BoxRec

Ward beat the supposedly unbeatable "Krusher" Kovalev.

Outboxed the Russian and left him an exhausted. debunked myth.

For that alone, Andre Ward deserves to be the 2016 Fighter of the Year.

Now if only Golovkin would step up to the plate, put on a little muscle, and challenge SOG.

It won't happen. He prefers to strut and preen by calling out junior middleweights (and occasional welters, to be sure.)

jujigatame wrote:I think Frampton is a solid choice, but I also think:

Bradley + Vargas > Santa Cruz + Quigg

And add on the fact that Pacquiao's victories were more emphatic.

So Manny Pacquiao defeats for the third time an opponent (Bradley) that he has comfortably defeated twice prior… and then follows up that victory against a man (Vargas) that had only ever had one successful welterweight outing and himself had already recently tasted defeated by a wide margin to the aforementioned fighter (Bradley)… and you honestly believe that warrants the Filipino as a worthy fighter of the year candidate?

Yes.

If your criteria for FOTY is the fighter who had the most decisive victories over the highest quality opponents, that is Pacquiao.

jujigatame wrote:Yes.

If your criteria for FOTY is the fighter who had the most decisive victories over the highest quality opponents, that is Pacquiao.

He beat the guys who are now ranked 6 and 9 in his weight class

There's little comparison, Frampton's achievements were on a higher level

BonyTellew wrote:

jujigatame wrote:Yes.

If your criteria for FOTY is the fighter who had the most decisive victories over the highest quality opponents, that is Pacquiao.

He beat the guys who are now ranked 6 and 9 in his weight class

There's little comparison, Frampton's achievements were on a higher level

I agree with Frampton edging out Pac, but I think either Ward deserves it or he and Krusher should be co fighters of the year. Lomassiah follows Pac closely.

Carl Frampton gets it for me because he beat the highest quality opponents where he wasn't a clear favorite to win going into either fight. Pacquiao was the heavy favorite in both of his wins. Terence Crawford isn't in the conversation to me. Vasyl Lomachenko has had a phenomenal year, but for me it's Frampton by a wide margin.

Shannon the Cannon Briggs- Lets go Champ!! Peoples heavyweight champion, 2016 Peoples fighter of the year!!

Frampton is getting some well deserved respect which is nice to see and I do feel he's deserving of the honor this year. Though, it's been such a horrible year for boxing that perhaps Carl doesn't even want to be associated with it. If anyone names Canelo as their FOY then I'll stop reading that person, company or publication.

They should come up with an annual award for the boxer that did the most harm to the sport. THAT would be one heck of a list to pick from this year.

caldo2025 wrote:They should come up with an annual award for the boxer that did the most harm to the sport. THAT would be one heck of a list to pick from this year.

Who do you feel harmed the sport?

Enlightened-One wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:They should come up with an annual award for the boxer that did the most harm to the sport. THAT would be one heck of a list to pick from this year.

Who do you feel harmed the sport?

My list would contain mostly non boxers because I think that Al Haymon would be #1 followed by HBO, SHO and Arum. These 4 outfits together represent 95% of all of the talent in Boxing. So when you have a historically horrendous year of matchmaking and televised bouts of any significance, you have to place the blame where it belongs. Televising mismatches is one thing, at least we're watching boxing. When was the last televised fight on SHO? HBO has had a couple fights in the last 6 months. It's a joke.

caldo2025 wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:They should come up with an annual award for the boxer that did the most harm to the sport. THAT would be one heck of a list to pick from this year.

Who do you feel harmed the sport?

My list would contain mostly non boxers because I think that Al Haymon would be #1 followed by HBO, SHO and Arum. These 4 outfits together represent 95% of all of the talent in Boxing. So when you have a historically horrendous year of matchmaking and televised bouts of any significance, you have to place the blame where it belongs. Televising mismatches is one thing, at least we're watching boxing. When was the last televised fight on SHO? HBO has had a couple fights in the last 6 months. It's a joke.

In terms of Haymon though, I don’t know why people dislike him so much or hoping that his PBC venture fails, since nobody knows anything about the man.

HBO broke ties with Haymon, not the other way around and the PBC (have already) and will be televising quite a lot of decent free-to-air contests that aren’t being paid for by the fight fans or even the TV networks.

He seems to be doing far more good for the sport than harm, but hey… what do I know?

If you genuinely believe that Al Haymon is the main culprit for everything that is wrong with the sport, why don’t you ask him for your money back for all the PBC fights that you paid to watch, as it seems you’re pretty dissatisfied with the services he’s providing?

Enlightened-One wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: Who do you feel harmed the sport?

My list would contain mostly non boxers because I think that Al Haymon would be #1 followed by HBO, SHO and Arum. These 4 outfits together represent 95% of all of the talent in Boxing. So when you have a historically horrendous year of matchmaking and televised bouts of any significance, you have to place the blame where it belongs. Televising mismatches is one thing, at least we're watching boxing. When was the last televised fight on SHO? HBO has had a couple fights in the last 6 months. It's a joke.

In terms of Haymon though, I don’t know why people dislike him so much or hoping that his PBC venture fails, since nobody knows anything about the man.

HBO broke ties with Haymon, not the other way around and the PBC (have already) and will be televising quite a lot of decent free-to-air contests that aren’t being paid for by the fight fans or even the TV networks.

He seems to be doing far more good for the sport than harm, but hey… what do I know?

If you genuinely believe that Al Haymon is the main culprit for everything that is wrong with the sport, why don’t you ask him for your money back for all the PBC fights that you paid to watch, as it seems you’re pretty dissatisfied with the services he’s providing?

The truth is that Haymon and the PBC misdiagnosed the consumer and how they spend their entertainment dollars. No one cares about "free boxing". They just want to see competitive fights and they really don't have a problem paying for it. The UFC is a perfect example of that. They have a PPV event every single month and do not apologize about that. This whole concept of FREE BOXING is a failure.

Personally, i'd rather Haymon and his enormous talent pool of boxers, put on a PPV event every single month. I'd pay $80per month without complaining a bit if the fights were worth it. With PPV, Haymon would be forced to show better fights to justify fans paying for it. In this current model with free fights, we've been getting what we've paid for. Nothing really. Aside from a few exceptions, the cards have been nothing but a showcase of his fighters in mismatch after mismatch. If we were paying for those fights, they would be better.

Haymon holds most of the talent in the sport so he must be criticized after a year like this. Simple math

caldo2025 wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:
My list would contain mostly non boxers because I think that Al Haymon would be #1 followed by HBO, SHO and Arum. These 4 outfits together represent 95% of all of the talent in Boxing. So when you have a historically horrendous year of matchmaking and televised bouts of any significance, you have to place the blame where it belongs. Televising mismatches is one thing, at least we're watching boxing. When was the last televised fight on SHO? HBO has had a couple fights in the last 6 months. It's a joke.

In terms of Haymon though, I don’t know why people dislike him so much or hoping that his PBC venture fails, since nobody knows anything about the man.

HBO broke ties with Haymon, not the other way around and the PBC (have already) and will be televising quite a lot of decent free-to-air contests that aren’t being paid for by the fight fans or even the TV networks.

He seems to be doing far more good for the sport than harm, but hey… what do I know?

If you genuinely believe that Al Haymon is the main culprit for everything that is wrong with the sport, why don’t you ask him for your money back for all the PBC fights that you paid to watch, as it seems you’re pretty dissatisfied with the services he’s providing?

The truth is that Haymon and the PBC misdiagnosed the consumer and how they spend their entertainment dollars. No one cares about "free boxing". They just want to see competitive fights and they really don't have a problem paying for it. The UFC is a perfect example of that. They have a PPV event every single month and do not apologize about that. This whole concept of FREE BOXING is a failure.

Personally, i'd rather Haymon and his enormous talent pool of boxers, put on a PPV event every single month. I'd pay $80per month without complaining a bit if the fights were worth it. With PPV, Haymon would be forced to show better fights to justify fans paying for it. In this current model with free fights, we've been getting what we've paid for. Nothing really. Aside from a few exceptions, the cards have been nothing but a showcase of his fighters in mismatch after mismatch. If we were paying for those fights, they would be better.

Haymon holds most of the talent in the sport so he must be criticized after a year like this. Simple math

Personally-speaking, there is an element of truth in some of the things you’ve said, so I’m not really criticising your opinion.

However, at the moment, the PBC is a loss-making venture that will eventually need to find a home, so the ultimate aim is to generate enough interest in the brand to compel one or more TV networks to pay a multi-year license fee for the right to televise their fight cards.

Therefore, in my opinion, it doesn’t really make sense for Haymon to devalue to net worth of his assets by televising all the most eagerly-awaited high-profile PBC match-up’s for free (as in, solely funded by Waddell & Reed, Haymon and the rest of the PBC's investors).

What I mean is this… if/when Danny Garcia loses to Keith Thurman, whether anyone likes it or not, the blemish on Swift’s resume will inevitably reduce his status in the sport. It also means there’s one fewer high-profile PBC bout that fight fans would be motivated to see… and it’s unlikely that a rematch would generate much interest.

So I understand the reasons why the PBC seems reluctant to persistently showcase the biggest fights that can be orchestrated amongst their stable of fighters, because they’re probably reserving them for when they eventually receive funding from the TV networks.

In the meantime, fight fans should really be trying to support the PBC rather than criticising it, because it’s costing them nothing.

Simply put: it’s unfair for you to claim that Al Haymon is the most harmful person involved in the sport of boxing.

Enlightened-One wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: In terms of Haymon though, I don’t know why people dislike him so much or hoping that his PBC venture fails, since nobody knows anything about the man.

HBO broke ties with Haymon, not the other way around and the PBC (have already) and will be televising quite a lot of decent free-to-air contests that aren’t being paid for by the fight fans or even the TV networks.

He seems to be doing far more good for the sport than harm, but hey… what do I know?

If you genuinely believe that Al Haymon is the main culprit for everything that is wrong with the sport, why don’t you ask him for your money back for all the PBC fights that you paid to watch, as it seems you’re pretty dissatisfied with the services he’s providing?

The truth is that Haymon and the PBC misdiagnosed the consumer and how they spend their entertainment dollars. No one cares about "free boxing". They just want to see competitive fights and they really don't have a problem paying for it. The UFC is a perfect example of that. They have a PPV event every single month and do not apologize about that. This whole concept of FREE BOXING is a failure.

Personally, i'd rather Haymon and his enormous talent pool of boxers, put on a PPV event every single month. I'd pay $80per month without complaining a bit if the fights were worth it. With PPV, Haymon would be forced to show better fights to justify fans paying for it. In this current model with free fights, we've been getting what we've paid for. Nothing really. Aside from a few exceptions, the cards have been nothing but a showcase of his fighters in mismatch after mismatch. If we were paying for those fights, they would be better.

Haymon holds most of the talent in the sport so he must be criticized after a year like this. Simple math

Personally-speaking, there is an element of truth in some of the things you’ve said, so I’m not really criticising your opinion.

However, at the moment, the PBC is a loss-making venture that will eventually need to find a home, so the ultimate aim is to generate enough interest in the brand to compel one or more TV networks to pay a multi-year license fee for the right to televise their fight cards.

Therefore, in my opinion, it doesn’t really make sense for Haymon to devalue to net worth of his assets by televising all the most eagerly-awaited high-profile PBC match-up’s for free (as in, solely funded by Waddell & Reed, Haymon and the rest of the PBC's investors).

What I mean is this… if/when Danny Garcia loses to Keith Thurman, whether anyone likes it or not, the blemish on Swift’s resume will inevitably reduce his status in the sport. It also means there’s one fewer high-profile PBC bout that fight fans would be motivated to see… and it’s unlikely that a rematch would generate much interest.

So I understand the reasons why the PBC seems reluctant to persistently showcase the biggest fights that can be orchestrated amongst their stable of fighters, because they’re probably reserving them for when they eventually receive funding from the TV networks.

In the meantime, fight fans should really be trying to support the PBC rather than criticising it, because it’s costing them nothing.

Simply put: it’s unfair for you to claim that Al Haymon is the most harmful person involved in the sport of boxing.

It is only "unfair for (caldo2025) to claim that Al Haymon is the most harmful person involved in the sport of boxing" if there is someone who is more harmful to boxing than him. Who would that be E-O?

Time does not freeze for Haymon or anyone else. His boxers are aging / rotting while Haymon tries to position his enterprise for success. I am not interested in waiting until I am 70 years old for Al Haymon to get off his ass and get competitive fights made.

Btw, you are completely off base with your analysis of the effects a loss will have on Danny or for that matter Thurman. The fact that they are fighting each other is a huge positive. Whoever loses will not be diminished if the fight is competitive. The fact is that Danny may come out of that fight more highly respected than he is going in, even if he loses. It is a step in the correct direction.

Serving up plates of non-competitive sh!t for free does not make it taste any better, and forcing ourselves to eat that sh!t in hopes that the chef will be offered a lucrative contract and stop serving sh!t is just plain stupid.

BonyTellew wrote:

jujigatame wrote:Yes.

If your criteria for FOTY is the fighter who had the most decisive victories over the highest quality opponents, that is Pacquiao.

He beat the guys who are now ranked 6 and 9 in his weight class

There's little comparison, Frampton's achievements were on a higher level

That's only true if:

1) You look at their rankings now, as opposed to at the time of the fight.

2) You consider rankings equal across all weight classes, like the #5 guy at 122 is just as good as the #5 guy at 147.

But I do agree that Frampton had a great year.

Tanzio wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:
The truth is that Haymon and the PBC misdiagnosed the consumer and how they spend their entertainment dollars. No one cares about "free boxing". They just want to see competitive fights and they really don't have a problem paying for it. The UFC is a perfect example of that. They have a PPV event every single month and do not apologize about that. This whole concept of FREE BOXING is a failure.

Personally, i'd rather Haymon and his enormous talent pool of boxers, put on a PPV event every single month. I'd pay $80per month without complaining a bit if the fights were worth it. With PPV, Haymon would be forced to show better fights to justify fans paying for it. In this current model with free fights, we've been getting what we've paid for. Nothing really. Aside from a few exceptions, the cards have been nothing but a showcase of his fighters in mismatch after mismatch. If we were paying for those fights, they would be better.

Haymon holds most of the talent in the sport so he must be criticized after a year like this. Simple math

Personally-speaking, there is an element of truth in some of the things you’ve said, so I’m not really criticising your opinion.

However, at the moment, the PBC is a loss-making venture that will eventually need to find a home, so the ultimate aim is to generate enough interest in the brand to compel one or more TV networks to pay a multi-year license fee for the right to televise their fight cards.

Therefore, in my opinion, it doesn’t really make sense for Haymon to devalue to net worth of his assets by televising all the most eagerly-awaited high-profile PBC match-up’s for free (as in, solely funded by Waddell & Reed, Haymon and the rest of the PBC's investors).

What I mean is this… if/when Danny Garcia loses to Keith Thurman, whether anyone likes it or not, the blemish on Swift’s resume will inevitably reduce his status in the sport. It also means there’s one fewer high-profile PBC bout that fight fans would be motivated to see… and it’s unlikely that a rematch would generate much interest.

So I understand the reasons why the PBC seems reluctant to persistently showcase the biggest fights that can be orchestrated amongst their stable of fighters, because they’re probably reserving them for when they eventually receive funding from the TV networks.

In the meantime, fight fans should really be trying to support the PBC rather than criticising it, because it’s costing them nothing.

Simply put: it’s unfair for you to claim that Al Haymon is the most harmful person involved in the sport of boxing.

It is only "unfair for (caldo2025) to claim that Al Haymon is the most harmful person involved in the sport of boxing" if there is someone who is more harmful to boxing than him. Who would that be E-O?

Time does not freeze for Haymon or anyone else. His boxers are aging / rotting while Haymon tries to position his enterprise for success. I am not interested in waiting until I am 70 years old for Al Haymon to get off his ass and get competitive fights made.

Btw, you are completely off base with your analysis of the effects a loss will have on Danny or for that matter Thurman. The fact that they are fighting each other is a huge positive. Whoever loses will not be diminished if the fight is competitive. The fact is that Danny may come out of that fight more highly respected than he is going in, even if he loses. It is a step in the correct direction.

Serving up plates of non-competitive sh!t for free does not make it taste any better, and forcing ourselves to eat that sh!t in hopes that the chef will be offered a lucrative contract and stop serving sh!t is just plain stupid.

I understand your point-of-view and I often feel frustrated about the situation. However, who’s going to pay for all these great match-up’s that you’d like to see? The mainstream casual fight fans won’t… and HBO aren’t working with Haymon.

Should the fighters simply accept small paydays for the sake of pleasing the fans?

Also, are the PBC’s bouts for next year really that bad? Are you really being forced to eat sh!t?

In terms of you being kept waiting until you’re seventy years of age for competitive fights… the PBC only started televising fight cards about twenty months ago. So I’m going to show a little more patience, by giving it another year before I vent my frustration, because let’s face it, the PBC fights being televised by Showtime next year seem pretty good to me.

Enlightened-One wrote:

Tanzio wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: Personally-speaking, there is an element of truth in some of the things you’ve said, so I’m not really criticising your opinion.

However, at the moment, the PBC is a loss-making venture that will eventually need to find a home, so the ultimate aim is to generate enough interest in the brand to compel one or more TV networks to pay a multi-year license fee for the right to televise their fight cards.

Therefore, in my opinion, it doesn’t really make sense for Haymon to devalue to net worth of his assets by televising all the most eagerly-awaited high-profile PBC match-up’s for free (as in, solely funded by Waddell & Reed, Haymon and the rest of the PBC's investors).

What I mean is this… if/when Danny Garcia loses to Keith Thurman, whether anyone likes it or not, the blemish on Swift’s resume will inevitably reduce his status in the sport. It also means there’s one fewer high-profile PBC bout that fight fans would be motivated to see… and it’s unlikely that a rematch would generate much interest.

So I understand the reasons why the PBC seems reluctant to persistently showcase the biggest fights that can be orchestrated amongst their stable of fighters, because they’re probably reserving them for when they eventually receive funding from the TV networks.

In the meantime, fight fans should really be trying to support the PBC rather than criticising it, because it’s costing them nothing.

Simply put: it’s unfair for you to claim that Al Haymon is the most harmful person involved in the sport of boxing.

It is only "unfair for (caldo2025) to claim that Al Haymon is the most harmful person involved in the sport of boxing" if there is someone who is more harmful to boxing than him. Who would that be E-O?

Time does not freeze for Haymon or anyone else. His boxers are aging / rotting while Haymon tries to position his enterprise for success. I am not interested in waiting until I am 70 years old for Al Haymon to get off his ass and get competitive fights made.

Btw, you are completely off base with your analysis of the effects a loss will have on Danny or for that matter Thurman. The fact that they are fighting each other is a huge positive. Whoever loses will not be diminished if the fight is competitive. The fact is that Danny may come out of that fight more highly respected than he is going in, even if he loses. It is a step in the correct direction.

Serving up plates of non-competitive sh!t for free does not make it taste any better, and forcing ourselves to eat that sh!t in hopes that the chef will be offered a lucrative contract and stop serving sh!t is just plain stupid.

I understand your point-of-view and I often feel frustrated about the situation. However, who’s going to pay for all these great match-up’s that you’d like to see? The mainstream casual fight fans won’t… and HBO aren’t working with Haymon.

Should the fighters simply accept small paydays for the sake of pleasing the fans?

Also, are the PBC’s bouts for next year really that bad? Are you really being forced to eat sh!t?

In terms of you being kept waiting until you’re seventy years of age for competitive fights… the PBC only started televising fight cards about twenty months ago. So I’m going to show a little more patience, by giving it another year before I vent my frustration, because let’s face it, the PBC fights being televised by Showtime next year seem pretty good to me.

You are correct about there being some good fights on tap for 2017.

Back to my question. If Caldo2025 is not right about Haymon being the most harmful person in boxing, who is?

Tanzio wrote:You are correct about there being some good fights on tap for 2017.

Back to my question. If Caldo2025 is not right about Haymon being the most harmful person in boxing, who is?

I have to be honest and admit to having an inability rank the blame according to damage being done to the sport by particular individuals or entities, because I don’t believe anyone possesses enough information to form a truly educated opinion on the matter.

That being said, I refuse to assign responsibility to some random person like Al Haymon, just for the sake of it or due to some form of Lemming-like compulsion to adhere to the ignorance of the masses.

Boxing has a lot of shortcomings, but I guess the underlying cause for a lot of the issues we all regularly witness is usually due to money being the main driver for all decisions and actions.

Boxing is no longer perceived to be a sport, but more as an entertainment-oriented business, where the "employees" operate as independent contractors solely-focussed on protecting their best interest, where their decisions are based on the risk versus return ratio, such as aiming for the biggest payday whilst minimising the risk and without relinquishing control over their destinies.

The thing to remember though, is boxing is a global sport and the same situations and conflicts we witness in the US, also affect the other regions of the globe, but involving a different set of individuals and entities.

That being said, if you feel compelled to blame Al Haymon for everything that is wrong with the sport, then that’s your prerogative… just because I can’t answer your question, doesn’t mean that Caldo's assumption about the PBC chief should automatically be deemed as "correct."

Enlightened-One wrote:

Tanzio wrote:You are correct about there being some good fights on tap for 2017.

Back to my question. If Caldo2025 is not right about Haymon being the most harmful person in boxing, who is?

I have to be honest and admit to having an inability rank the blame according to damage being done to the sport by particular individuals or entities, because I don’t believe anyone possesses enough information to form a truly educated opinion on the matter.

That being said, I refuse to assign responsibility to some random person like Al Haymon, just for the sake of it or due to some form of Lemming-like compulsion to adhere to the ignorance of the masses.

Boxing has a lot of shortcomings, but I guess the underlying cause for a lot of the issues we all regularly witness is usually due to money being the main driver for all decisions and actions.

Boxing is no longer perceived to be a sport, but more as an entertainment-oriented business, where the "employees" operate as independent contractors solely-focussed on protecting their best interest, where their decisions are based on the risk versus return ratio, such as aiming for the biggest payday whilst minimising the risk and without relinquishing control over their destinies.

The thing to remember though, is boxing is a global sport and the same situations and conflicts we witness in the US, also affect the other regions of the globe, but involving a different set of individuals and entities.

That being said, if you feel compelled to blame Al Haymon for everything that is wrong with the sport, then that’s your prerogative… just because I can’t answer your question, doesn’t mean that Caldo's assumption about the PBC chief should automatically be deemed as "correct."

Enlightened One uses the Danny Garcia example to defend Haymon's 2016 actions when in reality, that very example is what is destroying the sport and the entertainment value. I'm not knocking you for thinking that way because it is exactly where these elite boxer's heads are at since Floyd created this "if you aren't undefeated, you're nothing" culture. Now most elite boxers and promoters have the "sky is falling" approach to the prospects of a loss an how it hits the boxers worth and earning potential. Yet, I don't think that we have enough examples or statistics to prove or disprove this as fact.

For example, Leo Santa Cruz is coming off his first loss after being criticized for cherry picking the last couple of years. It will be interesting to see where his career goes from here with another loss or a win in the rematch with Frampton. I'll also be interested to see what LSC takes home for money in the rematch. With a win, does that set up a third fight that could end up being his most lucrative fight when we look back at his career. All of it, would not be possible without gaining that first loss.

I think that a lot has to do with the way a boxer loses a fight. For instance, David Lemieux's 2nd loss to GGG was an uncompetitive beatdown that really hurt the momentum he built up and his career took several step back. Nicholas Walters career is in serious doubt after quitting in the ring last month. Had Walters continued on and showed some heart, the chances are that he could retain some fans and support.

But if you look at any GOAT list, you may see one or two undefeated fighters on it a best. Maybe none. That is very telling and something that these boxers and promoters need to consider. It will be interesting to how the loser of Thurman/Garcia will fare after this fight is in the books but it's my opinion that this undefeated or bust craziness is keeping us from seeing great fights and it's something that Haymon seems to be moving away from in 2017. If he continues to create interesting matchups in 2017 then I will gladly give him the credit for a successful boxing year in the same way that i've placed blame on him for the failure that was Boxing in 2016.