Stevenson is facing who!!

[ReggieDiggs]

I regularly criticize fights when I think they're poor (and praise them when I think they're good-see the recent PBC thread ) so this is nothing new, and I posted several times because other posters offered views that I wanted to address; this is a forum you know. In all, it probably took me no more than ten minutes combined to write my posts in which I give reasons why I don't like this bout, so it's not like I'm sitting here all day spewing negativity. I think it's very reasonable for people to criticize this fight and you haven't given reasons for me to think otherwise, so I don't see the responses in this thread as examples of unreasonable hating or excessive negativity and hence I think the 'negative nancy' nonsense you're bringing up is out of place and reflective of your sensitivity towards criticism of Haymon.

Haymon being involved has no bearing on what I think of the quality of this bout and only a tiny proportion of my posts are about him, but I do think his involvement leads to biased feedback from certain posters who feel more strongly about him than I do (which is indifferent because while he's been a major force in some farces it seems like he's now behind some very interesting bouts-I'll have to wait and see).

I don't see sensitivity on my side. I certainly don't feel sensitivity about anything Al related I know that much. I do get disappointed as a boxing fan so many negative nancy's sh!t on so much of anything that happens in my favorite sport, but at this point I usually find all that negativeness more funny than disappointing. And like I said you can talk negative sh!t all day. Its your life, its your pov, I just think its silly & if you find so much about boxing negative & unenjoyable you might be happier keeping up with another sport.

Personally my theory is people like you just like talking negatively whatever you happen to be talking about. I got an aunt who's always talking about you probably got brain cancer if you got a headache or if you find a deal on something it must have something wrong with it or they raised the price 20% just so they could give you 20% off later. Everything has a negative slant to it. If thats the type of person someone is thats just the type of person they are.

[tiny_acres]

Fights on free tv. Yet people complain.
I'm just excited that I don't have to pay for it.

I guess you love the fights being aired on Thai TV between well regarded prospexts and medically suspended fighters then...or world class fighters and debutante... Because well they are on free to air TV...

No I don't. And that is not what Haymon is putting on.

[Boxing Prospect]

Fights on free tv. Yet people complain.
I'm just excited that I don't have to pay for it.

I guess you love the fights being aired on Thai TV between well regarded prospexts and medically suspended fighters then...or world class fighters and debutante... Because well they are on free to air TV...

No I don't. And that is not what Haymon is putting on.

Could well end up being that... But yay free TV...cant complain about boxing on free TV...

For what it's worth Thailand have free shows pretty much weekly spread across something like 5 channels with free entry to many shows... Yay free entry to, can't complain...

[ReggieDiggs]

It doesn't give power to either and it cuts out quite a few small time promoters in the process. Haymon's contracts don't even obligate him to getting his fighters a fight. Since he has so many under contract, you just have to yield to the pecking order and hope he's operating in good faith. Certainly no problems can come of that... surely...

I hate to break it to you, but nothing is perfect. There are & will be problems that arise under any sort of regime in boxing. Hell the sports that are more mainstream have people discussing problems with those leagues all the time. Boxing doesn't go into some sort of utopia because of this or anything else. I never understand the logic by boxing fans that its either the status quo of f#ckedup-ness we see right now or its gotta be PERFECT I'm okay just driving down another road to see if we can find a better way to where we are trying to get. I mean we know this road we're on is kinda f#cked up, isn't it worth checking out this other street just to see if its a better option.

I don't know that I care too much about promoters big or small tbqh. I think the small promoters are already cut out so idk that things would get worse for them. If anything they probably benefit from a fight by fight landscape with boxers as they'll get some opportunities to work with big fighters who all the big promoters have on lock right now.

And I don't see how boxers don't regain control by having someone paid to look after their best interest & not having long term deals with promoters. We've lost a combined 3 years worth of Julio Cesar Chavez's, Andre Ward's & Mikey Garcia's careers over promoters having them locked into long term contracts. And there are tons more guys who've had promoter disputes that have kept them out of the ring. Plus from a boxing fan pov I think if no fighters have promoter deals I think we get more of the fights we want cuz a promoters company value will never take a hit cuz their big name guy lost. Today if Manny loses, TR loses money. If Saul loses, GBP loses money. It makes sense for Manny to fight Chris & I see why Oscar didn't want Saul to fight Erislandy when these are the realities for promoters. If all fighters are on a fight by fight deal the shows will be bigger & more competitive, fighters will likely make more money. It could shorten careers, but personally I think boxers today have overly long careers due to the lack of competitiveness in the sport. I don't wanna see non-Alien Bhop kinda regular cats fighting into their 40's ffs. This to me would be all around a much better boxing world to work in & be a fan of.

[crusader]

I regularly criticize fights when I think they're poor (and praise them when I think they're good-see the recent PBC thread ) so this is nothing new, and I posted several times because other posters offered views that I wanted to address; this is a forum you know. In all, it probably took me no more than ten minutes combined to write my posts in which I give reasons why I don't like this bout, so it's not like I'm sitting here all day spewing negativity. I think it's very reasonable for people to criticize this fight and you haven't given reasons for me to think otherwise, so I don't see the responses in this thread as examples of unreasonable hating or excessive negativity and hence I think the 'negative nancy' nonsense you're bringing up is out of place and reflective of your sensitivity towards criticism of Haymon.

Haymon being involved has no bearing on what I think of the quality of this bout and only a tiny proportion of my posts are about him, but I do think his involvement leads to biased feedback from certain posters who feel more strongly about him than I do (which is indifferent because while he's been a major force in some farces it seems like he's now behind some very interesting bouts-I'll have to wait and see).

I don't see sensitivity on my side. I certainly don't feel sensitivity about anything Al related I know that much. I do get disappointed as a boxing fan so many negative nancy's sh!t on so much of anything that happens in my favorite sport, but at this point I usually find all that negativeness more funny than disappointing. And like I said you can talk negative sh!t all day. Its your life, its your pov, I just think its silly & if you find so much about boxing negative & unenjoyable you might be happier keeping up with another sport.

Personally my theory is people like you just like talking negatively whatever you happen to be talking about. I got an aunt who's always talking about you probably got brain cancer if you got a headache or if you find a deal on something it must have something wrong with it or they raised the price 20% just so they could give you 20% off later. Everything has a negative slant to it. If thats the type of person someone is thats just the type of person they are.

I see plenty of sensitivity on your side. You are probably the quickest poster here to jump to Haymon's defense, you do it constantly, and you argue with people and get defensive even when they aren't attacking him and simply suggest that he's seen as more suspicious than other boxing figures because of his relatively low-profile. People criticizing him or in some cases simply not being positive towards him clearly sparks an urge for you to respond in his defense, and to me it seems fair to say that you're sensitive in that respect.

As for me being negative, I don't think that's a fitting label though I'm not surprised you've given it to me since I declared--with plenty of reasons given--that I think two Haymon fighters are in a mediocre bout; you remind me of the type who screams 'hater' just because someone offers reasonable criticism or skepticism of a certain fighter or other figure rather than fawning over them. If you look at my posts in other threads today you should notice that I praised the body of upcoming bouts on Showtime and CBS, expressed my excitement for an approaching CW bout, and suggested that Pac-Mayweather still has plenty of appeal and significance rather than saying that I'm over it and that it's no longer an interesting bout like many have opined.

If I found boxing unenjoyable I wouldn't watch it or discuss it constantly, but I'm here posting nearly every day and watching fights every week aren't I? I'm just not the type who believes that certain bouts are beyond criticism because some people get them on free TV (and I'm fairly confident that you've criticized Klitschko bouts that were on free German TV--would that make you a 'negative nancy'?), or the type who thinks that criticizing this kind of bout means that someone is generally negative about boxing.

[ReggieDiggs]

I see plenty of sensitivity on your side. You are probably the quickest poster here to jump to Haymon's defense, you do it constantly, and you argue with people and get defensive even when they aren't attacking him and simply suggest that he's seen as more suspicious than other boxing figures because of his relatively low-profile. People criticizing him or in some cases simply not being positive towards him clearly sparks an urge for you to respond in his defense, and to me it seems fair to say that you're sensitive in that respect.

As for me being negative, I don't think that's a fitting label though I'm not surprised you've given it to me since I declared--with plenty of reasons given--that I think two Haymon fighters are in a mediocre bout; you remind me of the type who screams 'hater' just because someone offers reasonable criticism or skepticism of a certain fighter or other figure rather than fawning over them. If you look at my posts in other threads today you should notice that I praised the body of upcoming bouts on Showtime and CBS, expressed my excitement for an approaching CW bout, and suggested that Pac-Mayweather still has plenty of appeal and significance rather than saying that I'm over it and that it's no longer an interesting bout like many have opined.

If I found boxing unenjoyable I wouldn't watch it or discuss it constantly, but I'm here posting nearly every day and watching fights every week aren't I? I'm just not the type who believes that certain bouts are beyond criticism because some people get them on free TV (and I'm fairly confident that you've criticized Klitschko bouts that were on free German TV--would that make you a 'negative nancy'?), or the type who thinks that criticizing this kind of bout means that someone is generally negative about boxing.

I think you probably see a lot of things that aren't there to rationalize your stances. I think you're the one being overly sensitive about this fight being so bad. Like I said its not the best fight, but Bika's durability makes it solid. Not the best, not great, not even good. Solid. Hardly a bold stance about anything, but somehow for you this is like sitting in a tree k.i.ss.i.n.g Al's ass.

LOL at fawning. Despite you trying to make this all about Al it isn't.

And I think being a negative nancy is more about your & your types percentage of negativity about so many subjects more than other people, myself included, being negative about random things here & there. I mean everything isn't all this way or that way. Saying one days worth of good things or finding Wlad fights kinda boring for HW fights doesn't make you one thing or another. Its more about a overall stance imho.

[MachoTime]

It's not a solid fight. Stevenson should be fighting Kovalev.. To be kind about it. Stevenson is getting milked. Put thru the rollers. His side is trying to squeeze every last buck out of him.

[crusader]

I'll come clean, I'm a cheerleader for Ohashi, dam do they put on some great fights on free TV...

I don't see a problem with being favorable of a certain promoter or promotional outfit because they put on good bouts. To me it seems, however, that an increasing number express their fandom by defending certain fights (among other things) based heavily on the favored person's association with that fight rather than the fight itself (e.g. how evenly matched it is and the overall quality of the fighters).

I think you probably see a lot of things that aren't there to rationalize your stances. I think you're the one being overly sensitive about this fight being so bad. Like I said its not the best fight, but Bika's durability makes it solid. Not the best, not great, not even good. Solid. Hardly a bold stance about anything, but somehow for you this is like sitting in a tree k.i.ss.i.n.g Al's ass.

LOL at fawning. Despite you trying to make this all about Al it isn't.

And I think being a negative nancy is more about your & your types percentage of negativity about so many subjects more than other people, myself included, being negative about random things here & there. I mean everything isn't all this way or that way. Saying one days worth of good things or finding Wlad fights kinda boring for HW fights doesn't make you one thing or another. Its more about a overall stance imho.

I'm fairly sure that you do constantly post about Haymon (it's not that hard to track who has discussed what) and that you have started arguments defending Haymon from claims no one made about him (e.g. the thread I keep mentioning where you went off about Haymon not having obligations to be transparent when someone merely claimed that he's seen as relatively suspicious because of his low-profile).

As for Bika-Stevenson and what it suggests about one's views towards Haymon, others have claimed that they're fine with the bout and I don't take it as each of them being part of the Haymon crew like yourself (though no doubt BI is), nor would I take your suggestion that the bout is solid as itself being an indication of your views toward Haymon. That is based on a much wider body of evidence, and I only brought up the point about certain people being cheerleaders because someone else mentioned a related issue.

As I mentioned before, I hardly see how this bout is 'solid' when Stevenson, an elite LHW, is facing a blown up SMW who's lost to every world class opponent he's faced, hasn't won in nearly two years, looked quite poor in widely losing his last fight, was hurt multiple times over his last two fights in addition to being dropped in his fight fight with Dirrell, and has a style that relies on physical strength-which will likely be significantly less effective against men who are bigger than the opponents he's faced throughout his career. I simply don't see what is solid about Bika facing an elite LHW champ who is bigger, much harder punching, and more skilled; he doesn't deserve the shot and I suspect he'll lose convincingly for the second time in a row.

I don't think that I'm generally a negative poster and it could simply be that most of our conversations are about matters that I'm negative about, however you define that, and hence your perception is distorted. I do think it's rather hypocritical that people criticizing a fight that will be on free TV, although not for all of course, seems to be what triggered you to raise the negativity issue given that I know you've complained about bouts that were also on free TV.

I'm also glad that you're amused by my word choice

[BAD INTENTIONS]

What do you call people who overly-vilify one person within a completely corrupt and dysfunctional system?

Biased?
Stupid?
Insane?

[BAD INTENTIONS]

I've made how I feel about all rich people abundantly clear.

Most of you are too pussy to admit your real problem with Haymon, he's with Floyd. If Haymon was Manny's guy, there would be 90% less criticism.

Most of you are simple little bitches who hate so readily that you don't even realize how illogical you're being. I'm not talking about "hating", I'm talking about pure hate. The fact that you guys can be so biased and hateful without good reason is sad.

But whatever, keep talking about Garcia/Salka while I'm watching Garcia/Peterson for free. Keep bad mouthing Haymon about that while forgetting Manny/Algieri. Y'all are the type of dickheads that have allowed HBO and Arum to flourish.

[ReggieDiggs]

Stevenson should be fighting Kovalev.

[MachoTime]

Stevenson should be fighting Kovalev.

Kovalev Stevenson

[ReggieDiggs]

I'm fairly sure that you do constantly post about Haymon (it's not that hard to track who has discussed what) and that you have started arguments defending Haymon from claims no one made about him (e.g. the thread I keep mentioning where you went off about Haymon not having obligations to be transparent when someone merely claimed that he's seen as relatively suspicious because of his low-profile).

That thread was RETARDED for anyone being reasonable & Al tends to make people unreasonable for whatever reason. People in positions such as Al virtually never do interviews. You will sometimes catch Cameron Dunkin, a higher profile manager, doing interviews every now & again, but he's about the most notable non-promoter/fighter/trainer talking to the media on camera. For the most part EVERYONE in non-promoter/fighter/trainer positions talk to the media on camera about as often as a Muslim eats pork regardless to fans opinion on their importance in the sport or the number of people they work for.

And sh!t like I said before this cat might have some sorta social anxiety kinda thing or something cuz its not just boxing where this guy keeps a low profile, its life. He's been doing business in the concert world forever & you won't find him doing random interviews there either so its not like he's a supervillain hiding in the dark or anything like people seem to wanna portray.

As for Bika-Stevenson and what it suggests about one's views towards Haymon, others have claimed that they're fine with the bout and I don't take it as each of them being part of the Haymon crew like yourself (though no doubt BI is), nor would I take your suggestion that the bout is solid as itself being an indication of your views toward Haymon. That is based on a much wider body of evidence, and I only brought up the point about certain people being cheerleaders because someone else mentioned a related issue.

You might be insane as well as a negative nancy. Saying a fight is "solid" is being a cheerleader? Thats a sh!tty ass cheerleader I mean as you said you got no problem with others saying its "fine". But you act like I said this is foty or something. I said what those other cats said with no mention of Al who you seem to hate & then when I come with a defense of your Al hate I'm considered a Al lover. I assure you I'm way more neutral on Al than you & your kind are.

As I mentioned before, I hardly see how this bout is 'solid' when Stevenson, an elite LHW, is facing a blown up SMW who's lost to every world class opponent he's faced, hasn't won in nearly two years, looked quite poor in widely losing his last fight, was hurt multiple times over his last two fights in addition to being dropped in his fight fight with Dirrell, and has a style that relies on physical strength-which will likely be significantly less effective against men who are bigger than the opponents he's faced throughout his career. I simply don't see what is solid about Bika facing an elite LHW champ who is bigger, much harder punching, and more skilled; he doesn't deserve the shot and I suspect he'll lose convincingly for the second time in a row.

I can definitely see your side & the two year non-win streak was something I mentioned previously once you brought it up. I hadn't considered that.

I don't think that I'm generally a negative poster and it could simply be that most of our conversations are about matters that I'm negative about, however you define that, and hence your perception is distorted. I do think it's rather hypocritical that people criticizing a fight that will be on free TV, although not for all of course, seems to be what triggered you to raise the negativity issue given that I know you've complained about bouts that were also on free TV.

I'm also glad that you're amused by my word choice

You seem ultra focused on the free tv joke I made for some reason. I said that was a goof off of BI's remark. And I've said over & over if you wanna sh!t on whatever thats your business & I know you enjoy sh!tting on things. I got no clue why you keep bringing it up as if its relevant to any stance I have. I do dig that we have fights on free tv coming up & I do find it comical guys are sh!tting on fights that won't require having HBO/Showtime/PPV or involve illegally streaming fights, but thats your business if you sh!t on them. You are misunderstanding me joking on you & people like you not your ability or desire to sh!t on free fights.

[ReggieDiggs]

Stevenson should be fighting Kovalev.

Kovalev Stevenson

I tend to agree with your stance on how that goes down, but with HBO not working with Haymon fighters the reality is that isn't a fight that'll happen any time soon.

[Blodhemn]

It doesn't give power to either and it cuts out quite a few small time promoters in the process. Haymon's contracts don't even obligate him to getting his fighters a fight. Since he has so many under contract, you just have to yield to the pecking order and hope he's operating in good faith. Certainly no problems can come of that... surely...

I hate to break it to you, but nothing is perfect. There are & will be problems that arise under any sort of regime in boxing. Hell the sports that are more mainstream have people discussing problems with those leagues all the time. Boxing doesn't go into some sort of utopia because of this or anything else. I never understand the logic by boxing fans that its either the status quo of f#ckedup-ness we see right now or its gotta be PERFECT I'm okay just driving down another road to see if we can find a better way to where we are trying to get. I mean we know this road we're on is kinda f#cked up, isn't it worth checking out this other street just to see if its a better option.

I don't know that I care too much about promoters big or small tbqh. I think the small promoters are already cut out so idk that things would get worse for them. If anything they probably benefit from a fight by fight landscape with boxers as they'll get some opportunities to work with big fighters who all the big promoters have on lock right now.

And I don't see how boxers don't regain control by having someone paid to look after their best interest & not having long term deals with promoters. We've lost a combined 3 years worth of Julio Cesar Chavez's, Andre Ward's & Mikey Garcia's careers over promoters having them locked into long term contracts. And there are tons more guys who've had promoter disputes that have kept them out of the ring. Plus from a boxing fan pov I think if no fighters have promoter deals I think we get more of the fights we want cuz a promoters company value will never take a hit cuz their big name guy lost. Today if Manny loses, TR loses money. If Saul loses, GBP loses money. It makes sense for Manny to fight Chris & I see why Oscar didn't want Saul to fight Erislandy when these are the realities for promoters. If all fighters are on a fight by fight deal the shows will be bigger & more competitive, fighters will likely make more money. It could shorten careers, but personally I think boxers today have overly long careers due to the lack of competitiveness in the sport. I don't wanna see non-Alien Bhop kinda regular cats fighting into their 40's ffs. This to me would be all around a much better boxing world to work in & be a fan of.

Pure speculation. Literally nothing you've said makes a bit of sense.

[ReggieDiggs]

Pure speculation.

No sh!t, anything that hasn't happened or is in the middle of happening is speculation I appreciate you confirming my speculation on being speculation.

[Blodhemn]

Rev Reg you're so full of insight. You're speculating on many things that don't even apply, and that have proven to be the exact opposite to how Haymon operates. Be a little more realistic in projecting the future. You're literally wiping the slate clean of the past and speculating on a reversed future. Vive la Haymon Revolution.

[Impractical Poster]

Me thinks some people look too far into things. Some of us just happen to think Bika may be able to cause some issues for Stevenson. Just because the majority think otherwise doesn't mean that the people that like the fight are Haymon supporters. It's like some of you are about to run out to the venue with picket signs. It's not that serious. Just let us have our opinions void the politics.

[Dennis]

Bika gave Ward a difficult time in spite of losing to Ward. Bika has never been stopped so it's a challenge for Adonis.

[ReggieDiggs]

Rev Reg you're so full of insight. You're speculating on many things that don't even apply, and that have proven to be the exact opposite to how Haymon operates. Be a little more realistic in projecting the future. You're literally wiping the slate clean of the past and speculating on a reversed future. Vive la Haymon Revolution.

In trying to predict anything moving forward its bound to have some unrealistic sh!t today in there. I mean who'd have predicted Bob would branch out to China ffs. Having said that I got no clue whats all the unrealistic with what I said. And idk that we got a clue what Al's entire MO is. I think thats what people who do all the fear mongering or hating on Al are freaked out by. He's doing something no one else has done.

[Bard of Boxrec]

A fresher Bika would have taken Adonis into the trenches. Now, not so sure, but I'll be interested to see those odds.

[Blodhemn]

Rev Reg you're so full of insight. You're speculating on many things that don't even apply, and that have proven to be the exact opposite to how Haymon operates. Be a little more realistic in projecting the future. You're literally wiping the slate clean of the past and speculating on a reversed future. Vive la Haymon Revolution.

In trying to predict anything moving forward its bound to have some unrealistic sh!t today in there. I mean who'd have predicted Bob would branch out to China ffs. Having said that I got no clue whats all the unrealistic with what I said. And idk that we got a clue what Al's entire MO is. I think thats what people who do all the fear mongering or hating on Al are freaked out by. He's doing something no one else has done.

Right...forgetting past patterns and hoping for something completely different is little more than wishful thinking.

[SFW]

How the fornicate can anyone think this is a solid/good fight? It is not, it is bullshit. It is a joke. Still can't believe how overrated Bika continues to be.

[ReggieDiggs]

Right...forgetting past patterns and hoping for something completely different is little more than wishful thinking.

When exactly has someone had a ~170 man roster & brought up TV time across 5 or so networks? Something Al is doing ain't like what others have done to get fighters, TV channels & senators on board with what he's doing. To act like this is just the same ole same ole is naive at best.

[Blodhemn]

Yet fights like Bika-Stevenson continue to happen. This is incredibly inventive. Why has no one thought of it before?