New age promoting

Superficial unless he's doing something with it, and he really isn't. Social media, Twitter in particular, ha created this passive activism where retweeting or hash tagging stands in for actually doing something.

It would be if that's what he was doing, but it just looks like business as usual. Fights locked away on a pay platform, with no real extension of that. Is Hearn making his fights available on You Tube like Frank has in the past?

That was a genuine change, but I've not seen anyone taking advantage of it.

Now you're stretching, and I'd definitely dispute that Hearn's cards are "stacked". That seems to be received wisdom.

He's doing an ok job, but this "revolutionary" approach so many speak of just doesn't exist. I won't praise someone simply on what they "might" do.

 

In the US the promoters don't overpay the fighters, the networks do. People like Andre Berto are earning $1m a fight but DiBella isn't paying him that, Al Haymon isn't paying that money, HBO is.

I don't follow MMA/UFC but I have seen articles online with fighters complaining they don't get paid enough of the PPV money that they help generate. Without the fighters you don't have a business. Even if the top guys are earning a share of the PPV can someone in the UFC earn Pacquiao/Mayweather type money? I seriously doubt it, even if they were as popular and successful as Pac or Mayweather.

Plus let's not forget the number of UFC fighters have under contract (Wiki says it's 358). This shows a sport with an extremely limited talent pool and anyone outside of this 358 either does business on the UFC's terms or is effectively frozen out of the sport. So any new signings have minimal bargaining power.

Where I do agree boxing promoters mess up is massively overpaying successful amateurs. That's where Frank messed up in 2008 and many US promoters have made teh same mistake. I'd say these guys do deserve more than other novice pros, especially as Olympic medalists tend to have a higher public profile and are already relatively well-known but that doesn't mean you promise them crazy purses for 4 and 6 rounders. A balance needs to be found.

Imagine if we had the UFC model in boxing. A highly successful amateur who's a mainstream star wishes to turn pro but the promoter who holds the TV dates is only willing to pay him peanuts. What happens then?


And another thing, the UFC benefited from MMA being a relatively new sport. Before the sport really took off they took control of the whole thing in the US and minds of many MMA = UFC and nothing else. Boxing's being around way too long for this to happen. People may talk about the benefits of having everything under one promoter but I remember in MMA a few years back where Fedor was seen as the top guy but they couldn't make the fight between him and whoever the UFC HW champ was at the time.

 

Hope Rees goes over there and wins,but I doubt it,as Broner a very classy fighter.At least,then,I hope the lad gives a good account and is paid well.
Were there any offers of refunds when Lee Purdy pulled out?Just asking because for me it was potentially the best fight on the bill,and only saved slightly by the Irish lad stepping in,bravely,at the eleventh hour.Not knocking what Marlow says or Hearns promoting,but think its a bit early to talk about New Age.Give it another,many a slip?

 

Barker got something like £260,000 for the Martinez fight which is a good payday
and would have got him through the hard time he had with injuries. Hopefully Rees
is getting something similar as he's not going to win.

 

Yeah 80 people asked for refund, TBH i was at that card and for £40 it was worth it. Fights without long breaks between them, some competitive bouts and some talent. Nice production and lighting, atmosphere was ok could of been better but it was decent.

I think there was like 8 or 9 fights in end, Dean Bryne and Hari Miles as late subs put on marvelous displays. Tough show but to Eddie's credit he pulled it out bag to make a very decent show.

Out of 10 for entertainment i'd of said 7.5

 

Agree 100%, but it's not just boxnation. Sky are a little bit better than boxnation, but still miles behind the Americans. The presentation of boxnation is a complete joke. Everything from the presenters to the colour of the ring to the music makes the whole thing look tacky and cheap.

This content is protected

The lighting here is depressing, the dark blue ring makes it look even more gloomy, and look how tacky the advertisments look. It's not just the smaller fights either. The atmosphere for the David Haye vs Derek Chisora fight was also cheap and tacky. Even the documentary to hype the fight couldn't compete with the artistic skills of 24/7, which can be stale but still sexy.


Compare that with this. Look how the lighting and the colours make the atmosphere vibrant, like a really exciting, classy event., where you could order a scotch and they'd make it just right. The Germans also put on a spectacular show.

This content is protected

Presenters? Steve Bunce has no charisma and cannot tell a story like Al Bernstein or Jim Lampley or Teddy Atlas. He doesn't have the charisma to make it interesting. I was watching boxnation and they were talking about the Moorer/Foreman fight. It was completely dull compared to HBO's legendary nights where they knew how to tell the story and make it sound badass. You need the right voice for these kind of things. Somebody who sounds like David Attenborough to tell the story.

Commentary? Jim Watt really makes the viewers feel like they're watching a funeral rather than a fight. Sky's presentation of the cricket is superb. Ex players in the commentary box who are passionate and comfortable in front of the camera with a mic. Great insight, slick and professional. A shitload of analysis also. This is what boxing needs.

 

I agree with a lot of what you say here, but had a few thoughts on it.

I think it's just down to budget. HBO splashes a lot of money on those shows and the team involved are some of the best in the business, having worked on The Sopranos, The Wire, Deadwood, etc. Sky, bless them, don't have that sort of experience on-board. It only started producing dramas in the last five-six years.

BoxNation is never going to get near that, I'm afraid.

I'm glad there's not a UK equivalent of Legendary Nights, it's responsible for some of the most biased representations of those fights I've ever seen. Great entertainment, but not especially accurate.

But I agree otherwise, they do need to inject less of the footballisms in the presentation and give it a little more life. I mean, it's a contact sport - it should be easy to make it dynamic and exciting!

The pundits are frequently the worst thing on Sky's boxing coverage. There are very few charismatic guys out there who are also articulate. Boxers, unlike cricket players, don't tend to come from backgrounds where public speaking is built in to their personas.

Who would you pick? McGuigan is easily the best of the bunch, for me at least.

Sky is pretty rotten with its teams - I find them grating.

 

I`m fairly pro Hearn but the term `new age` promoting makes him sound weird

 

True, neither Sky nor boxnation are gonna be as sexy as HBO, but they could still change certain things, even with a limited budget. I mean the really fine details which most people don't consider that important, but it can really make a difference to the atmosphere and the packaging of the event. The music choice for 24/7 for example is spot on, can't fault it. The Germans had Christina Perri perform before the Klitschko/Chisora fight. Not my favourite singer, but it gives the event a classy feel, as opposed to Dappy from N Dubz. Any old singer picked up from some karaoke bar would be a better association for boxing than Dappy.

I do like McGuigan, but I agree there's not a lot of folks out there. I think Paul Dempsey is great and has a lot of enthusiasm. The presenter makes a massive difference and even with great pundits you do need a top class presenter to bring it all together. Johnny Nelson is an awful presenter of ringside, and most of the pundits they have on Sky provide no great insight or anything. Piper and McRory say nothing interesting and are boring. Colin Hart is not everyone's cup of tea but at least he's enthusiastic and isn't afraid to have an opinion. I think Chris Eubank also has a lot of interesting things to say and he speaks well.

 

Gonna bulk respond to allot of the posts in this thread from the last day.

I agree a monopoly is a bad thing, but I do think a smaller pool of major TV promoters would be good for all levels of the sport. We see it in the US, Goldenboy & Toprank dominate, and fighters for DiBella, Goosen etc will regularly fight on Goldenboy & Toprank shows. The only issue is those 2 refusing to work together.

I do think that's the route that Sky & Matchroom are trying to take Boxing in the UK. By being the only player, they have a higher degree of control over the talent pool and can make the fights that Sky and the Viewer want to see. You are right, there not quite there yet but I can see thats where there going which is why I back them.

Hearn said in his ifilm interview that he wants to increase his stable and increase the number of shows he does on Sky Sports over the next few years. If we were in a postion where there were 30 cards a year on regular Sky Sports and say 6 PPV shows so we can get the mega fights thats a great position to be in, and I don't think thats unrealistic.

If you were to have Hearn on Sky producing 35+ shows per year, and Hennesey on Channel 5 doing a show each month, thats a great position for the Sport to be in.

Like you DF is disagree with this New Age promoting stuff. Hearn is simply doing what other promoters should have been doing in the first place. Nothing that he does is spectacular, it's just everybody else is so **** at matchmaking, marketing and production that Hearn gets the praise heaped on him.

I personally back Matchroom based on what he might do because I believe them as a company. There track record in other sports is impressive. I understand your pessimism, but you cant deny there have been significant strides forward in the last year. The undercards are stronger, the matchmaking is more competitive, the production is better, the marketing has increased.

I wouldn't even call someone like DiBella a promoter. Same goes to Goldenboy and the rest to be honest. There just TV bookers and Event fillers for Casinos. The only true promoter in the US is Top Rank. They out on fights around the country, selling out major venues and stadiums, if they can't get a date with HBO/Showtime, they put on a small scale PPV or sell the fight to the local TV stations.

I find it interesting that we spend all our time on hear moaning about the fighters asking for to much money and fights not getting made due to unrealistic expectations, but when the possibility of fighters purses being reduced is mentioned everybody deems it unfair and thinks there being exploited.

UFC has had examples where people got payed over the odds. Brock Lesner was number 8 in the list of all time purses with $2,825,000, but he has only has 7 fights in the UFC. The purses he received and opportunities he was given were down to his achievements in another field of entertainment, not his actual in ring ability. It made the sport look pathetic when he became World Heavyweight Champion after 4 fights, one of which was a loss. Other examples would be James Toney who made $500,000 for 1 minute stint in the UFC, and Kimbo Slice also got paid over the odds for not MMA reasons. I also believe you do have guys coming over from amateur wrestling, and those with Gold Medals do receive a better starting point.

Of course it's down to budget, but HBO must see a return on investment, much like the UFC have, otherwise they wouldn't be putting on shows. I am sure that Sky will eventually see the same results.

I don't think we are the people to really have an opinion on Boxing pundits in all honesty. Your opinion on the pundits and the boxing documentaries is a prime example why. You will never be happy with them because were boxing geeks, we think we know it all.

The job of the Boxing pundit is simple.

1) Analyse the potential outcome while making the viewer excited about the fight.
2) Analyse the events as they unfold, while making the viewer excited.
3) Analyse the events that took place, while making the viewer excited about the future.

I think the Sky guys do need to go and do a bit of TV training. I know they do it with allot of the football pundits, and certainly anybody on the US TV channel working as a pundit will go through significant TV training before they go on air. Adam Smith should not be anywhere near Camera, same as Bob Mee. I am a firm believer that if you on a boxing show, you need to look like you can handle yourself. I cringe every time I see Adam Smith in his corduroy trousers and loafers on ringside. People must think its a gardening show when they turn on and see him and Bob Mee.

I have seen it mentioned a few times that Promoters are losing money from Boxing. I think this is one of the biggest myths thats put out there. I have heard W*rren claim that he lost money on the Calzaghe vs Kessler fight, but I guarantee he is not including the 30% he personally received of Joe's $3million purse as his manager. If these promoters were really losing money on every show, they wouldn't be putting on shows.

 

Agree with most of that, Rob.

Looking at Sky's history, it's always been a content licensor, not a creator. That's changed a little recently, but the guys on the sports teams are sports programmers and that's the sort of approach they always take.

Until they get more depth in the broadcast team, that won't change massively, money won't really make a difference - I'm simply responding to Ero's post on that point. But if it drives viewers and subs, then the network will do more of it.

I think we can, Rob. It's not just that fans know more, it's that Sky's team regularly talk nonsense and, more often than not, seem ill-informed about fairly high-profile fighters.

I don't hate Sky's commentary as much as some, but it does need some new voices (and that's one thing I think BN have done really well, actually - Enzo and Smith are really good). Younger ones too.

I also think the Sky team are awful at what you've said are their goals.

I think it's low margin right now, certainly for the Hearns and Franks of the world. But I agree they're exaggerating. It's very similar to local music venues. They use that trope as a way to rip the performers off: "Well, money is tight, so if you do it for free, I'll give you a cut of the bar!" Then claim they didn't make any profit after expenses were covered.

 

I think in general its posative process under Hearn so far. and thats why I am like.

The biggest issue for boxing always is and always will be multiple world titles. You can produce the ****, analyse the **** out of stuff but until there 1 world champion in each division, the sport will always be ****ed!

 

I agreed with all of that, mate :good

You're definitely right about the commentary/pundit teams too. I said on here a while ago that there are quite a few ESB members who are more informative than the 'experts' on Sky. The only one who I think has a good depth knowledge is Bob Mee but he doesn't come across well plus you get the sense that he's working within Sky's restrictions. Jamie Moore is a really likable lad too and I'd be happy to see him given more appearances but guys like Nelson, McCrory, McGuigan, Smith, Watt etc., just toe the line every single appearance. They have their clichés and repeat that nonsense in every single fight. They aren't entertaining and they aren't informative either.

I don't know how much of a say Matchroom have at Sky but Eddie Hearn really should try and get a new presentation team in. Bring in some enthusiastic, likable commentators who know a few things about the sport. They need to freshen it up badly because no matter how good the fights are and how well presented it is, with lighting, music etc., if you have Jim Watt and Adam Smith commentating, it's still going to be cliché filled, utterly dull and lifeless shite.

On the darts yesterday, you had fans singing songs about a commentator because they liked and were entertained by him. I can't imagine anyone at Sky is well liked and if they all retired next week, I doubt you'd read many comments like "Oh, I'm really going to miss Watt" or "It's a shame Adam Smith will no longer be there". They're a turn off. The Worlds Strongest Man final was on last night and it was presented by James Richardson, who used to do Serie A in the 90s. How many people fondly remember watching him read the papers in an Italian cafe? It worked because he was likable and knowledge, a balance Sky don't seem capable of finding.

The presentation on Sky is very poor. I'd like to see a complete overhaul. Bring in someone from abroad, who is familiar with foreign fights and doesn't embarrass himself with their ignorance. Add a couple of entertaining, likable commentators and a few new pundits who know their sport but aren't awkward in front of a camera. That really shouldn't be too hard, I don't think, and it'd make a huge improvement to the coverage at Sky.

Compare boxing to the UFC again or even some of the other organizations. They have young, excitable commentators who are educated about their sport, know all the different chokes and things like that. They're passionate about the company and want to see it thrive. That simply isn't the case when you watch boxing on Sky, so it needs to change.

 

Yep. You know Adam Smith doesn't have a clue when he has the choice of 50+ US Boxing journolists and he picks Dan Rafael, a fat ginger guy. Steve Kim would have been a far far better choice.