Is Frampton the best of British?

First topic message reminder :

Frampton looks better every time we see him. He has power, speed, punch variation and footwork. He destroyed Avalos last night.

I thought ITV did a great job with the show last night, too.

Hopefully they can make the Quigg fight on terrestrial TV. Frampton would stop Quigg inside 10, IMO.

Coxy001 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:Rigo wins and wins easily. Fail to see where Frampton is able to match him to be honest. All he can hope for is that Rigo is sliding off the cliff of being at his peak.

Barry Mac is digging his heels in that they would have to fight on ITV knowing full well Eddie has his stable contracted to Sky. There's something that horribly annoys me about Barry as well, just seems like he's trying to relive past glories through Frampton and that it's all about him. Winds me up.

I don't believe Rigo wins easily. He remains favourite right now but I'd give Frampton every chance.

Quigg isn't contracted to Sky. McGuigan's proposing they show the fight on ITV (perfectly doable). Hearn, though, wants to maximise profits by going down the PPV route.

Darn that bastard Hearn, trying to maximise his earnings and thus his fighters earnings.

Long-term, though, terrestrial coverage would make both fighters far bigger stars than PPV will (thereby truly maximising earnings). This smacks of cashing in on Quigg.

Coxy001 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:Rigo wins and wins easily. Fail to see where Frampton is able to match him to be honest. All he can hope for is that Rigo is sliding off the cliff of being at his peak.

Barry Mac is digging his heels in that they would have to fight on ITV knowing full well Eddie has his stable contracted to Sky. There's something that horribly annoys me about Barry as well, just seems like he's trying to relive past glories through Frampton and that it's all about him. Winds me up.

I don't believe Rigo wins easily. He remains favourite right now but I'd give Frampton every chance.

Quigg isn't contracted to Sky. McGuigan's proposing they show the fight on ITV (perfectly doable). Hearn, though, wants to maximise profits by going down the PPV route.

Darn that bastard Hearn, trying to maximise his earnings and thus his fighters earnings.

There's a difference between the short term and long term pictures though. Promoter & fighter interests are not aligned on this difference.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Paid vacations are always better.

Hope someone points out to Eddie that more viewers on ITV and a good fight by both, means more fans for the fighters and ultimately more money in the long run.

Yeh, that smells to me like Eddie setting up for a hard-sell on Sky PPV

Assuming it's only ITV's second fight, I can't see them stumping up sufficient cash to pull it away - there's too much uncertainty on how much they'd make back on advertising.

Barry's looking at the bigger picture. If Frampton and Quigg could become household names, the chances are they'd make a good living once their careers are over (personal appearances, TV appearances and the like).

They could make a bucket of money on Sky PPV but once that's gone (and they're retired), where do they go?

Real shame if the fight winds up on Sky PPV - the hardcore fans pay through the nose and the casual fans don't watch it.

Do you mean Barry Mc? I agree he is, and I agree with why it's a sensible move, but my worry is still Hearn only seeing short term dollar signs.

I think Team Frampton should be willing to concede on venue if it means staying on ITV.  Should be confident enough of winning that the where is not important.

McGuigan claimed he'd be willing to concede on venue (they're willing to travel to London or Manchester if needs be) . He's asking that everyone's sensible to make it a bigger fight.

From Guardian: "And, as Quigg is on a fight-by-fight deal with Sky, McGuigan thinks the chances of putting the fight on ITV – who returned to boxing with this bout – are good. “We will sit down and talk with ITV this week,” he said. “This is a fight that should be free-to-air, a fight for all the people.”"

whilst I'm not convinced yet that this fight will go ahead, it's good to see that Quigg was there on his own (and out of his own pocket) and I didn't realise he was on a match by match basis with Sky.

If he really pushes it then it could be on ITV or he could walk to Barry and ask him to also take him under his wing. (stranger things have happened)

Long term?! Give me a break. A boxers career can be ended in one fight - why on earth in such a dangerous sport would you "play the long game" when you can earn in one fight the same amount if you fought three times on terrestrial?!?

Derbymanc wrote:whilst I'm not convinced yet that this fight will go ahead, it's good to see that Quigg was there on his own (and out of his own pocket) and I didn't realise he was on a match by match basis with Sky.

If he really pushes it then it could be on ITV or he could walk to Barry and ask him to also take him under his wing. (stranger things have happened)

Everyone is getting Sky and Matchroom confused here, they are not the same thing, he is tied to the latter and thus will fight on Sky, there is no alternative to that.

Coxy001 wrote:Long term?! Give me a break. A boxers career can be ended in one fight - why on earth in such a dangerous sport would you "play the long game" when you can earn in one fight the same amount if you fought three times on terrestrial?!?

Then why are McGuigan and Frampton willing to?

That's not the case Hammer. 

Matchroom fighters have fought on other channels, John Ryder fought Saunders on Boxnation for instance. 

Eddie has said in interviews that his fighters will fight on any channel, as long as the money is right.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:whilst I'm not convinced yet that this fight will go ahead, it's good to see that Quigg was there on his own (and out of his own pocket) and I didn't realise he was on a match by match basis with Sky.

If he really pushes it then it could be on ITV or he could walk to Barry and ask him to also take him under his wing. (stranger things have happened)

Everyone is getting Sky and Matchroom confused here, they are not the same thing, he is tied to the latter and thus will fight on Sky, there is no alternative to that.

As far as I'm aware, Matchroom aren't exclusively tied to Sky. They deliver a set number of shows per year.

Hennessy has a deal with Channel Five but has allowed Fury to work with Warren on BoxNation in recent fights.

Enjoyed McGuigan's press conference that was posted on the other thread. He was in fine form. Anyone know if Frampton did one as well afterwards?

Joking aside, the buzz around Frampton is brilliant for the sport. The great thing with Frampton right now is that he's still visibly growing and improving with every fight, too - easy to forget that Saturday night was only his twentieth professional bout. I thought him and Quigg were level-pegging up until about late 2012, when Frampton boxed Molitor. Since then he's (Frampton) gone to a completely new level and left Quigg behind, for me.

A year ago I thought Frampton would probably (not with massive conviction) win a very close decision in a seriously hard fight against Santa Cruz. Now, I still think it's a tough assignment but I'm a little more confident and feel it could be as wide as maybe four rounds or so. Santa Cruz will be no pushover, though. Yes, he never moves his head and gets hit a lot, but the fact that he's a no-frills pressure fighter has conned some in to thinking he's slow and doesn't have a good array of shots - neither is the case. In terms of hand speed he's at least the equal and arguably the superior of Frampton and it's not a given that his chin will wilt in the face of Frampton's power, either. He's also been more or less impossible for anyone to shove on to the back foot so far, too.

Frampton's got the quicker and better feet by a mile, mind you, and more ways of fighting. Santa Cruz goes to the body very well, so if he can have success there he might be able to slow Frampton down and eventually catch up late on. Before finding the pay-off shot, Frampton was having the poorer run of things in the previous three rounds or so against Kiko in their first fight, and there was a suggestion that maybe that punch covered up a potential flaw in his abilities to maintain the pace over twelve against a high-quality pressure fighter, hence me not previously making Frampton too big a favourite over Santa Cruz - but in the rematch, he lasted the full twelve against that same man with no real problems, looking fresh throughout. As I said earlier, improving with every fight, it seems to me.

A switched-on Frampton should have the movement, extra sharpness in his shots and jab to bank enough rounds there. Still a fight well worth seeing for anyone, though.

Seems that McGuigan's tactic in terms of dealing with the Rigondeaux question is similar to Hearn and Froch's when it comes to the Ward rematch. Say that you'll beat them and that you're not worried about the prospect of facing / rematching them, but then on the other hand say you're in no rush to fight them and that it's them who needs you. Said it countless times, but I'm disappointed with the attitude of the leading Super-Bantams when it comes to Rigo - he's brilliant, but he's just a man at the end of the day and you'd have thought that the combined knockdowns / shaky moments against Cordoba, Donaire and Amagasa, even if they were generally small moments of concerns within usually very accomplished performances, would be enough for a few more people to fancy their chances.

I can get over that if Frampton does fight both Quigg and Santa Cruz in the next twelve months, though. They're the kind of fights he needs now to make the most of this frenzy that's being stirred up around him now.

rob-glos wrote:That's not the case Hammer. 

Matchroom fighters have fought on other channels, John Ryder fought Saunders on Boxnation for instance. 

Eddie has said in interviews that his fighters will fight on any channel, as long as the money is right.

It won't happen with one of his marquee names; Froch, Brook, Quigg, Bellew and Campbell.

Ryder fought on boxnation because it went to purse bids so works a bit differently, any fight between Quigg and Frampton will be a voluntary defence so they have to come to an agreement. It is at that point that it becomes tricky, Hearn will want the undercard full of Matchroom boxers because lets be honest there is no alternative and he will not want to personally lose out.

A Matchroom card which this will be, contractually can only be shown on Sky, it is highly unlikely or a near on impossibility that it will happen any other way, Hearn holds all the power domestically now.

https://twitter.com/eddiehearn/status/572335355782955008

I'll believe it when I see it, all these quotes always come with a money angle, if the money was with ITV then they wouldn't have a deal set up with Sky in the first place. Promoters just say what people want to hear.

hazharrison wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:Long term?! Give me a break. A boxers career can be ended in one fight - why on earth in such a dangerous sport would you "play the long game" when you can earn in one fight the same amount if you fought three times on terrestrial?!?

Then why are McGuigan and Frampton willing to?

Too much of the black stuff perhaps? I "get" that if he were to go on and beat say Quigg first then he becomes a big draw to advertisers etc.... But it's an incredibly risky plan they're trying to execute - One fight he could detach his retina or worse suffer a career ending injury.

For all their "good" intentions he could fight Quigg on PPV and his supporters will still pay good money to watch it. ITV with all the advertising money in the world can't compete with the millions that the PPV platform brings.

But hey, was nice watching a fight on terrestrial. Felt nice that the paupers get to watch boxing for free for once

rob-glos wrote:https://twitter.com/eddiehearn/status/572335355782955008

What does this say Rob?

Coxy001 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:Long term?! Give me a break. A boxers career can be ended in one fight - why on earth in such a dangerous sport would you "play the long game" when you can earn in one fight the same amount if you fought three times on terrestrial?!?

Then why are McGuigan and Frampton willing to?

Too much of the black stuff perhaps? I "get" that if he were to go on and beat say Quigg first then he becomes a big draw to advertisers etc.... But it's an incredibly risky plan they're trying to execute - One fight he could detach his retina or worse suffer a career ending injury.

For all their "good" intentions he could fight Quigg on PPV and his supporters will still pay good money to watch it. ITV with all the advertising money in the world can't compete with the millions that the PPV platform brings.

But hey, was nice watching a fight on terrestrial. Felt nice that the paupers get to watch boxing for free for once

I've really enjoyed the past two weeks having boxing back on council telly. I don't have Sky and only subscrive to BoxNation if it's a good month.

Whatever the outcome, I just hope it's not London as I'll be looking to attend (and London sucks).

I just hope it's not London as I'll be looking to attend (and London sucks).

One of the greatest cities in the world, merely disliked by those that are jealous of neither living or working there.

Or maybe it's disliked because people find it massively overcrowded?

hazharrison wrote:

rob-glos wrote:https://twitter.com/eddiehearn/status/572335355782955008

What does this say Rob?

Eddie chatting on twitter... At one point he states quigg can fight on any channel... And infers it's just down to money... Ie if itv can offer what sky can.

Earlier he states that fights like this don't happen often so fighters need to milk it. In other words short term gain from eddies perspective, long term brand building from Barry's.

hazharrison wrote:

rob-glos wrote:https://twitter.com/eddiehearn/status/572335355782955008

What does this say Rob?

Sorry...

It's this:

Scott can fight on any channel that makes sense for him..also one fight deal is fine

Coxy001 wrote:

I just hope it's not London as I'll be looking to attend (and London sucks).

One of the greatest cities in the world, merely disliked by those that are jealous of neither living or working there.

And those who think it's a toilet.

Overpriced, overcrowded, Who wants to pay £5 for a pint?

hazharrison wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

I just hope it's not London as I'll be looking to attend (and London sucks).

One of the greatest cities in the world, merely disliked by those that are jealous of neither living or working there.

And those who think it's a toilet.

Overpriced, overcrowded, Who wants to pay £5 for a pint?

hampo171 wrote:Or maybe it's disliked because people find it massively overcrowded?

Or maybe because coxy works there?

I lived there for 20 years. You get used to it. It has a buzz and vibrancy nowhere else in the uk can match in my view, but it's crowded and expensive. That's capitals for you. It is a great city but not everyone's cup of tea to live or visit... You can say the same about most places.

I'm not against the capital in anyway Milky, but when people say you don't like it because your jealous of not living there it makes them look like an ass.

Who wants to pay £5 for a pint?

You can always go a Smiths pub. There's some cracking ones in town actually, favourite is probably down Chancery Lane way, great interior. For the most part you can still readily get pints (Becks sort of strength) for less than £4 though.

And you get used to the crowds, more so avoiding them. Wouldn't go through central Camden on a weekend for instance, lots of great backwater pubs the tourist monkeys don't know about.

Oxford Street does and will always suck donkey dong though.

Not my cup of tea. I work down there from time to time and I hate it. Used to enjoy making the trip a few years back but not these days.

hazharrison wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

I just hope it's not London as I'll be looking to attend (and London sucks).

One of the greatest cities in the world, merely disliked by those that are jealous of neither living or working there.

And those who think it's a toilet.

Overpriced, overcrowded, Who wants to pay £5 for a pint?

Who wants to live somewhere where people can't afford to pay £5 a pint.......?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

I just hope it's not London as I'll be looking to attend (and London sucks).

One of the greatest cities in the world, merely disliked by those that are jealous of neither living or working there.

And those who think it's a toilet.

Overpriced, overcrowded, Who wants to pay £5 for a pint?

Who wants to live somewhere where people can't afford to pay £5 a pint.......?

Who wants to live somewhere where people are stupid enough to pay £5 a pint

Coxy001 wrote:

Who wants to pay £5 for a pint?

You can always go a Smiths pub. There's some cracking ones in town actually, favourite is probably down Chancery Lane way, great interior. For the most part you can still readily get pints (Becks sort of strength) for less than £4 though.

And you get used to the crowds, more so avoiding them. Wouldn't go through central Camden on a weekend for instance, lots of great backwater pubs the tourist monkeys don't know about.

Oxford Street does and will always suck donkey dong though.

We used to always stock up in The Champion in Marylebone (when I were a lad).

DAVE667 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

I just hope it's not London as I'll be looking to attend (and London sucks).

One of the greatest cities in the world, merely disliked by those that are jealous of neither living or working there.

And those who think it's a toilet.

Overpriced, overcrowded, Who wants to pay £5 for a pint?

Who wants to live somewhere where people can't afford to pay £5 a pint.......?

Who wants to live somewhere where people are stupid enough to pay £5 a pint

Or 275K for half a shed

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/sep/05/north-london-tiny-275k-house-for-sale-zoopla

Stick with the North thank you very much

Any trip to London results in a fair few cheap pints being bought in Spoons at Victoria and a subsequent crawl around that franchise before ending up at Hyde Park.

You have a totally different view of a place as a visitor than you do as a resident. Sure people hit bars in town after work, but I hardly ever hit the west end on a weekend. If all I saw of London was a weatherspoons, I'd hate it too

London' a great place when you're young enough to enjoy it. The day I stopped wanting to go out on the razz every night, was the time I realised I'd had enough. Not a great place to bring up kids in my view either. But each to their own.

Funnily enough the one thing I hate about the sleepy hollow town oop north I now reside in is that there isn't a pub I'd willingly part with 2 quid a pint for never mind 5... Or a restaurant that didn't serve overpriced cack.  Actually, I'd rather the residents weren't so inbred either. Other than that I  love it!

DAVE667 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

I just hope it's not London as I'll be looking to attend (and London sucks).

One of the greatest cities in the world, merely disliked by those that are jealous of neither living or working there.

And those who think it's a toilet.

Overpriced, overcrowded, Who wants to pay £5 for a pint?

Who wants to live somewhere where people can't afford to pay £5 a pint.......?

Who wants to live somewhere where people are stupid enough to pay £5 a pint

Its a shame more promoters dont have McGuigans mindset. Hearn is about manufacturing these ppv events which is crap for the boxing fan and the sport in general.

Derbymanc wrote:Why do you think it does better on Sky Herman?

PPV, it makes more money than ITV could muster.

I think that's short term though Alex. No reason why both can't go onto massive things (quigg needs to pick better opponents though,) stick them on Terrestrial and get them a bigger fan base.

I can see why Hearn would be against this being on ITV. He manages/promotes what the consensus believe to be the underdog in the fight. If Quigg loses then having it on terrestrial only benefits Frampton for future ppv fights.

It's all well and good building stars on terrestrial TV but boxers have a short shelf life and need to make the big money when they can.

I'm saying this presuming that the long term goal would be to make big money at a later date but if Quigg loses that can't happen. Makes me think Barry is a lot more confident of his man winning than Eddie is of his.

yup

Why can't Quigg still become a star if he loses (and loses well) to the best. Khan lost to Prescott and a load of people still got behind him.

Bruno lost and the country was behind him etc etc

There's probably some on here that would complain that Eddie had shafted one of his star attractions by sticking him on terrestrial, suffers a career ending injury and then we'd hear from these people of the hardship the fighter in question is now experiencing because he wasn't on the Sky platform where the per-fight earnings are that much higher.

When Frampton retires and he looks at say a Carl Froch and wonders "why did I earn a quarter of what he did" then his little love affair with BM may suddenly sour. Haven't heard many noises about him going over to Vegas/NYC yet either.

Hatton was huge and spent all his time on Sky. Haye was big (for the marquee part of his career as think he fought on BBC beforehand). Froch was big. Joshua will be huge.

Sky TV ain't the devil. Done rather well for other fighters.

In the interview (above somewhere) McGuigan states they are looking to fight in England next and the US after that.

Only Hatton has been built up on Sky (and he's the exception rather than the rule).

Haye did a lot of promo work on BBC before his heavyweight title fights (both he and Froch came up on the BBC).

Sky isn't the devil (without them, we'd have had virtually no coverage since the 90s)but they do have a restricted viewership (part of the reason the sport has become marginalised in the past couple of decades).

Think perhaps people are forgetting that he's beaten a Rendall Munroe victim and a sadly overmatched trialhorse in his two biggest fights......

I think he'll be a star on both sides of the Atlantic..........

But number 1...............Not yet..

Fight on ITV for less money but wider recognition or fight on Sky for more money but less recognition, it's a no brainer from Quiggs point of view.

Mcguigan had no real option but put Frampton on ITV, Sky wasn't an option, nobody watches Boxnation and Channel 5 is presumably less money. It wasn't an altruistic decision in the slightest but rather a vicarious one, Mcguigan is compelled to relieve his memories through Frampton.

Should be America as soon as possible for this guy.....They'll love him back home just like they would have loved Barry If they hadn't of had him fighting in the desert against a guy from Texas who was used to the heat..........

Still the past can't be changed..

Hearn is in it to make as much money as he can off his boxers. Theres nothing noble about how he operates. It works well for himself, occasionally his fighters depending on the alternatives, but its crap for the paying customer and the sport in general.

With Quigg he has struggled to make the guy a headliner or a decent draw so he has had Quigg farting about in crap fights treading water while Frampton has does the work making the Quigg fight good business. And now he will aim to cash in on Quigg via a ppv if he can. I doubt he thinks Quigg will win and he has struggled to turn Quigg into a draw so he is happy to cash in.