Why are Eddie Hearn and Matchroom so hated?

FM Regen

Any reasons in particular?

walshb

FM Regen wrote: »

Any reasons in particular?

Hated by who? Bit of a vague out of the blue type question..

Tiriel

Reminder of the charter also.. no slating people in here.

Danye

FM Regen wrote: »

Any reasons in particular?

I don't hate him. In fact I quite like him. He's a good promoter in my opinion.

walshb

Nonsense thread. Poster appears. Posts a nonsense question with nothing to add...

Morrison J

The Hull show last weekend is one of 1000 examples I could come up with off the top of my head. He offers a terrible product.

His business plan is low budget, piss poor shows which are built around genius marketing.

Morrison J

pac_man wrote: »

The product is a bit of a broad concept, can you be a bit more specific?

What do you suggest he realistically needs to change in order to make you happy?

By product I mean the standard of fights he puts on. Putting Murray v Rosado as a main event, putting a mismatch like Haye v Bellew on PPV etc. He gets away with it because he has the Sky hype machine backing him to hype these awful fights and the general public laps it up. His target market are football fans who are casual boxing fans. He doesn't cater for proper boxing fans.

If you go through each PPV event he's put on since the start of Matchroom the standard of shows has been embarrassingly poor.

I admire him massively as a salesman and appreciate how he's helped the sport grow to an extent but I can see through the Sky hype machine. The fights he puts on aren't good enough.

AJ v Wlad is a step in the right direction, Brook v Spence too even if it shouldn't be on PPV. There's signs he might be improving but I'm not getting my hopes up. The Hull show on Saturday was classic Eddie. Horrific.

barney4001

he seems to be nursing Katie taylor along the way,another very poor stand in for Katie won 6 lost 6 he could have picked better opposition from any local bar or pub,odds probably 1000 /1 the stand in winning this joke match

barney4001

katies opponents record
http://boxrec.com/boxer/628043

odds 1/200 Katie paddy power betting

Mantis Toboggan

Certainly worrying how he seems to have a monopoly on the whole industry in the UK.

boxer.fan

I have been critical of Matchroom on numerous occasions, mainly due to frustration at some of the poor opposition he feeds to his "stars".

However, he should be commended for keeping his stable of fighters busy & putting on regular events. To be be fair, he is supplying a market that is quite happy to buy tickets & the regular boxing enthusiasts like myself are very happy to have boxing on the telly at a reasonable hour on a Saturday night.
We have been starved of any kind of decent boxing events on this side of the water.

I will no doubt complain about his PPV events in the future, but folks keep buying, so the business model is working. Supply & demand. Why would he stop.

Morrison J

pac_man wrote: »

I would have thought Murray and Rosado is a decent fight but anyway, the message I get from you is that he needs to deliver better fights. You've stated his business plan is low budget, this is an obvious stumbling block to meet your needs. How does he increase his budget to attract big names? More PPV's or increase it's current price to which he has no control over? Bear in mind and as far as I'm aware,his broadcaster is the main contributor in his budget. Surely the criticism should be directed to them more than Hearn if the budget is low.

Hearn has been talking as if Murray v Rosado is Hagler v Hearns 2.0. It's decent low level matchmaking but really it's a completely irrelevant fight between two shot fighters. Absolutely no way should it be headlining a show.

Do you really believe his budget is so tight that he has to put Dave Allen against a no hoper on a PPV undercard? No other promotor would get away with it but Eddie has the marketing to sell sand to an Arab.

Hearn is the matchmaker. Yes Adam Smith of Sky needs to ok these fights so he deserves blame too but Hearn is the root of the problem. As long as he keeps delivering high PPV buys Sky won't care no matter how poor the product is. Too many gullible fans who part with their money to watch utter rubbish 9 times out of 10 unfortunately.

walshb

This thread has turned out to be a fooking barn burner! FM Regen, apologies!

Morrison J

boxer.fan wrote: »

However, he should be commended for keeping his stable of fighters busy & putting on regular events.

Paul Smith last three opponents - Daniel Regi, Bartlomiej Grafka, Bronislav Kubin

Callum Smith last three opponents - Luke Blackledge, Norbert Nemesapati, Cesar Hernan Reynoso

Anthony Joshua last three opponents - Eric Molina, Dominic Breazeale, Charles Martin

Kell Brook last three opponents - Gennady Golovkin (mismatch), Kevin Bizier, Frankie Gavin

And I could go on with his stable..

Why commend a promotor for keeping his stable busy when he puts them in gross mismatches and cons the public into thinking the events are worth watching? The product is very very poor.

walshb

Paul Smith is not an elite fighter. No need to include him. He's well below thew other IMO, well, not sure about Callum as he has beaten nobody yet.

Jeez, I guess you could say the same for AJ. But AJ looks to be the real deal so far. Brook the most established, and even he hasn't fought anyone brilliant, apart from the loss to GGG.

Morrison J

walshb wrote: »

Paul Smith is not an elite fighter. No need to include him. He's well below thew other IMO, well, not sure about Callum as he has beaten nobody yet.

Jeez, I guess you could say the same for AJ. But AJ looks to be the real deal so far. Brook the most established, and even he hasn't fought anyone brilliant, apart from the loss to GGG.

I'm not singling out who is elite or not. Just showing how poor the product is. There are competitive fights out there for Paul Smith, they just aren't being made. If thats down to Paul Smith's decision then Eddie should sack him off. Putting Paul Smith in with Latvian binmen is only making a usual poor product on Sky worse.

Morrison J

All of the Sky Boxing team aren't "experts" they're just employed to sell and push figures. I'm convinced the matchroom fighters have it in their contracts to help sell Matchroom PPV's too.

When your target market is football fans who are casual boxing fans, this stuff works and PPV's sell. Amazing how it works every single time though.

Blanco100

Morrison J wrote: »

All of the Sky Boxing team aren't "experts" they're just employed to sell and push figures. I'm convinced the matchroom fighters have it in their contracts to help sell Matchroom PPV's too.

When your target market is football fans who are casual boxing fans, this stuff works and PPV's sell. Amazing how it works every single time though.

Thats gas

I'd expect some more world title warm up fights for Eddies stable, he loves an eliminator for the IBF international title against a teak tough eastern european lorry driver.

There is no debate to be had about this fight. Haye is an absolute clown but he ends this fight whenever he feels like it. The guy has made millions in some p*ss easy fights its unreal.

Blanco100

pac_man wrote: »

I don't see Hearn to be anyway different to nearly any other promoter to be honest. If you really wanted to, you could be critical towards any promoter. To generalise, Top Rank by and large keep fights in-house , Goldenboys stable is a shadow of what it used to be and PBC are grossly paying over the odds for fights that are routinely non-competitive. Where do you stop?

I'm going to remain positive, 2017 will be a better year than the last few years.

Hearn won't pay what it takes to bring the champions to Britain to face his charges.

He always loses the purse bids when theres an opportunity for one of his guys to win a title.

I think Sky were hoping that Eddie would hoover up every name fighter in UK with the promise of TV time. Therefore you would have the best talent fighting the best. But it hasn't really worked out like that.

But there is probably more money to be made from the football fans (who casually watch a bit of boxing for the "big" fights) by staging the likes of Bellew v Haye instead of bringing Keith Thurman or Shawn Porter to the UK to fight Kell Brook.

He couldn't even pay to bring Stevenson to the UK to fight Bellew that time.

As bad as he was, Frank Warren at least sometimes put his money where his mouth was to secure his fighter home advantage in a title shot by winning the purse bids.

rebelomar

I agree with above posters on the PPV model needing a little more quality

Personally I don't need 8 or 9 mediocre to poor fights...I'd prefer 3 names in big fights per card that are genuinely 50 /50 pick em type bouts.

Instead he packs these cards with "names" in keep busy one sided fights. He'll brag as he has done in the past of having Groves or Callum Smith etc on the cards but rarely do these "names" get tested.

I agree that their ultra slick marketing campaigns and sky backing help them to pull the will over the casual fans eyes to a certain degree.

What I will say is I have no problem with the next two PPV main events of AJ vs Klit and Brook vs Spence but give me two decent hard undercard fights per show.

For example Chisora vs Whyte was a cracker and saved the last AJ PPV in term's of value...that fight was seen as a genuine 50/50 or at worst 60/40 beforehand. The fight exceeded expectations and I was hoping Matchroom would learn from that success but I guess the numbers are easily achieved peddling Ohara Davies vs Derry Matthews etc.

The PPV cards though are slowly but surely eroding the quality of Sat fight nights...I mean that undecard muck that was served up in Hull was so poor and one sided it served no purpose to the fighters or viewers. Despite what they say you pay for every card whether PPV or regular sky with your subscription...they make out like it's terrestrial TV at times.

rebelomar

pac_man wrote: »

Gavin McDonnell brought over the champ from Mexico at the weekend and Charles Martin for Joshua are just two examples from the top of my head.

The Porter/Brook and Bellew/Stevenson are bad examples. In both cases the English fighters were mandatory ( would have had to hand over 75% to porter, I'd imagine it would be something similar for Stevenson who was on HBO and Canadian ppv). These examples were really before sky went mental dishing out PPV's for silly fights so I'm not sure where you think the money would have come from?

Vargas wasn't the champ..it was a vacant belt and Vargas was cheap I'd imagine

Also AJ took a big big drop in purse to make allowances for Martin's purse. Hearn admitted as much.

PeterTheNinth

I'd love to know the true story about what happened when Chris Eubank went to his father's 60th birthday party. Eddie says that Eubank wanted (and got) appearance money for showing up!!

Morrison J

Another god awful PPV card. Mismatches everywhere.

eagle eye

Well there was a little hate for Matchroom and Barry(not Eddie) Hearn back in the nineties. The red banners rags started criticising him for not getting big names to face his boxers, which was fair, but they then tried to brand him as corrupt on a grand scale. Some people bought into it and started mouthing off about him but eventually realised they has been fooled by the trash rags.

The only thing you could criticise them for is protecting their fighters and making a lot more money by avoiding big name fighters. I don't see how that's a bad thing for the fighter because if he has a bit of cop on about him he will be a lot better set up for life after boxing because of it. Obviously they are in the business of promoting fighters and making as much as they can from them but there is nothing wrong with that imo.

Johner

I can see why some people don't like Hearn but personally I don't mind him. If you don't like what shows he's offering then don't buy them.