Eddie Hearn - Total And Utter Hypocrite

Turn's out Eddie's been telling porkies.

PPV was only to be for very special occasions and Eddie would not be flooding us with Sky Box Office. Well look at us now a few months on from the Froch v Kessler fight and Eddie has hit the fans with two more PPV's. The second which adds insult to injury as it's Froch v Groves which is in no way a special fight. It's a stay busy, coin as much as you can, walk over fight for Froch.

Here's what Hypocrite Hearn has to say at the time of the Kessler fight:


“That’s important, [Haye’s first fight with Matchroom to be on Sky Sports] especially with our mission because fan perception of what we’re doing is important, we don’t want them to think: ‘Oh, Froch-Kessler’s pay-per-view so that’s how it is going to go now,’ — it isn’t,” answered Hearn when asked if putting Haye on Sky Sports was an indication that the powers-that-be won’t milk the PPV teat dry.

“Froch and Kessler is a freak fight that comes around once in many years, especially in the U.K., so when we signed David's people came out and said it would be another pay-per-view, but it isn’t — what I’m saying is that pay-per-view should be for something very, very special. Haye on normal Sky Sports will do massive numbers, and that’s paramount to what I’m trying to do on Sky.”


I know most of you guys won't care and will just pay the £15 quid but believe me when I say Hearn will suck boxing dry and when it no longer has any juice left he'll kick it to the kerb.

Hearn not following through on his words is becoming a habit.

You forgot to declare your interest.......what with you being a big fan until Frampton went to Boxnation....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You forgot to declare your interest.......what with you being a big fan until Frampton went to Boxnation....

Not a fan of Murdock or spoofers.


PS I wasn't referring to you when I wrote spoofers.

We are all hypocrites.......Take you.........

Louis is top 6.........But mayweather never beat an ATG so he isn't............

Louis is top 6........But mayweather isn't because he never had a defining fight...

Louis is level with Ali at 6............and Ali had at least four defining fights !!

See what I mean.........we are all hypocrites Mate......

The sexual tension between you two is all consuming.

A boxing promoter who does not always do exactly what he says he is going to do!!!

Honestly my faith in human nature and the inherent honesty that is such an integral part of why I love boxing has been shaken to its very foundation by this.

This is a world title fight so surely PPV no?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:We are all hypocrites.......Take you.........

Louis is top 6.........But mayweather never beat an ATG so he isn't............

Louis is top 6........But mayweather isn't because he never had a defining fight...

Louis is level with Ali at 6............and Ali had at least four defining fights !!

See what I mean.........we are all hypocrites Mate......

Only one of them had 25 title defences. Took on every available challenger and knocked out 21 of the 25 title challengers. A long continuos reign that didn't involve fighting once a year.

Do you want me to start posting the historians lists that have Louis right up there. Remember we've done this before.

Rowley wrote:A boxing promoter who does not always do exactly what he says he is going to do!!!

Honestly my faith in human nature and the inherent honesty that is such an integral part of why I love boxing has been shaken to its very foundation by this.

Probably not by you but there has been a nauseating level of pro Eddie sentiment and that Eddie is just a fan like the rest of us. He will be more hated than Warren by the time he finishes.

To be quite frank, I'm sick of hearing people moan about this! Yes it's frustrating that many of the so called 'big fights' are on PPV, but lets just take a look at some things:

Whilst many people argue that given people pay a subscription to SKY for the Sports channel we should get all boxing on the regular channels...they fail to realise that the fee which is paid for those channels is vastly geared towards the cost of getting Football (Spanish Football, English, Champions League), American Sports (NBA,NFL,PGA,US Open). Boxing is an afterthought for skysports and whilst they provide the platform for Hearn to show his cards they set aside set dates and have stated in the past that they will only allow a set number of cards per year. Anything outside of these have to be put on another channel.

Their is a failure to realise that the blame cannot purely be put at the door of Eddie Hearn. Just like his fighters are contracted to him...he is contracted to SKY. Thereby if they decide they wish to use a PPV platform for set fights then he has little say in the matter.

Then we take a look at the sheer finances of putting on cards. Now Eddie may very well be a greedy guy...but there are plenty of other fingers in the pie. SKY will take there cut from him for providing the viewing platform...Governing bodies take a cut for sanctioning the fights...The Arena/Stadium take a slice of profits for hosting the event...then there are the fighters themselves.

For example: David Haye v Tyson Fury ...each fighter is set too earn £5million a piece. That's £10 million just for those two. When you add on the undercard fighters fee's, sanctioning fee's, broadcasting costs, costs of officials, security, vendors, alcohol licences, stadium/arena hire you are talking about an absolutely massive fee to put on such a fight.

I would hedge my bets that the takings from the gate alone would not be enough to cover all of these costs...so just where else to people expect Hearn to get the money from?

I get just as frustrated as the next guy having to fork out £45 in the space of a few months for boxing, on top of my monthly sky subscription....but if doing it gives us the big fights that we crave then surely it is a good thing.

We as fans can not have it both ways, especially in the current sports climate where Sportsmen are paid such vast fees. These have to be gathered from somewhere...if PPV didn't exist then the likes of De La Hoya v Floyd, Floyd v Alvarez, Manny v Pacman, Tyson v Lewis, Froch v Kessler etc would not happen...then you'd be moaning about that.

I guarantee right now that both Froch v Groves & Haye v Fury will have much better, bigger depth and more exciting undercards than Floyd v Canelo....and at £15 in comparison to $79 I'd argue we have very little to moan about!

Strongback wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:We are all hypocrites.......Take you.........

Louis is top 6.........But mayweather never beat an ATG so he isn't............

Louis is top 6........But mayweather isn't because he never had a defining fight...

Louis is level with Ali at 6............and Ali had at least four defining fights !!

See what I mean.........we are all hypocrites Mate......

Only one of them had 25 title defences. Took on every available challenger and knocked out 21 of the 25 title challengers.  A long continuos reign that didn't involve fighting once a year.

Do you want me to start posting the historians lists that have Louis right up there.  Remember we've done this before.

Why isn't Calzaghe in your top 10 ??..........He fought better fighters than Louis.....

and that isn't the argument you made............It's above..

Some historian lists have Dempsey at 1 at heavy ..

Or do you forget you're the only one on here who has Louis over Mayweather.......for nonsensical reasons

But we're not just paying 15 pound are we Ozzy ? It isn't a PPV event, you're either deluded or a Hearn relative if you think the card is gonna be better on paper than last weekends. The best P4P fighter in the world, the two best light welters facing one another and a alphabet world title fight in another matchup. Certainly more appealing than Crollas of the world.

I understand PPV is a necessity to generate super fights to happen, this isn't one of them, never took to Hearn never believed he has a genuine passion as a fan as he says. Soon as the revenue drops he'll not watch another fight.

Cheers Rodders

The PPV issue is tricky though. Obviously all concerned as fans would prefer not to have to pay for fights, but Sky will have a say in this, Froch having earned well through the Super Six will demand a decent purse for his services. Personally having attended a few late starts I would probably prefer PPV to a fight starting at 2am to accommodate US TV. However can see your concerns over the Groves fight because with Kessler it was always going to be a cracker and an even match up and Kessler would have demanded a chunk to come to the UK. However cannot think Groves is on anywhere near that money.

However personally am prepared to reserve judgement, Hearn still has enough in the ledger to get a bit of leeway to see how this one plays out. Tend to find these things work themselves out through supply and demand. I know from living in Sheffield that tickets for the Brook fight seem to be moving fairly slow based on how much they are promoting it round here and speaking to fans round here. Would appear there are only so many times you can match a guy with ticking over opponents, suspect Hearn will find there are only so many times you can foist PPV’s on people before they rebel.

Roddy...I did a thread a few months ago (If someone wants to dig it up be my guest) saying If you let Hearn get away with good numbers for kessler-Froch........It would be the start of things to come...and I advocated not buying..

Members poo pooed it....but I was on the money.......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:We are all hypocrites.......Take you.........

Louis is top 6.........But mayweather never beat an ATG so he isn't............

Louis is top 6........But mayweather isn't because he never had a defining fight...

Louis is level with Ali at 6............and Ali had at least four defining fights !!

See what I mean.........we are all hypocrites Mate......

Only one of them had 25 title defences. Took on every available challenger and knocked out 21 of the 25 title challengers.  A long continuos reign that didn't involve fighting once a year.

Do you want me to start posting the historians lists that have Louis right up there.  Remember we've done this before.

Why isn't Calzaghe in your top 10 ??..........He fought better fighters than Louis.....

and that isn't the argument you made............It's above..

Did he knock out any guys 6 inches taller than him and 50lbs heavier that was a former world champ while still in his first year as a pro. No he did't or do anything that comes close. Calzaghe protected his '0', Louis fought everybody.

Haye v Valuev anybody.........

Let's leave it.........I find you clueless........But you do try in fairness.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:We are all hypocrites.......Take you.........

Louis is top 6.........But mayweather never beat an ATG so he isn't............

Louis is top 6........But mayweather isn't because he never had a defining fight...

Louis is level with Ali at 6............and Ali had at least four defining fights !!

See what I mean.........we are all hypocrites Mate......

Only one of them had 25 title defences. Took on every available challenger and knocked out 21 of the 25 title challengers.  A long continuos reign that didn't involve fighting once a year.

Do you want me to start posting the historians lists that have Louis right up there.  Remember we've done this before.

Why isn't Calzaghe in your top 10 ??..........He fought better fighters than Louis.....

and that isn't the argument you made............It's above..

Didn't realise Louis defended the WBO title...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Some historian lists have Dempsey at 1 at heavy ..

Or do you forget you're the only one on here who has Louis over Mayweather.......for nonsensical reasons

I did a Floyd v Louis thread on the dark side last week and was laughed out of it for having the cheek to mention Mayweather's name in the same breath as the absolute ATG legend Joe Louis. Different strokes I suppose.


The Ring List

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Joe Louis
5. Roberto Duran
6. Willie Pep
7. Harry Greb
8. Benny Leonard
9. Sugar Ray Leonard
10. Pernell Whitaker

That's it now. I'm never going to believe a word a boxing promoter says ever again.

Eddie Hearn is ruining the once fine reputation of this honourable profession.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Haye v Valuev anybody.........

Let's leave it.........I find you clueless........But you do try in fairness.

Did you miss the bit 'knocked him out'. Haye flounced around like a fairy throwing two punches per round. Louis detonated bombs. The greatest puncher of all time.

What the hell to the ring know Strongy. Truss and mobile say Floyd is the best so he must be.

Any chance we can avoid turning this into a thread about where Mayweather deserves to be ranked?

Have not investigated this myself as of yet but suspect there is the odd thread at the minute covering the subject on the board.

STC wrote:That's it now. I'm never going to believe a word a boxing promoter says ever again.

Eddie Hearn is ruining the once fine reputation of this honourable profession.

This is Fast Car were talkin' bout man.

He's one of us.

Rowley wrote:Any chance we can avoid turning this into a thread about where Mayweather deserves to be ranked?

Have not investigated this myself as of yet but suspect there is the odd thread at the minute covering the subject on the board.

Just a derailment tactic by Truss. He's probable cooking a big article at the minute and wants anything else new sidelined before he unveils it.

Rodney wrote:But we're not just paying 15 pound are we Ozzy ? It isn't a PPV event, you're either deluded or a Hearn relative if you think the card is gonna be better on paper than last weekends. The best P4P fighter in the world, the two best light welters facing one another and a alphabet world title fight in another matchup. Certainly more appealing than Crollas of the world.

I understand PPV is a necessity to generate super fights to happen, this isn't one of them, never took to Hearn never believed he has a genuine passion as a fan as he says. Soon as the revenue drops he'll not watch another fight.

Cheers Rodders

Where did I say it was a PPV worthy event? My point wasn't whether it was or wasn't...it's simply that in this current climate, for such fights to happen we have to pay out £15 ...that is sadly a reflection of the times. I also didn't say it would be better on paper....I was stating that on the face of it £15 is not that much to watch Groves/Froch and what will be an a decent undercard...Crollas of the world may not be the finest...yet give me any of his contests over Molina/Smith...American's paid $79 for last weekends action..which whilst containing 4 of the best fighters in the world had absolutely no depth to it!

Haye v Fury is being absolutely slammed for PPV - Yet I bet very few have bothered looking to see what that contains: Well here it is:

David Haye v Tyson Fury (12 rounds heavyweight) will be live from the Phones 4U Arena, Manchester, plus a full undercard including Scott Quigg v Yoandris Salinas (Vacant WBA World super-bantamweight title) and Andy Lee v Domenico Spard (WBC Silver middleweight title). It will be followed live from The Bell Center, Montreal, Candada, featuring Adonis Stevenson v Tavoris Cloud (WBC light-heavyweight title), plus full undercard (Pascal & rising prospect Eleider Alvarez)

Add a few of Hearns young prospects to that card and for £15 how can people possibly moan!

Strongback wrote:

Rowley wrote:Any chance we can avoid turning this into a thread about where Mayweather deserves to be ranked?

Have not investigated this myself as of yet but suspect there is the odd thread at the minute covering the subject on the board.

Just a derailment tactic by Truss.  He's probable cooking a big article at the minute and wants anything else new sidelined before he unveils it.

Maybe a 15 point analysis of Haye vs Fury?

Ozzy you underestimate people.

There is still the point that Hearn sold Matchroom on the bias that they wouldn't be doing PPV too often, only for special occasions.

I have a feeing they will kill off the golden goose and positive sentiment arising from Froch v Kessler as the the two upcoming PPV's are dud fights.

Again that Haye bill isn't a PPV stature, you're easily pleased.

Hearn called Warren for stacking cards, now he is doing the same to generate PPV all of a sudden.

Cheers Rodders

For £15 you get a mismatch of a main event. Quigg for a token title and a journeyman in Andy Lee against a Euro level at best opponent in Spada. The card from Montral is nothing better than what Boxnation has most weeks for only £10.

PPV doesn't work in every country so comparing it to the US prices isn't fair because it's a different marketplace. It is outdated in the UK we have a dedicated boxing channel for £10 a month something that most other countries don't have.

There’s nothing wrong with PPV, it’s a world title fight between two British super middleweight’s, so why not?

PPV has been around in one guise or another longer than you realise. For Bruno v Tyson 1 I had to pay to watch it at the London Palladium, I think it was about £10. Lots of big fights were shown in cinemas and the like before SKY came along.

The only thing that really does bug me, is paying £15 and then having to watch commercial breaks in between rounds. They don’t stick commercials in PPV movies so what gives them the right to do it during a fight. Hats off to Boxnation as they don’t seem to do it.

RatBoy66 wrote:There’s nothing wrong with PPV, it’s a world title fight between two British super middleweight’s, so why not?

PPV has been around in one guise or another longer than you realise. For Bruno v Tyson 1 I had to pay to watch it at the London Palladium, I think it was about £10. Lots of big fights were shown in cinemas and the like before SKY came along.

The only thing that really does bug me, is paying £15 and then having to watch commercial breaks in between rounds. They don’t stick commercials in PPV movies so what gives them the right to do it during a fight. Hats off to Boxnation as they don’t seem to do it.

Was tyson v Bruno 1 not on TV? I'm pretty sure I watched that live on the BBC.

Sky seem to following the same trait they did when Warren was their main front runner. PPV events for any main bodied bill, Warren had a PPV event for Enzo, Cleverley, Brook and Degale I mean all ok fights but never a PPv event. These fights should part of your subscription, you're paying a dedicated sports channel. PPV event in the UK should only be for super matchs, The best Brit facing the best opposition , you could spin Ward v Froch as PPV, but to have Groves is sheer greed by sky and Hearn, taking the mick out of us fight fans again.

Cheers Rodders

Its a bit of a rip off pay per view card. But if Froch is now pay per view then Hearn has to do right by him. Don't buy it and the next Froch fight wont be ppv, if it sells then that's it, Froch is ppv from now on

Warren stacked cards but only had an event once every few months...and often his cards would chop and change all the way up due to void contracts, injuries etc.

Hearn is putting on decent domestic cards and the like almost every month at the moment. It is not a case of being easily pleased, more a case of I don't mind paying the £15 if it means I get to see some decent fights. The Haye v Fury event will see around 10 fights take place...including two big british heavyweights, plenty of british rising prospects, one of the biggest punchers in the world in a genuine light heavyweight tussle. I'm sorry but what more do you want?

I would argue that you are the deluded if you think you will get all of that on free to air tv in this day and age!

Boxnation may very well get good international cards on its channel and for that I praise it...but is it enough for £10 a month? Lets face facts given the small stable Warren possess he will always have a few quiet months during the year when there are no good fights abroad..then your paying £10 for nothing (if you want to watch repeats or classic fights go to youtube).

He also doesn't give young British talent the platform to showcase themselves in the manner which Eddie does. In fact I would much rather part with my £15 quid knowing that the likes of Yafai, Smith, Ryder, Groves, Brook, Joshua, Campbell etc etc will get a chance to grow and progress!

I would also point you to the fact that the more money Hearn brings into Sky through boxing the more coverage and dates SKY will give him. Case in point the success from Froch v Kessler PPV has allowed Hearn to bid and get coverage of International fights...something which Sky had stopped doing:

Just this fall he has managed to get extra dates/time slots to showcase:

Stevenson v Cloud
Cotto v Rodriguez
Bradley v Marquez & Cruz vs Salido
Alvarado vs Provodnikov

4 of those 5 will be on regular Skysports! Without the PPV income there is no way he would be getting any of those.

Think there is a bit of dewy eyed nostalgia that goes on about when boxing was on terrestrial TV. Accepted some of the bigger fights such as Benn and Eubank were shown live which was obviously great but even in these shows you rarely if ever got to see any of the undercard and go back a few years prior to that and it was not uncommon for the weekends fights to be stuck on Grandstand or midweek sports shows so your chances of avoiding the result were pretty much nonexistent. Also many a fight was simply not shown. May be wrong on this but am sure I read somewhere that Watt Buchanan was not shown at the time, as I say may be wrong on this but if it is true is pretty shameful.

Am by no means arguing Sky are perfect but do think the nostalgia that often is spouted about terrestrial TV does not really chime with those of us old enough to have watched it at the time.

You may want to review Boxnations schedule over the past 18months to sky it's a no brainier , most of Hearns young kids at this stage are all mismatches who particularly cares ?

If Sky can't pay for the fights scheduled without PPV then they really are a rip off to fight fans, so boxing fans have to effectively pay twice to watch the sport they love.

Don't talk nonsense

Cheers Rodders

Its about what promoters can get away with. If people will pay then they will charge. Froch v Groves and Haye v Fury are decent fights but not ppv worthy by any stretch. Neither of these fights is even as good as Garcia v Matthysse which was on Mayweathers undercard.

Hearn is exploiting the fans but thats what his trade is all about. Hes manufactured Froch v Groves as a ppv event. Its a fight between a champion and his mandatory. It didnt need ppv to come off. Hearn just saw there was an opportunity there. Groves isnt even ready for the fight but is being rushed along to make sure Hearn can stage a ppv event. Realistically hes going to try and have all of Frochs fights as ppv affairs. If people will pay, then theres nothing stopping him. Hearns job is just to figure out how far he can stretch things.

Strongback wrote:

RatBoy66 wrote:There’s nothing wrong with PPV, it’s a world title fight between two British super middleweight’s, so why not?

PPV has been around in one guise or another longer than you realise. For Bruno v Tyson 1 I had to pay to watch it at the London Palladium, I think it was about £10. Lots of big fights were shown in cinemas and the like before SKY came along.

The only thing that really does bug me, is paying £15 and then having to watch commercial breaks in between rounds. They don’t stick commercials in PPV movies so what gives them the right to do it during a fight. Hats off to Boxnation as they don’t seem to do it.

Was tyson v Bruno 1 not on TV?  I'm pretty sure I watched that live on the BBC.

It was definitely repeated in its entirety on the Sunday morning. Can't remember if it was shown live or not - possibly not because BBC still tended to shut down during the night and they would have had the Ceefax pages on at 5:00 in the morning.

catchweight wrote:Its about what promoters can get away with. If people will pay then they will charge. Froch v Groves and Haye v Fury are decent fights but not ppv worthy by any stretch. Neither of these fights is even as good as Garcia v Matthysse which was on Mayweathers undercard.

Hearn is exploiting the fans but thats what his trade is all about. Hes manufactured Froch v Groves as a ppv event. Its a fight between a champion and his mandatory. It didnt need ppv to come off. Hearn just saw there was an opportunity there. Groves isnt even ready for the fight but is being rushed along to make sure Hearn can stage a ppv event. Realistically hes going to try and have all of Frochs fights as ppv affairs. If people will pay, then theres nothing stopping him. Hearns job is just to figure out how far he can stretch things.

Oi where's your "long time reader first time poster" introduction fella? Seems to me, you're an alias for someone who has has been rumbled previously.

WHO ARE YOU???????????????????

Boxnation is a channel which was up and running and has no constraints to what can be shown etc due to it being it's on format. This simply is not the case for Hearn and boxing on SKY. They are restricted as to dates, days, shows, PPV/not all on the basis of what the broadcasting company say themselves.

Instead of just spouting the same thing over and over why don't you let me know just how Hearn is supposed to get the finances to cover the cost of getting two men earning £5 million each into the ring...without having PPV as the platform?!

I would also argue Hearns matches his youngsters a hell of a lot tougher, and his fighters in general than Mr Warren who for years milked his fighters over and over again while feeding bum fights to the public....case in point everyone moaned about Calzaghe and his soft defences, Clev and his fights versus nurses etc....then don't get me started on his choice of PPV for Khan as soon as he turned Pro etc!

Anyone would think that Warren is suddenly an angel...for providing fights from across the pond which you can stream for free anyway...whilst dedicating a whole channel to boxing yet actually barely putting on a card himself and it being pretty bloody poor when he does!

The only thing I will say is that if it's acceptable for people to pay a subscription to Sky and pay PPV then I don't see the problem with Box Nation. Ok Sky is more accessible as it is in many homes already but at the same time, as a commercial enterprise, it should be open to competition which keeps things honest.


Personally I wouldn't give Murdock my money but that is on the grounds of how he has destorted news and contributed to strife in the world. By comparison Warren is harmless.

I have no problem with Boxnation Strongback and think it is good for competition...though it also has it's bad points which Rowley has mentioned before.

If you look at SKY for example, think they realise that Warren is doing very well by getting international fights for broadcast....and now that Hearn has done a recovery job with the boxing programming, they see it as a good time to get in on the act...sadly for Warren I can't help but think if they have managed to get 5 fights...including 3 of the 'biggest names' in boxing in Cotto, Bradley, Marquez...in this short a period of time, then Frank may very well see the well run dry with regards getting the rights to those fights across the pond..which will mean he is left very thin on the ground to warrant the £10 fee for his channel!

owen10ozzy wrote:Boxnation is a channel which was up and running and has no constraints to what can be shown etc due to it being it's on format. This simply is not the case for Hearn and boxing on SKY. They are restricted as to dates, days, shows, PPV/not all on the basis of what the broadcasting company say themselves.

Instead of just spouting the same thing over and over why don't you let me know just how Hearn is supposed to get the finances to cover the cost of getting two men earning £5 million each into the ring...without having PPV as the platform?!

I would also argue Hearns matches his youngsters a hell of a lot tougher, and his fighters in general than Mr Warren who for years milked his fighters over and over again while feeding bum fights to the public....case in point everyone moaned about Calzaghe and his soft defences, Clev and his fights versus nurses etc....then don't get me started on his choice of PPV for Khan as soon as he turned Pro etc!

Anyone would think that Warren is suddenly an angel...for providing fights from across the pond which you can stream for free anyway...whilst dedicating a whole channel to boxing yet actually barely putting on a card himself and it being pretty bloody poor when he does!

You can't legally stream those American fights for free just like you couldn't legally stream Froch v Groves.


Also I am sure Eddie will want to get the American fights. His MO since arriving on the scene has been to take control of British boxing the same as they have done with snooker, darts etc. Hearn will be doing his very best to crush Box Nation. Sky will play as dirty as is needed.

Jeff, I've subscribed to Sky since Terry Norris fought SRL on the old screensport, Sky sports took all boxing on board and covered it heavily as you know, the last 5 years they've been a disgrace to the fight fans. To their credit, half decent schedule til the end of the year but PPV every other month is unnecessary for those particular fights .

Cheers Rodders

Will I only get the Montreal card if I buy the PPV?

superflyweight wrote:

Strongback wrote:

RatBoy66 wrote:There’s nothing wrong with PPV, it’s a world title fight between two British super middleweight’s, so why not?

PPV has been around in one guise or another longer than you realise. For Bruno v Tyson 1 I had to pay to watch it at the London Palladium, I think it was about £10. Lots of big fights were shown in cinemas and the like before SKY came along.

The only thing that really does bug me, is paying £15 and then having to watch commercial breaks in between rounds. They don’t stick commercials in PPV movies so what gives them the right to do it during a fight. Hats off to Boxnation as they don’t seem to do it.

Was tyson v Bruno 1 not on TV?  I'm pretty sure I watched that live on the BBC.

It was definitely repeated in its entirety on the Sunday morning.  Can't remember if it was shown live or not - possibly not because BBC still tended to shut down during the night and they would have had the Ceefax pages on at 5:00 in the morning.  

It would have been repeated on TV usually the next day but not always and it would nine times out of ten be the following evening. In some cases you’d wait until the following weekend when they’d stick it on Grandstand.

Unless you paid to watch it live somewhere you had to try and avoid the result and then watch the recording. Even with the recordings you couldn’t guarantee you’d see the whole fight, it would sometimes just be the highlights.

The other option was listening on the radio, not great.

Hagler v Hearns was the same, I watched that in a cinema.

And as Rowley has already pointed out when boxing was on terrestrial TV you very, very rarely saw any of the undercard.

You've never had it so good!

Rodders don’t get me wrong I am by no means defending PPV. However when it comes to Sky I do have to defend them a bit. Remember reading an interview with someone about this and it was saying for the hassle boxing is just not worth it for Sky. In the interview it said the head of Sky Sport was in the US for one of the golf majors and was trying to renegotiate the premier football rights, both of those are far bigger for Sky and do you know what he was spending most of his time doing, sorting out the farce over whether Khan Mcloskey should have been on PPV or not.

To be honest when you have promoters refusing to work with each other over fights, the best not fighting the best and last minute cancellations it is a wonder Sky or indeed any TV network still bothers with the sport at all. Think Sky’s commitment to the sport peaks and troughs because as a sport it is largely star driven and the UK simply does not have a wealth of characters or guys of world class ability at the minute. However if their commitment is on the wane at the minute I would argue a lot of that is self inflicted through promoters either not working together or putting on god awful shows.

Rodney wrote:Jeff, I've subscribed to Sky since Terry Norris fought SRL on the old screensport, Sky sports took all boxing on board and covered it heavily as you know, the last 5 years they've been a disgrace to the fight fans. To their credit, half decent schedule til the end of the year but PPV every other month is unnecessary for those particular fights .

Cheers Rodders

I do agree that given what Hearn has said in the past...to then throw 3 PPV fights on in space of a few months is little devious of him...however my point is that you an do one of two things : Moan and not pay for them...then moan when the fights you want to happen don't... or just face facts its the sign of our times and if you want to watch the boxing pay for it...simple as that really.

I would love to think we as fans can change things but we can't...it would take an enormous number of people to not purchase the PPV for promoters to take notice...and whilst I am sure real boxing fans would be more than happy to do it in an attempt to take the power back...the fact is that PPV is geared towards casual fans and they will purchase it..therefore keeping the vicious cycle going.

All I am saying is that Hearn isn't as bad as others in the past, and he certainly isn't the anti christ he is being made out to be at the moment. Think people forget that 3 years ago SKY had dropped boxing, the domestic scene was suffering and very little fights were happening domestically. They had their fingers burned....Hearn has had to do a fair bit to gain the trust of SKY again and given the job the family has done with Darts, Snooker etc I am willing to back them for the time being to at least see what happens.

DAVE667 wrote:

catchweight wrote:Its about what promoters can get away with. If people will pay then they will charge. Froch v Groves and Haye v Fury are decent fights but not ppv worthy by any stretch. Neither of these fights is even as good as Garcia v Matthysse which was on Mayweathers undercard.

Hearn is exploiting the fans but thats what his trade is all about. Hes manufactured Froch v Groves as a ppv event. Its a fight between a champion and his mandatory. It didnt need ppv to come off. Hearn just saw there was an opportunity there. Groves isnt even ready for the fight but is being rushed along to make sure Hearn can stage a ppv event. Realistically hes going to try and have all of Frochs fights as ppv affairs. If people will pay, then theres nothing stopping him. Hearns job is just to figure out how far he can stretch things.

Oi where's your "long time reader first time poster" introduction fella? Seems to me, you're an alias for someone who has has been rumbled previously.

WHO ARE YOU???????????????????

Who, who, who, who?