Can someone explain why does Eddie Hearn..

Collapse
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • MBE
    Order of Chivalry
    Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
    • Sep 2011
    • 1772
    • 106
    • 134
    • 8,505

    #1

    Can someone explain why does Eddie Hearn..

    Line his fighters up for mandatory shots, then take them overseas for a beating on foreign soil?

    I thought the idea of positioning a marque fighter for a mandatory shot is that you can negotiate on fairer terms.

    Frank Warren has paid to bring over some great champions to fight in the UK against his challengers. Yet Eddie hasn't.

    The reason why I mention this is because it's looking like Kell Brook is having to go to America. No problem with that, but he was fed bums for years and the excuse was so he could have a favourable mandatory shot.

    This was the excuse to why he didn't take the Bradley fight. What was so different in the terms of the Bradley fight than the porter one? In my opinion fans have been conned.
  • Dirk Diggler UK
    Deleted
    Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
    • Jun 2008
    • 48836
    • 1,312
    • 693
    • 58,902

    #2
    The Bradley fight was for poor money and with options because it was a voluntary. If he beats Porter, then he's free to do what he wants afterwards because he's the mandatory challenger.

    Comment

    • jas
      Voice of Reason
      Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
      • Jul 2005
      • 22531
      • 936
      • 914
      • 1,059,614

      #3
      True. I think it's because one of them might win a world title.

      Comment

      • D-MiZe
        Banned
        Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
        • Mar 2009
        • 25073
        • 1,061
        • 371
        • 75,542

        #4
        They either have it or they don't, if they're going to win - they'll win. Bar some bullshit decision, which is more likely when foreign fighters come over here.

        I think it's wise, once you have an established champion, to bring the best over here. But it's all about taking risks and at least Hearn does that a lot more than other British promoters. Gavin Rees and Lee Purdy were given shots out of nowhere in a win-win situation.

        Brook has it quite hard if he's going out there to fight Porter, who I think takes Brook out in under 8. But he's getting exposure, he's making money for himself/promoter and he's getting a chance. What if he does beat Porter, it's worth a try at least. Worst case scenario is he loses, returns to Britain and fights a couple more contenders then targets a weaker champion. He's good enough to hold a belt but not good enough to beat the other champions/top contenders.

        A loss isn't that bad. How many British fighters who were expected and had the hype to become great world champions bow out after a loss or two? I like seeing the Mexican who remains a sturdy contender/gatekepeer despite 5 or 6 losses.

        Whatever happened to the Steve Robinson's/Johnny Nelson's?

        Comment

        • Cinci Champ
          And Still!!!
          Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
          • Jul 2012
          • 9375
          • 301
          • 139
          • 23,582

          #5
          Originally posted by D-MiZe
          They either have it or they don't, if they're going to win - they'll win. Bar some bullshit decision, which is more likely when foreign fighters come over here.

          I think it's wise, once you have an established champion, to bring the best over here. But it's all about taking risks and at least Hearn does that a lot more than other British promoters. Gavin Rees and Lee Purdy were given shots out of nowhere in a win-win situation.

          Brook has it quite hard if he's going out there to fight Porter, who I think takes Brook out in under 8. But he's getting exposure, he's making money for himself/promoter and he's getting a chance. What if he does beat Porter, it's worth a try at least. Worst case scenario is he loses, returns to Britain and fights a couple more contenders then targets a weaker champion. He's good enough to hold a belt but not good enough to beat the other champions/top contenders.

          A loss isn't that bad. How many British fighters who were expected and had the hype to become great world champions bow out after a loss or two? I like seeing the Mexican who remains a sturdy contender/gatekepeer despite 5 or 6 losses.

          Whatever happened to the Steve Robinson's/Johnny Nelson's?
          fans happened imo were all guilty of saying the fighters should not protect their 0 but it seems we instantly discredit fighters after a loss these days.

          Comment

          • MBE
            Order of Chivalry
            Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
            • Sep 2011
            • 1772
            • 106
            • 134
            • 8,505

            #6
            Originally posted by Dirk Diggler UK
            The Bradley fight was for poor money and with options because it was a voluntary. If he beats Porter, then he's free to do what he wants afterwards because he's the mandatory challenger.
            I think fighting Bradley with options two years ago would have done a lot more for his career than Carson jones and his ilk have.

            He could of been ready for a second shot by now.

            Comment

            • Dirk Diggler UK
              Deleted
              Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
              • Jun 2008
              • 48836
              • 1,312
              • 693
              • 58,902

              #7
              Originally posted by RockyIV
              I think fighting Bradley with options two years ago would have done a lot more for his career than Carson jones and his ilk have.

              He could of been ready for a second shot by now.
              Well you have to take into consideration that he was supposed to fight Devon Alexander. So the Alexander title shot was more appealing than the Bradley one.

              Comment

              Working...
              TOP