the talent- Eddie and Sky just manipulate it once they get it.

Yes. Pretty much the crux of it I'd say.

Ricky_ wrote:Eddie Hearn is just a Sky yes-man who inherited a business from his father.

The promotional muscle comes from Sky. They've lost so much revenue to BT the bosses at Sky have found a way to claw back losses by flogging a saturday night scrap to british football fans.

BT are probably going to emulate the same model now with Frank taking the Yes man role.

Warren doesn't have the boxers to do it, BT don't have the reach, and years of promoting endless boring WBO fights and ending up in court with his best fighters leaving in their droves has ruined Warren.

How much promoting does Eddie actually do outside of having an active twitter account, giving interviews to IFL and doing press conferences?

Most of the actual promoting has been done by Sky and other broadcasters.

The BBC documentary in the run up to this event, the appearances on soccer AM, the constant plugging on sky sports, the sky sports countdown type shows and so on and so forth.

That's not to say that Eddie hasnt taken advantage of all those resources at sky's disposal and put on well produced events but he's had the sky machine behind him.

If he could do the same thing on allegedly or even BT sports then yeah, id say master promoter but otherwise I think yeah, he's taken advantage of the opportunity but I dont see this incredible marketer that others are seeing.

dirk2686 wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:Eddie Hearn is just a Sky yes-man who inherited a business from his father.

The promotional muscle comes from Sky. They've lost so much revenue to BT the bosses at Sky have found a way to claw back losses by flogging a saturday night scrap to british football fans.

BT are probably going to emulate the same model now with Frank taking the Yes man role.

Warren doesn't have the boxers to do it, BT don't have the reach, and years of promoting endless boring WBO fights and ending up in court with his best fighters leaving in their droves has ruined Warren.

How do BT "not have the reach"? The sporting tide has turned significantly from a SKY monopoly to BT sneaking the lions share of EPL and bagged the champions leagye too. From what i understand BT also has exculisive coverage of UFC?

I think the UK may well end up with a similar situation they have in the states:

Sky&Matchroom vs BT&Warren
Showtime&GoldenBoy vs HBO&TopRank

Ricky_ wrote:

dirk2686 wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:Eddie Hearn is just a Sky yes-man who inherited a business from his father.

The promotional muscle comes from Sky. They've lost so much revenue to BT the bosses at Sky have found a way to claw back losses by flogging a saturday night scrap to british football fans.

BT are probably going to emulate the same model now with Frank taking the Yes man role.

Warren doesn't have the boxers to do it, BT don't have the reach, and years of promoting endless boring WBO fights and ending up in court with his best fighters leaving in their droves has ruined Warren.

How do BT "not have the reach"? The sporting tide has turned significantly from a SKY monopoly to BT sneaking the lions share of EPL and bagged the champions leagye too. From what i understand BT also has exculisive coverage of UFC?

I think the UK may well end up with a similar situation they have in the states:

Sky&Matchroom vs BT&Warren
Showtime&GoldenBoy vs HBO&TopRank

Sky show 126 Premier League games - BT 42. There's still a 'second tier' feel to BT; they seem to get quite a few sporting cast offs and boxing is included in that. Warren is the BDO to Hearn's PDC so to speak.

It's a number of things - Sky deciding to push and invest in boxing (and no doubt loving the PPV model) helps a lot.

But the majority of the credit should go to the talent. We've had more world champions and a deeper UK talent pool than ever before.

The London Olympics, Joshua getting (or rather gifted) gold and going on to look very impressive (with some humbleness naturally ), some great British grudge matches....and all the Brit world champs. Success and headlines bring interest. British boxing has had a lot of both.

Hearn has done a decent job no doubt, but without the talent pool and sky investment it would not be possible.

Another factor is that interest in combat sports has risen a lot with MMA and the UFC.... and the charisma of Conor McGregor.

Also the fitness industry is at its most successful ever, and many regimes use some boxing training (pads etc) and this naturally makes people more interested in the sport.

Supremo wrote:Rob McCracken and everyone else involved at Sheffield and the GB squad set up and the parties that have funded it are responsible. They have created most of the talent- Eddie and Sky just manipulate it once they get it.

You can make the best product in the world but if you don't let people know about it properly you get anywhere with it.

Matchroom have used the marketing channels that are popular today and changed boxing with it.

It's now a must attend event to be at rather than just watch live

boxingknockout wrote:It's a number of things - Sky deciding to push and invest in boxing (and no doubt loving the PPV model) helps a lot.

But the majority of the credit should go to the talent. We've had more world champions and a deeper UK talent pool than ever before.

The London Olympics, Joshua getting (or rather gifted) gold and going on to look very impressive (with some humbleness naturally ), some great British grudge matches....and all the Brit world champs. Success and headlines bring interest. British boxing has had a lot of both.

Hearn has done a decent job no doubt, but without the talent pool and sky investment it would not be possible.

Another factor is that interest in combat sports has risen a lot with MMA and the UFC.... and the charisma of Conor McGregor.

Also the fitness industry is at its most successful ever, and many regimes use some boxing training (pads etc) and this naturally makes people more interested in the sport.

Not sure MMA has anything to do with it. An increase in the popularity of MMA increases the popularity of that sport.

I think MMA has hit something of a plateau. There was a lot of talk about how it was overtaking boxing ten years ago, but it's still a million miles behind something like last night.

I think the key to the rise in boxing has been effective promotion. Froch is a perfect example of this. He was always a good fighter for action, but his fights with Taylor and Dirrell were buried away on obscure channels with barely anyone watching. As others have said, good fighters have always been there, but it's what you do with them. Frank would have had Joshua firmly in the WBO camp fighting dross. Even casual fans want to see big fights and aren't as keen on endless mismatches.

dirk2686 wrote:

boxingknockout wrote:It's a number of things - Sky deciding to push and invest in boxing (and no doubt loving the PPV model) helps a lot.

But the majority of the credit should go to the talent. We've had more world champions and a deeper UK talent pool than ever before.

The London Olympics, Joshua getting (or rather gifted) gold and going on to look very impressive (with some humbleness naturally ), some great British grudge matches....and all the Brit world champs. Success and headlines bring interest. British boxing has had a lot of both.

Hearn has done a decent job no doubt, but without the talent pool and sky investment it would not be possible.

Another factor is that interest in combat sports has risen a lot with MMA and the UFC.... and the charisma of Conor McGregor.

Also the fitness industry is at its most successful ever, and many regimes use some boxing training (pads etc) and this naturally makes people more interested in the sport.

Not sure MMA has anything to do with it. An increase in the popularity of MMA increases the popularity of that sport.

I think MMA has hit something of a plateau. There was a lot of talk about how it was overtaking boxing ten years ago, but it's still a million miles behind something like last night.

I think the key to the rise in boxing has been effective promotion. Froch is a perfect example of this. He was always a good fighter for action, but his fights with Taylor and Dirrell were buried away on obscure channels with barely anyone watching. As others have said, good fighters have always been there, but it's what you do with them. Frank would have had Joshua firmly in the WBO camp fighting dross. Even casual fans want to see big fights and aren't as keen on endless mismatches.

Possibly - but remember how people are talking so much about a cross over fight as the biggest fight ever. Floyd-Conor.

On another point there is one essential difference between MMA and boxing - even the total newcomer to boxing can understand boxing to some degree. Punching someone in the face is easy to understand. Some of the less dynamic aspects of MMA (jiu jitsu, groundwork) demands some knowledge
And cannot be described as exciting.

freddydoesdallas wrote:

Supremo wrote:Rob McCracken and everyone else involved at Sheffield and the GB squad set up and the parties that have funded it are responsible. They have created most of the talent- Eddie and Sky just manipulate it once they get it.

You can make the best product in the world but if you don't let people know about it properly you get anywhere with it.

Matchroom have used the marketing channels that are popular today and changed boxing with it.

It's now a must attend event to be at rather than just watch live

Sky deserve more of the praise, than matchroom imo.

Not solely down to them but they deserve a lot of credit

No
Next question

Audley and Khan deserve credit too! Their medals with relatively little funding , led to the investment in amateur boxing that has been correctly highlighted above as a main factor in boxing resurgence ;)

davie wrote:No
Next question

Could you have seen Froch/Groves 2 or Joshua/Klitschko without Sky/Matchrooms recent model over the last 7/8 years or so?

In all fairness it does feel a little like they have lucked out with UK amateur boxing at an all time high allowing them to sign world class amateurs and build them as pros from scratch

Cant help feeling that Wazza would've made a balls up of the oppurtunities Hearn got from Sky, Eddie is a shrewd operator you've got to give him that

handsofstone wrote:

davie wrote:No
Next question

Could you have seen Froch/Groves 2 or Joshua/Klitschko without Sky/Matchrooms recent model over the last 7/8 years or so?

In all fairness it does feel a little like they have lucked out with UK amateur boxing at an all time high allowing them to sign world class amateurs and build them as pros from scratch

Cant help feeling that Wazza would've made a balls up of the oppurtunities Hearn got from Sky, Eddie is a shrewd operator you've got to give him that

This only really seems to be the case with Joshua. The second biggest name Hearn has promoted was Froch who went to him towards the end of his career. As for the others, DeGale, Bellew, Cleverly and Brook all went pro with Warren, whilst Khan and Haye have never signed with Matchroom. Warren definitely had the names to be able to do what Hearn has done; they just left him.

To be fair to Fwank, he tried kicking on after Beijing but it all went a bit wrong. DeGale was coming along brilliantly until he met Groves, Smith was apparently a future p4p'er until Simpson and Frankie Gavin just never took it seriously. Even BJS has been hard work and Brad Suanders injuries prevented him achieving what he could (although he's doing very well away from the ring).

handsofstone wrote:

davie wrote:No
Next question

Could you have seen Froch/Groves 2 or Joshua/Klitschko without Sky/Matchrooms recent model over the last 7/8 years or so?

In all fairness it does feel a little like they have lucked out with UK amateur boxing at an all time high allowing them to sign world class amateurs and build them as pros from scratch

Cant help feeling that Wazza would've made a balls up of the oppurtunities Hearn got from Sky, Eddie is a shrewd operator you've got to give him that

"Are Sky and Eddie solely responsible for Boxing's resurgence??"

The answer to that question is a resounding NO. Not even nearly

In fact, Sky and Hearn have done things to promote the sport and they have also done things to hurt it, they cannot be held solely responsible, not even fvcking nearly. Have they been the single biggest influence? That would be another question and the answers would be interesting and varied

The resurgence would not happen without the talent coming through, the fighters themselves, the trainers, the fans, the managers, the amateur scene, other promoter, there are various other factors tied to the success of British boxing over the last 10 years.

Only Eddie Hearn and Adam Smith would answer yes to the above question