...who severed his relationship with a boxer (no matter how successful) for remarks detrimental to the game. Any examples come to mind?
''Remarks detrimental to the game'' is way too subjective. Doubt any such example exists and if it does it is subjective.
Hell yeah. Same way I'd applaud anyone who took a moral stand that cost them financially... Unless of course it was a pragmatic decision which was calculated to reduce long term loss. You got someone in mind JG?
Again this is all just talk.Define crossing the line. What some may consider in poor taste is what would make me(the promoter0 money due to the twisted minds of people who more often than not are attracted to controversy. For example I thought the whole build-up to Malignaggi-Broner was in really poor taste as was the post fight situation. But that only helps the promoter.
Using YOUR values (forget Wall Street's mindset), do you think GB should sever it's relationship with Broner for his post-fight comments?
Well huh...NO. I like Broner,he's one of my favorite boxers. And I tend to be more lenient on these things.
Sure, John. I mean if the promoter ditched the fighter thinking that that fighters behaviour might harm the promoters own reputation or that of his stable in a way that might be financially damaging -ie losing them fights or air-time. The promoter would then be more like 'cutting his losses' than taking a moral stand. It might still be the right thing to, but the reasons would be less admirable.
No. I think trash talk is a huge part of some fighters' games and the promoter probably knows that when they sign a guy like Broner.
Someone should have a word with broner behind the scenes and tell him that once the fight is done its time to stop acting that way. Although in this case I dont feel broner is doing any acting and he is genuinely a scumbag. Admitting to saying in the fight to Paulie that he 'hits Jessica' is too much and I don't think anybody should be giving broner a platform. if GBP had morals thy would sever all ties with him, but they are in the money making business and they know they will make money off him, so they won't be doing anything about it.
Broner got a very potent negative response out of me with his post fight stuff. I was sitting there hunched over my computer in a ball of raging fury watching this ( although this could've been a delayed reaction to the result I had 200 on Paulie at 10/1 ) Which is quite unusual for me. That said, I thought it was brilliant 'storyline-wise'. I love that he got such an emotional response out of me aswell as most watching. As you can see the forums are blowing up about it. To be honest, there's been too many 'classy' fighters of late for my tastes. in order to appreciate the classy fighters you need to have the Broners and Mayorgas to compare them by. Infact, I think being classy is taking the easy path I hate it when a fights built up to be a match between 2 guys that hate each other and then they're standing next to each other, smiling and taking pictures postfight. It makes me feel like I was duped into believing they actually hated each other which would be a big reason as to why I was so interested in the first place. Think Mike Tyson, that guy went mental everytime he was interviewed and the sport was greatly rewarded for it. Negative or positive attention it doesnt matter, as long as it's interesting. So I'm glad Broners doing what he's doing. I just hope he can keep being a 'bad guy' to the degree he was with malignaggi. because for a seemingly irrelevant fight it was VERY interesting. I've gone way off topic here JG. AS for GB severing it's relationship with Broner, I think they would have to completely crazy to do so. Broner greatly exceeded my expectations in regards to promoting himself. I personally would not applaud such a move as my previous 300 paragraphs will explain
