Brit/Ire Eddie's wager

Jun 5, 2013
1,185
594
In the 17th century, French mathematician, Blaise Pascal, devised an argument based on probability theory and game theory as for why one should live as if God exists; the so-called 'Pascal's Wager'. Pascal's argument is that the best course of action is to believe in God regardless of any lack of evidence, because that option gives the biggest potential gains; at worst, you have lost (practically) nothing.


Achieving the 'biggest potential gains' is at the heart of any gambler's philosophy and few promoters are prepared to roll the die like Eddie Hearn, whose promotional strategy appears rooted in the four hundred year old, philotheological formulation. The usual course of action for a fighter coming off a big loss is to take some time out, climb back in the ring with a sub-par opponent and get back in the win column; a bout oft-described as a 'tune up'. So, when Hearn concluded a deal to bring the then undefeated Lucian Bute over to the UK to defend his IBF title against Carl Froch, more than eyebrow or two were raised. Talk of Froch's retirement surfaced before the fight with Hearn telling BBC Sport, "[Froch]'s told me 'I have to win this fight', and that's a different mentality to what he's had before. He knows the score, a loss here would be a disaster. This is probably his last opportunity to win the world title back." However, Hearn's gamble paid off handsomely as the Cobra put on a career best performance to rip Bute's title away in devastatingly spectacular fashion, catapulting the Nottingham man back into the upper echelons of the sport. Had Froch lost, he would still have been a popular fighter and in the mix at world level but instead Hearn now had a world champion with box office appeal to promote.


Hearn's high risk strategy has not always yielded success and praise for Hearn, with fighters like Lee Purdy, Brian Rose and Gavin Rees falling short in their tilts for world titles. Understandably, much criticism has been made of Hearn's matchmaking in this regard, with a number of Matchroom fighters being dubbed of 'Eddie's Expendables' and questions raised over whether Hearn has placed his own profit margin above his fighters health, by sending them abroad to receive potentially career shortening beatings in exchange of sums of money that aren't exactly life changing.
However, as every inveterate gambler likes to think, each loss only brings you closer to that next big win and boy, did Hearn win big last Saturday night, when perennial #1 contender, Kell Brook, overcame Shawn Porter to upset the odds and lay claim to a portion of the welterweight crown. That Brook travelled to America and won a decision has only added more weight to the magnitude of becoming world champion, with many pre-fight analysts reasoning that Brook's odds of winning on the scorecards were reduced by being the away fighter.


In succeeding on American soil, Brook achieved the dual objective of becoming a world champion and raising his stateside profile, catapulting the Sheffield man into the upper echelons of the welterweight division. Had Brook lost the split decision, he is young enough at 28 years old to come again and would have done enough to have shown that he was capable of mixing it up at world level; as it is, Hearn now has another world champion to promote.


Like Pascal before him, Hearn is not without his critics but with nights like last Saturday that will live long in the memory, Eddie's wager is at least proof of the existence of the boxing gods. MK




http://www.cpboxing.com/articles.html/2014/08/26/eddies-wager/
 

Peter Barlow

2 Fast Fury
Jun 4, 2013
7,552
788
The article in the OP is a load of shite.
For once we agree. This hero worship of Hearn is pathetic. How is this like Froch Bute, he brought Bute over here? Its completely different.

Brook getting his first World Title shot is not "rolling the dice"...
 
May 28, 2013
634
0
Interesting perspective.

Not too long ago, there was a 25+ page thread on here full of people slamming Hearn for sending his fighters overseas and not being more like Warren in going all out to secure home advantage. Where are all those posters now?
 
Jun 5, 2012
18,308
5,766
Swindon
Interesting perspective.

Not too long ago, there was a 25+ page thread on here full of people slamming Hearn for sending his fighters overseas and not being more like Warren in going all out to secure home advantage. Where are all those posters now?
The whole debate about sending fighters abroad only ever applied to fighters who had no chance going over there. Brook-Porter was widely regarded as an even fight which is why people didn't have an issue with it
 
May 28, 2013
634
0
The whole debate about sending fighters abroad only ever applied to fighters who had no chance going over there. Brook-Porter was widely regarded as an even fight which is why people didn't have an issue with it
You have heard of the concepts of 'hometown judging/refereeing' and 'you have to take the belt from the champ'. You must agree that an away fighter runs the risks of fouling foul of these in 50:50 fights.
 
Jun 5, 2012
18,308
5,766
Swindon
You have heard of the concepts of 'hometown judging/refereeing' and 'you have to take the belt from the champ'. You must agree that an away fighter runs the risks of fouling foul of these in 50:50 fights.
Yes bit again, it's not about the winning or losing. Getting shafted by hometown judges isnt the same as getting thr crap beat out of you.
 
May 28, 2013
634
0
Yes bit again, it's not about the winning or losing. Getting shafted by hometown judges isnt the same as getting thr crap beat out of you.
You accept that the risk is there - we all know it is. Brook himself conceded that he was being put at a 'slight disadvantage' by fighting away from home and the basic thrust of the article is that fighting Porter in the States was (and away from home generally is) the higher risk, higher reward approach. I am sure you agree with that. In my view, the author conflates and strains to draw the analogy in a concept article that is trying to be cleverer than it needs to be. At least it isn't the low brow and partisan articles you get on ESB these days....
 
Mar 19, 2014
1,017
3
Ecosse
Read the thread the thread title as 'eddies wanger'

pictured the fanboys wanking themselves into a frenzy over pics of eddies chap.











Anyway now this thread just contains a fucking horrific article feel free to watch the below.


[video=youtube;Ylh09bDTemY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylh09bDTemY[/video]
 

One to watch

CHB WORLD CHAMPION 2018
Jun 5, 2013
60,398
31,873
You have heard of the concepts of 'hometown judging/refereeing' and 'you have to take the belt from the champ'. You must agree that an away fighter runs the risks of fouling foul of these in 50:50 fights.
I think purdy-Alexander,rose-Andrade,Rees-broner are the fights that were in question in the thread you name,none of those guys would of won with hometown reffing or bent judges.
 
Jun 2, 2012
4,856
1,425
BTW if this is your article don't take my comment personally knockout artist :good.

I couldn't write a boxing article for shit. There's too many fans fancying themselves as bloggers or writers in this sport yet hardly anyone is producing quality content. We're at a stage now where there seem to be more sites, blogs, podcasts and boxing news twitter accounts than people who actually watch the sport.
 
Apr 12, 2014
7,285
1,477
26
Beijing China
Well fuck me that was shite, seriously question why is the quality of boxing journalism so poor? Now of course not every writer is shit and you can get some really great articles but i'd sadly say theirs more poor articles written about boxing then good ones.