hatton vs ndou nov 13th

My thoughts aswell.

 

Ricky might have insisted that his brother got a slot.

Sky seem to have their business model all wrong - they suck up to promoters, when surely they ought to have their out to stop bull****/nobody cares fights taking up TV time - when we could be watching British and European title action, and some young prospects on the undercard.

 

That would make too much sense though.:deal

And think of all the lardy boy footie fans, they don't wanna see young prospects fighting or highly skilled battles involving guys in the lower weight divisions; they wanna see someone called "Hatton" fighting or else fat unskilled HW ****s knocking the pan out of each other.

 

I'm guessing that Sky won't push the belt much. For all the knocks people have for Matthew Hatton, Sky would be silly not to use him and this is obviously a legitimte test. Would also guess that if Hatton wins that Sky will push him away from the IBO title to a legitimate belt.

I may be giving Sky too much credit but they have stuck strongly to their no meaningless belts policy so will give them the benefit of doubt

 

Think that's a naive view. We know full well that ricky will talk this up as a legit world title in all buildups so when they agreed to having it top of bill it's pretty impossible to not buy into the bull**** that goes with it. Just as warren had sky over a barrel back in the day hatton has now until the day that he retires because he is the one boxer they really care about losing.

 

This is the thing I don't understand - nobody gives a **** about Matthew Hatton being on TV, because he sucks. Every fight he has had has been boring, the only half decent live opponent he has ever faced whooped him.

Is it really right that he routinely gets what for most fighters would be a career high payday just because his name is Hatton?

Don't give me the 'thats how it works sometimes' BS - because Sky could put a stop to it.

Setanta have gone, ITV are going and the beeb aren't really interested, so they hold ALL the cards.

That's why Setanta was so great - they didn't only show good fighters, they should good FIGHTS.

 

The undercard should be good though, probably better fights than the top of the bill one at least.

 

Its probably just Sky keeping Ricky Hatton and Hatton Promotions sweet.

Its not a great fight and 'world title' is complete BS but its not THAT bad a fight if you strip everything else way from it. Certainly as good as most of the Sky Friday Night shows we got given last year.

 

The problem is the precedent it sets. What next? Macklin fighting for then ibo title (rather than proper fight with barker)? A shot brodie even? A fair few ibo titles are vacant. Ricky could fill them with vacant title fights involving his fighters justifying tv dates.

 

I don't think Sky should think about keeping Hatton sweet - though I get your point.

Who the **** is Ricky Hatton, after all?

The dog should wag the tail!

 

I didn't comment on the whether it was right or not.....

Hatton is an up and coming promotor and a (maybe) still active popular boxer perhaps Sky think it wouldn't hurt future negotations to 'help him out' in this instance??

The same as HayeMaker Promotions getting a deal with Setanta was probably connected to David Hayes personal deal with the channel as fighter.

 

Sky have a 'no bogus title fights' policy?

When did that start?

 

If it is anything like the one that HBO had its not that they won't show the fights, just that they won't mention that the bogus title is as stake.

 

It has been there for a couple of years.

 

BTW did Sky show Hatton-Pac?