Is Warren good or bad for British boxing ?

GOOD - More fighters from these shores have fought and garnered I use the term loosely World titles with this guy. Put alot of money in Boxer's pockets. Put alot of Boxing on SKY and promoted the sport.

BAD - His closeness to the WBO has made that title almost worthless. Fighters tend to make alot of soft defences of their crowns. Links to SKY have basically wiped out the terrestrial channels and helped take Boxing off the screens of many.

GOOD OR BAD...........Have to say BAD!

I can't be objective no matter how hard I try because the guy is a complete bell end.

Would have loved to watch Tyson dangle him out of a window.

The WBO is of no less worth than any of the titles, the Golden Boy won a couple of WBO titles so are you suggesting they're worthless?

A title strap is only as good as the boxer carrying it. Are there any active boxers recognised as divisional number 1 who do not hold a belt. I recall Barerra not holding any of the top belts.

But warren is good for the boxers in that he gives them easy defences (tucker whatsisname against Calzaghe) and making them money. But when the boxers want to make real money and challenges, they leave him...Khan, Hatton, Calzaghe to name but a few.

Oh dear, firstly TRUSSMAN says he's not going to bother using any of the new boxing forums, effectively retiring AGAIN and now he's here less than a week later reproducing the same old dross we had to endure on 606.

Have to say what with D4's endless Manny related guff and now this offal from the all-American beefster, the future's looking grim to say the least!

Still, at least we've got his TOP TEN lists to look forward to

Hahaha

The moderators are very quick to get rid of idiots DAVE so watch yourself..

As for the WBO surely as 80% of Brits only ever fight for it....It's obvious that it's a dumbed down belt....

If I started my own Darts federation and became world champion I'd hardly be considered credible...

Said I was retiring with 606....but hey Ali came back too.

By the way it's a very good site.....As for regurgitating posts etc if you don't like don't post!

Easy isn't it. Thanks for the insightful contribution ironfist..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The moderators are very quick to get rid of idiots DAVE so watch yourself..

As for the WBO surely as 80% of Brits only ever fight for it....It's obvious that it's a dumbed down belt....

If I started my own Darts federation and became world champion I'd hardly be considered credible...

Said I was retiring with 606....but hey Ali came back too.

Well us Brits didn't start the WBO, Truss, so it's not quite the same thing.

I think Warren has been good and bad for British boxing in equal measure, really. I think the view we have of him is distorted from the last six or seven years, where the majority of his 'bad' work has been. Before taking professional boxing away from terrestrial TV, I think Warren did a lot of good work and helped keep the sport in the public psyche.

His relationship with the WBO is deplorable, but is it really any worse than King's dealings with the WBC? I think we should be grateful for the profile which Warren provided the sport in that glorious period of the late eighties and early nineties, it's just a shame that his work has dropped off so dramatically since his switch over to Sky in the mid nineties.

DAVE667 - if you do not like what certain posters put on the boards please either disagree and debate in a mature manner, or ignore the post. Personal attacks won't be tolerated. This is a different board to BBC606 and I believe this is the first Frank Warren thread, any others will be merged with this or locked.

IronFistCliveMyers - If you are not going to add to a topic, please refrain from posting on it.

Morning Truss, Dave hope all is well.

As for the question, I'm not lover of Warren but IMO he is definitely a good thing in British Boxing. He has many faults, but 9 times out of 10 he puts a show which is worth watching, if you're in his stable you've got to give the guy credit for the way he nurtures his fighters, yes he gives them an easy ride but in the end he has delivered. I'd take him over Golden Boy in the states for instance who let others do the groundwork then poach the glamour names to make a quick buck.

As for the WBO, yes it's been a one of the less glamourous belts in the past, but don't think its any worse than the other alphabet titles nowadays. Can't criticise Warren at the minute, seems with De Gale he might be willing to take a few gambles with his assets.

Cheers Rodders

Deleted

Chris tend to agree but for me promoters are business men first and foremost and will do what they can get away with. Warren put a lot of pap and joke belts on Sky because they would buy that drivel off him. Do you blame Warren or blame Sky?

Think in recent years Sky has got a bit more demanding of its promoters and has dumped the whole IBO WBF nonsense and Warren has reacted to this and improved his matchmaking.

I am no fan of the man but you have to admire him, when he loses his PPV star in Khan he comes up with the idea of packing cards like the magnificent seven and maintaining a PPV presence when he doesn't really have a fighter capable of justifying such a billing on their own. It's stuff like that which is why he has been on top for 30 years.

Much as I don't care for the man you cna understand why fighters sign with him, only have to look at Froch, arguably Britains top p4p guy, certainly the guy fighting the best opposition and rarely in a bad fight and he is stuck away on some obscure PPV channel. Truth is Cleverley probably gets more mainstream press than him, which is a joke to be honest

DAVE667 - if you do not like what certain posters put on the boards please either disagree and debate in a mature manner, or ignore the post. Personal attacks won't be tolerated. This is a different board to BBC606 and I believe this is the first Frank Warren thread, any others will be merged with this or locked.

IronFistCliveMyers - If you are not going to add to a topic, please refrain from posting on it.
_________________________________________

I will say I like the site Enforcer and I'm glad it's moderated better than BBC, but I hope you don't become too strict of a board. Sometimes a bit of light-hearted frisk is welcome, its tit for tat as long as it doesn't get too personal. Just my opinion anyway

Thanks

Rodders

Deleted

Thanks for the feedback Rodney. Obviously the board is new and boundaries haven't been sent. After yesterday's antics I was worried at regualr posters being targetted and threads descending into personal arguments.

I haven't edited posts, just wanted to remind people that they should attack the issue not the poster!

I'd have to agree with the consensus that he is good and bad in equal(ish) measures. Yes there is the whole WBO thing and his deal with Sky. And I'm not too impressed that his last two big domestic cards have been ppv. The likes of cleverly, Brooke et al are prospects, not world level fighters, so sticking them all on one card doesnt justify charging the boxing fan £15 for it when the football fan gets his sport for the price of the subscription. Warren is quick to attack the likes of haye who self promote without concern for bringing on young talent and so their cards aren't value fir money, and then charges extra to watch a load of domestic prospects beat up a load of European journeymen (or in Enzos case get beat up by them).

But he has also had a hand in developing sone of the biggest names in British boxing in the modern era, naz, JC, Hatton & khan to name a few and is now doing good work with DeGale and Cleverly. His fighters get the fights and the exposure they need - I'm sure if Froch had been with him these last few years or so instead of fat Mick he'd be a household name by now.

Suspect it's 'six of one, half a dozen of the other' with regards to who is to blame out of Warren and Sky, Jeff. Like you, I'm no fan of the bloke but as I said in my original post, I think a lot of us have a distorted view due to the chaff which Calzaghe and Hatton were matched with for so long.

I do give him credit for the way he's taken the Khan blow on the chin. In the past it's always been about making a shed load from mostly one particular fighter with Warren; Hamed in the nineties, Hatton between c. 2003 and 2005, and then Calzaghe from then until their split in 2008. Right now, though, while he lacks a 'huge' name his stable probably has more depth to it than it has for a while.

I'd leave Dave and Truss to it to be honest, they mean no harm

Chris Warren alwaya maintains that Hearn started the joke belt farce at Sky and he merely went with the flow, hard to know the truth and this does seem a bit of a cop out to be honest.

To be honest having seen the farce around Manny and Floyd and Haye and Klitschko I am warming to the old time promoters like Arum, King and Warren because despite their innumerable faults they rarely let personal differences get in the way of making a mega fight and even allowing for their chequered history can be damned sure if King and Warren had two fighters who could be involved in a mega fight and make them a shedload of cash they would make the fight in a heartbeat which is what it should be all about.

Deleted

I haven't edited posts, just wanted to remind people that they should attack the issue not the poster!
_________________________________________________
No probs Enforcer, thanks and good work with the site

Cheers

Rodders

I am warming to the old time promoters like Arum, King and Warren because despite their innumerable faults

I agree Jeff, Arum and King deserve a lot of critics but I think what’s sometimes forgotten they are tremendous business-men. Look at Arum with Cotto, Pavlik, Gamboa, he matches these fighters brilliantly turning them into PPV stars, whatever you say at some point King and Arum usually deliver the biggest fight available for their respective fighters. I do worry about Golden Boy who although put on some of the more glamorous paper looking fights, they simply seem to have taken a back seat in nurturing new talent with having there fingers burnt with Jacobs and Ortiz.

They’re a bit like Man City !!

King has been very good for boxing fans. Not so good for his boxers though.

I haven't edited posts, just wanted to remind people that they should attack the issue not the poster
************************************************************
What if my issue is with the fact that we've already debated this on another forum? With no disrespect to anyone who's already submitted their opinion, there is nothing new to be gained/learned from going over the same old dross.

My concern for this site is that is gives people an opportunity to rehash the same old arguments they had on 606 but claim that, as it's a new forum, they have a valid argument for posting it again.

Perhaps the moderators should remind people of this and suggest that people bring something fresh to the board lest it go the way of 606. Cos otherwise, give it a shiny new package all you like but it's still just boring old oatmeal inside.

Dave,

I agree with your point about rehashing, but at the same time, if it helps generate interest and debate then i guess in a way it does a job.

I did have an idea of perhaps creating a subsection for old 606 articles if people wanted to move them across, although whether this would stifle debate or allow new artciles to appear i'm unsure?

The Benn vs Eubank fights... Bruno.. Hatton vs Tzsyu.. Calzaghe vs Kessler..

He's a huge naughty naughty boy... but he has provided the majority of the marquee fights in the UK over the past 25 years.

There is a case to be made but not from you buddy..

You'll notice my non-original Mayweather article has three times more posts than anyother boxing article in the history of this site!

When your Pryce articles get three postsbecause no one is interested then I'll stick with my non-original stuff...

My article on Pryce is a prime example of what I'm talking about. One tries to generate interest in a topic not previously mentioned and yet the majority would rather trudge over the same old ground making the same dull repetitive points and often using the same well worn and tiresome cliches. I fail to see why someone's refusal to tread the same well worn path/deep rutted track should be viewed as a negative.

Adding the words 'Mayweather', 'Manny' or even 'Calzaghe' to a post is bound to ellicit numerous responses due to the amount of exposure rec'd by the fighters and the depth of pro/anti feeling towards them. It's sloppy lazy posting though and suggests the author is simply looking for an article with a high number of responses rather than wishing to generate any fresh debate or insight, which for someone criticising the quality of the boards, seems like hypocrisy in the extreme.

Sad that people eternally mentioning their class and intellect are reduced to such shoddy behaviour or resorting to insults in a bid to defend it and I have no doubt that should this continue, the board will undoubtedly suffer.

Well if these are bound to ellicit numerous responses why do you have a pop at a Warren article????...

Get some sense Man...

Why? To highlight the point that ...

A/ We've been here before and there's nothing new to be gained from going over it again (point in case being that no-one has added anything to that article we haven't heard fifty times before) and

B/ This boring repetition seems to serve no other purpose that to fan the ego of someone whose only motivation seems to be to say "Look how many people posted on my article, aren't I brilliant?" whilst completely missing the point about not adding anything new to the boards.

can we try and keep the peace guys :friend:

You may have discussed these points before on 606, but there are some members here who havnt. If a repetitive article is made it will be merged with the original one so that there will not be loads of the same articles.

whay YI said!

People are allowed opinions - this is a new board so this topic is "new"

If you dont like it or are bored with seeing it again - dont look at it.

There are other posters other than the old 606 crew who might offer up something new.

If this is brought up again in 2 months time, it will be merged with this thread - no duplicates on v2.

now play nice!

I wouldn't limit the "good/bad" argument to Warren alone. Sure he is probably the biggest british promoter and also the most maligned, but...

Barry Hearn is no better, and also seems to have some sort of ADD, every sport he takes over has to have a short format, pool, darts, and now even snooker, how long will it be until Leyton Orient only play 45-minute games with penalties at the end in the event of a draw?

Mick Hennessy does nothing for his fighters except for take a cut of their earnings.

Frank Maloney seems the best bet but I'm sure he's not without fault.

Surely, regardless of their faults as a human being, anyone who drums up the sort of interest in the sport that Warren does can only be a good thing.

warren has done wonders for UK fighters, he's more of a platform before they go off to bigger things. he does molly coddle his fighters though, he has an impressive stable though and i can only see good things to come.

He does have some good bills, does anyone have the line up for the Liverpool show?