This ESPN Haymon Deal is pretty scary..

Exactly.

And if it does fail, boxing can go right back to the status quo that apparently all these guys now love (except for the 35 plus years they just spent complaining about it) with no problem.

 

Monopolys are alwys bad, for everything. And that tranny lover has already shown of what he's made.

 

There's really not much of a chance from the current situation. There are always prospects that fly under the mainstream boxing fan's radar.

There should still be other venues to feature up and coming prospects (like Shobox), and it's not like Top Rank and other promotional companies are going to stop promoting shows that feature their fighters.

We'll still get the chance to see other fighters rise through the ranks, I think.

 

UFC seems to be doing OK.

As does FIFA, The NFL, The ATP, The IRB(Now World Rugby), and pretty much every other sports governing body.

Boxing is one of the very few sports to be on such an ad-hoc basis

 

:good

Haymon is rarely seen and never interviewed. Greg Bishop of the New York Times suggests that Haymon functions as both promoter and manager, against the principles of the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, which was designed to separate boxing promoters from boxing managers.[1]

Haymon's influence has been seen as gaining fights for his fighters' prime spots on HBO, but these fights are seen as less-than-quality match-ups and instead easy fights to get exposure for his fighters. This influence has been questioned by Max Kellerman of HBO Sports.[4]

 

The issue with these people is that they don't see the BIG picture. Boxing doesn't need a "make-over" (that is what Haymon Co wants to do). Boxing needs tuning but not a lot. Someone on the thread mentioned that because Haymon has a brother who once boxed he has the boxing knowledge, that would be like me saying I have medicine knowledge because my sister is a doctor (which she is)...You see....And I will make the same comment that I have always made about this topic.

Say what you want about Arum, King, Goosen, or Shaw but in reality they have brought us real fans the best fights in the last 40 years......And for all those PBF fans, say what you want about Bob Arum but he protected PBF like has everyone else....This whole thing with Haymon stinks.......

 

They have brought us the best fights. I agree with you.

Promoters have always squabbled. That's always been the case. Promoters haven't ruined the sport.

The BIG problem is the sanctioning bodies.

The sanctioning bodies have ruined the sport. They have created mass confusion.

When the sanctioning bodies needed more money, they created a new weight class.

When the sanctioning bodies needed even more money, they created dozens of regional titles.

When the sanctioning bodies needed more money, they created "youth" titles.

When they needed MORE money, they created multiple "world" titles in the same division (interim, regular, world).

When everyone and their brother had a belt, they started creating belts of different colors (silver belts and now emerald belts).

And it's not one organization SCREWING everything up. There are a half-dozen organizations -- all with their own belts, and ratings, and titles, and colors and champs of this and champs of that.

In the end, nobody knows who the champs are. Nobody knows who the top contenders are - is it the #1 contender, or the "regular" champ or the "interim" champ? Or is it the Silver champ? Or would it be the emerald champ?

The promoters complain about them all the time. Sanctioning bodies block fights promoters put together. Sanctioning bodies strip lineal champs. Sanctioning bodies gouge the fighter's purses for a percentage.

Haymon isn't cutting out the promoters - he's cutting out the sanctioning bodies.

But people are whining because Haymon doesn't want to give the sanctioning bodies any more publicity and doesn't want to parade their belts on television. Why should he? They ruined everything.

Plus, he paid for the time. They didn't. The WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO didn't make any deals with networks. They didn't help build the sport, on the contrary, they've driven it into the ground.

They just take. That's all they've ever done. To hell with them.

 

haymon puttin boxing on tv is good for me

 

Kellerman and Lampley was just praising him on The Fight Game. Lampley called him a mastermind manger and claimed that the fights were superior.( which I agree with )

 

See that part in bold up there? This is exactly why your irrational logic falls apart. Read it again. As stated earlier: That is PRECISELY why Haymon is in all likelihood NOT forming an official league.

Did it ever dawn on you that maybe, just maybe, some lawyer/investor/network exec/ad time purchaser/smart person involved in this whole PBC thing sat down and considered how, you know, NOT to violate federal law before it got this far? Goosen served as the promoter of record for the March 7th card. I'm sure ther

Again, you've created this circular logic of Haymon will fail to set up an independent UFC model due to federal law violation, but you're the only one pushing the Black Dana White as his end game. Right now, it is all just speculation on your part.

It is NO DIFFERENT than Top Rank 'forcing' fighters to sign with Top Rank in order to access certain fights (Pac) and get on those pre-set HBO dates. Haymon'sand doing it on a bigger scale with fighters wanting to be a part of it.

Why do you think that is?

 

Haymon's a ****, he only wants to make in-house fights, his fighters are shook off Golovkin and KOvalev but they'll stay ducking and hiding behind him.

He's an impediment to the big match-ups and I dont gaf about his network deals I live in Europe, he's only putting ****ty match-ups on anyway.

 

It's still not easy.

Since it's easy for you, who is the World Lightweight Champion ... and which World Lightweight Champion did he beat to win the title?

Thanks.

:hi:

 

You got owned.

 

Did you actually just list 2 organizations (IBF - 1983; WBO - 1988 ) who are less than 35 years old (and only been 'credible' for arguably less than 15 years) as part of the 'great history' of this sport?

That's like telling people to learn the great history of reggae and putting Shaggy next to Bob Marley and Toots and the Maytals. Who are you really trying to fool here?

 

TRANSLATION: I have no response. Please allow me to hate without having to explain.