Al Haymon signs Chavez Jr.!!! Chavez vs Quillin next?

I think Haymon is going all in with that NBC deal, that he is paying for, what a genius. I wouldn't be surprised to see him out of a game in a few years after burning all his bridges.

 

Like I said a month ago, Al Haymon is signing all the best middleweights besides GGG, so GGG won't be able to get a decent fight and will have to sign with Al Haymon.

 

Arum is a convicted criminal right? why is this jackass defended!!

 

Unless Quillin is moving to 175, he's not going to be fighting Chavez.

I can't see Jr slimming down to 168 to fight Froch or Ward and who is he going to fight at Light-Heavy? Kovalev? Stevenson? Please.

 

By definition, a manager's money is tied directly to his ability to get his figther's money up. By definition, a manager is an advocate for the fighter. A promoter has ZERO financial obligation to a fighter. By definition, a promoter makes more money by minimizing costs for an event, including fighter salaries.

TBH, there really is no reason for promoters to be as powerful as they are, other than that's how it's always been in boxing and controlling network dates. That's changing. Fighters aren't going for that Michael Koncz level of 'manager' anymore.

 

What gets me is when people bring up the Ali Act as a way to bash Haymon in contrast to Arum, Duva, et. al., as if the intent of the law was to protect promoters from managers. I wouldn't be surprised if Haymon is in fact in violation of the conflict of interest portion, but he's about the bottom of the list of my concerns about such violations when you have promoter apparatchiks like Koncz running around or Top Rank trying to force Chavez Jr to have to rely on his dad as his manager.

 

In reality, Haymon is a promoter. Or at least a lot closer to a promoter than a manager. Thats what I was getting at earlier.

First, he is in many conflicts of interest with a stable that large. At least he would be if he were a traditional manager. Second, it is well known and documented (in court filings) that the fighters work for Haymon, not the other way around.

Typically a manager works for the fighter. Haymon fighters, at least the rank and file (it is easy to speculate that higher profile guys like Floyd, and ones who had fanbases of their own before signing like Khan have better deals) work for Haymon. Any deal they want to do, any fight they want to take has to be approved. They are told what to do, where to go, who to fight by Team Haymon. I suppose they can refuse, at least legally.

Maybe he is doing right by the guys he has signed, and everyone is more or less happy. Who knows? But even if Haymon is in fact doing right by his fighters, its still a terrible precedent, its still splitting boxing and preventing fights, and it is still the type of behavior the Ali Act was intended to prevent.

As far as controlling network dates, its well known that Haymon controlled SHO dates... and if the NBC rumors are true, which multiple disparate sources do vouch for.. will obviously control the NBC dates.

 

Splitting boxing and preventing fights is exactly what all promoters have tried to do when they have such a large stable, see most recently Top Rank 2009-2011. It's exactly what Top Rank is doing whenever Arum has declared he can't do business with Haymon and refuses to even countenance fights with guys he advises or says they must leave him if they want to fight one of his guys.

 

Saying that Arum has done wrong (which is true) still makes no difference in the Haymon discussion. Uncle Bob being wrong does not make Haymon or anyone else right.

So if Haymon is acting like Arum was at his worst, how is this to be commended?

 

But if Haymon is acting like Arum, how can YOU proclaim his actions as 'a terrible precedent' when you've seen this same behavior in the business of boxing for the past 50 years.

 

The precedent I am referring to is in being a promoter without the license and duties of a promoter. Legally at least, a promoter has certain requirements of disclosure and such. Fighters are entitled to managerial representation when dealing with promoters.

Often times it is the fighters' fathers who have to deal with Haymon, interestingly enough the very thing many Arum-haters were bashing on recently in the Chavez JR fiasco.

Honestly, I think lots of people who claim to love Haymon really just dislike Uncle Bob which seems to me to be a bit short sighted.

 

Well the operative difference there was of course that Chavez himself was displeased with Arum's efforts to tamper with his management. I have yet to hear similar complaints about Haymon, regardless of what other managers he works with.

I'd say it's more often the other way around, with a number of writers in the boxing media sympathetic to Top Rank dressing up their dislike for Haymon with ethical concerns about the Ali Act, all whilst ignoring the comparative dearth of dissatisfied fighters in his stable and the long established behavior of attempting to dictate managers by promoters.

 

And IMO, alot of the dislike for Haymon flows from a dislike of Floyd Mayweather. Considering that half of ESB still thinks Sam Watson is Al Haymon and only public speculation exists of what his 'plans' are, the amount of handwringing over Haymon 'ruining' the sport is disproportionate to anything he's ever said or done.

Again, professional fighters who have opportunities to sign with the big name promoters are flocking to Haymon in droves. What does that tell you?

 

Exactly.

The Ali Act exists BECAUSE OF the level of corruption and screwing over fighters by Bob Arum and the rest of the boxing power structure over the past 50 years.

 

Chavez ducking Froch