BoxRec

handsofstone wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 05:13 Golden Boys 3 names all pulled out of eliminators, genuine reasons or otherwise they need to get their sh1t together and start maybe promoting other guys better

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 04:27

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 02:25I’m placing the blame with Showtime because they’ve made Charlo/Sulecki in Charlo’s first fight for 12 months and Sulecki isn’t even mandatory. Could they not have found someone better?

I completely agree. And I’ve said precisely the same thing a few times in this thread.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 02:25They tried to make the Canelo fight but couldn’t get it over the line.

To be fair, Showtime was willing to pay Canelo $100m to defend his 168lbs belts against title challengers, with one of them being Jermall Charlo.

Canelo preferred the DAZN package, because Golovkin and Bivol are better opponents than Charlo and Benavidez.

And there’s not much that Showtime could have done about that.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 02:25They could have made the Munguia fight but chose not to work with another platform and made the Sulecki fight instead.

I strongly disagree with this point.

Showtime initiated the negotiations for the Charlo-Munguia bout.

Showtime were on the commercial A-side of negotiations.

Showtime offered a lucrative financial package that Munguia accepted.

Showtime were willing to compromise (offering the TV rights for Mexico and the UK).

But DAZN rejected the bout, because they wanted to split the PPV revenue in the US.

I can’t place the entire blame on Showtime for what transpired.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 02:25You tend to get judged on what you achieve and not what you start but don’t complete.

Yes, but it also “takes two to tango”, with Canelo and Munguia's handlers refusing to play ball.

You can’t force people to do what they don’t want to do.

But I will concede that Maciej Sulecki is an embarrassingly appalling opponent for Jermall Charlo to face at his point of his career.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 05:22Perhaps if Charlo brought more to the table (after having some meaningful wins in the last 3 years) then Canelo would have been more interested in facing him. Instead he’s choosing to go up a division to fight a good champion.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 05:22You disagree with my point that Showtime/PBC chose to make this fight rather than co-televise a fight with Munguia.

Unless I’m missing something, what I’ve said is factual. Whether you agree/disagree with their decision is something different.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 05:42

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 05:22Perhaps if Charlo brought more to the table (after having some meaningful wins in the last 3 years) then Canelo would have been more interested in facing him. Instead he’s choosing to go up a division to fight a good champion.

Yes, I completely agree with this.

I have repeatedly made the same claims to this forum within many threads.

I also created a thread harshly criticising all the big-name middleweight that have become risk-averse, whilst waiting in line for the Canelo mega-payday queue.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 05:22You disagree with my point that Showtime/PBC chose to make this fight rather than co-televise a fight with Munguia.

Unless I’m missing something, what I’ve said is factual. Whether you agree/disagree with their decision is something different.

The word “chose” is what I’m questioning.

Businesses don’t really have a decision to make if they appreciate that certain “opportunities” are either unlikely to be profitable, or it’s easier to make a bigger profit investing elsewhere, hence my “slice of the pie” analogy.

In that situation, there is no “choice”.

I don’t see a commercial reason why you feel that Showtime had to cave into DAZN’s demands.

Any cross-promotional cross-network event involving DAZN and Showtime wouldn't have generated Lewis-Tyson or Mayweather-Pacquiao type money, for a bout between Charlo and Munguia.

Remember, we’re talking about Jaime Munguia.

A fighter that’s been campaigning as a middleweight for the last 2½ years, without a title, without having scored an impressive victory at 160lbs, coupled with his teams' obvious refusal to exploit opportunities for him to have fought the likes of Jermall Charlo, Demetrius Andrade and Zhanibek Alimkhanuly.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 05:49

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 05:42

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 05:22Perhaps if Charlo brought more to the table (after having some meaningful wins in the last 3 years) then Canelo would have been more interested in facing him. Instead he’s choosing to go up a division to fight a good champion.

Yes, I completely agree with this.

I have repeatedly made the same claims to this forum within many threads.

I also created a thread harshly criticising all the big-name middleweight that have become risk-averse, whilst waiting in line for the Canelo mega-payday queue.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 05:22You disagree with my point that Showtime/PBC chose to make this fight rather than co-televise a fight with Munguia.

Unless I’m missing something, what I’ve said is factual. Whether you agree/disagree with their decision is something different.

The word “chose” is what I’m questioning.

Businesses don’t really have a decision to make if they appreciate that certain “opportunities” are either unlikely to be profitable, or it’s easier to make a bigger profit investing elsewhere, hence my “slice of the pie” analogy.

In that situation, there is no “choice”.

I don’t see a commercial reason why you feel that Showtime had to cave into DAZN’s demands.

Any cross-promotional cross-network event involving DAZN and Showtime wouldn't have generated Lewis-Tyson or Mayweather-Pacquiao type money, for a bout between Charlo and Munguia.

Remember, we’re talking about Jaime Munguia.

A fighter that’s been campaigning as a middleweight for the last 2½ years, without a title, without having scored an impressive victory at 160lbs, coupled with his teams' obvious refusal to exploit opportunities for him to have fought the likes of Jermall Charlo, Demetrius Andrade and Zhanibek Alimkhanuly.

They had a choice and chose to make a poor fight on their network than a good fight shared with another platform.

That may be down to money or various other reasons but they had a choice to make a fight that would have garnered more press/attention and likely more money for the fighters or a fight that no one cares about. They chose the latter.

You can try and justify their decision but it was still a decision they made.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 05:57

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 05:49

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 05:42
Yes, I completely agree with this.

I have repeatedly made the same claims to this forum within many threads.

I also created a thread harshly criticising all the big-name middleweight that have become risk-averse, whilst waiting in line for the Canelo mega-payday queue.

The word “chose” is what I’m questioning.

Businesses don’t really have a decision to make if they appreciate that certain “opportunities” are either unlikely to be profitable, or it’s easier to make a bigger profit investing elsewhere, hence my “slice of the pie” analogy.

In that situation, there is no “choice”.

I don’t see a commercial reason why you feel that Showtime had to cave into DAZN’s demands.

Any cross-promotional cross-network event involving DAZN and Showtime wouldn't have generated Lewis-Tyson or Mayweather-Pacquiao type money, for a bout between Charlo and Munguia.

Remember, we’re talking about Jaime Munguia.

A fighter that’s been campaigning as a middleweight for the last 2½ years, without a title, without having scored an impressive victory at 160lbs, coupled with his teams' obvious refusal to exploit opportunities for him to have fought the likes of Jermall Charlo, Demetrius Andrade and Zhanibek Alimkhanuly.

They had a choice and chose to make a poor fight on their network than a good fight shared with another platform.

That may be down to money or various other reasons but they had a choice to make a fight that would have garnered more press/attention and likely more money for the fighters or a fight that no one cares about. They chose the latter.

You can try and justify their decision but it was still a decision they made.

Anthony Joshua’s looking for an opponent for his next fight, due to Usyk’s war efforts in the Ukraine.

Therefore, do you feel DAZN should split the broadcasting rights in the US with Showtime if he was to fight the PBC’s Otto Wallin or Luis Ortiz?

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 06:27

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 05:57

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 05:49

They had a choice and chose to make a poor fight on their network than a good fight shared with another platform.

That may be down to money or various other reasons but they had a choice to make a fight that would have garnered more press/attention and likely more money for the fighters or a fight that no one cares about. They chose the latter.

You can try and justify their decision but it was still a decision they made.

Anthony Joshua’s looking for an opponent for his next fight, due to Usyk’s war efforts in the Ukraine.

Therefore, do you feel DAZN should split the broadcasting rights in the US with Showtime if he was to fight the PBC’s Otto Wallin or Luis Ortiz?

Of course not. The bulk of the revenue will come from U.K. TV so the US rights don’t mean as much.

If Wallin (who I don’t believe is tied in with PBC anymore for what it’s worth) or Ortiz said they’d only take the fight with that proviso then they’re stupid but if AJ fought Sergey Kuzmin on DAZN instead when they had the potential of making better fights then I’d criticise the hell out of them.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 05:49They had a choice and chose to make a poor fight on their network than a good fight shared with another platform.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 07:50

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 05:49They had a choice and chose to make a poor fight on their network than a good fight shared with another platform.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 08:48

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 07:50

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 05:49They had a choice and chose to make a poor fight on their network than a good fight shared with another platform.

I get all of that but that doesn’t change what I said either. Showtime/PBC had the choice to either make a fight with Sulecki on their network or make the Munguia fight with it being broadcast on a different platform too.

They chose the former and boxing suffers as a result with another really poor fight for Charlo.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 09:12

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 08:48

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 07:50

I get all of that but that doesn’t change what I said either. Showtime/PBC had the choice to either make a fight with Sulecki on their network or make the Munguia fight with it being broadcast on a different platform too.

They chose the former and boxing suffers as a result with another really poor fight for Charlo.

What would you have preferred Showtime to have done? Agree to every single one of DAZN’s demands?

You previously placed the majority of the blame for the Charlo-Munguia situation on Showtime rather than DAZN, which I’d like you to explain, because I don't understand how you came to this conclusion.

Let’s not discuss Sulecki any further though, because we agree on that point. We both believe it's a horrible fight.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 09:43I would have preferred Showtime/PBC to make a meaningful fight for Charlo rather than another really poor one.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 09:43I’d they didn’t want to make the Munguia fight with DAZN then they could have made a better fight.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 09:43None of us know what was requested but if DAZN wanted to co-broadcast in the US (and that were the only thing requested) then I would rather Showtime to split costs/revenues and do that over making a poor fight.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 09:43All I’ve seen was that they wanted to co-broadcast in the US.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 09:43I don’t fully blame Showtime/PBC for Munguia/Charlo not happening.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 09:43I blame them for not matching Charlo well when he’s in his prime.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 09:43They could have made a better fight here and chose not to because they didn’t want to co-broadcast.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 10:02

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 09:43I would have preferred Showtime/PBC to make a meaningful fight for Charlo rather than another really poor one.

Agreed.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 09:43I’d they didn’t want to make the Munguia fight with DAZN then they could have made a better fight.

Showtime were hoping to stage the Charlo-Munguia bout using precisely the same terms as previous fights, as per Espinoza's tweets:

• Matchroom made the offer/paid for Joshua-Ruiz, so the fight was on Matchroom's platform, DAZN.
• TGB made the offer/pays for Charlo-Munguia, so TGB chooses the network: SHO.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 09:43None of us know what was requested but if DAZN wanted to co-broadcast in the US (and that were the only thing requested) then I would rather Showtime to split costs/revenues and do that over making a poor fight.

That was never going to happen for a fight that is nowhere near to commercial size as Lewis-Tyson or Myaweather-Pacquiao.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 09:43All I’ve seen was that they wanted to co-broadcast in the US.

Yes.

• DAZN wanted exclusive broadcast rights over DAZN's AJ versus Showtime's Ruiz Jr, since DAZN initiated discussions and also paid for the fight.
• Showtime wanted exclusive broadcast rights over Showtime's Charlo versus DAZN's Munguia, since Showtime initiated discussions and also paid for the fight.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 09:43I don’t fully blame Showtime/PBC for Munguia/Charlo not happening.

Good.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 09:43I blame them for not matching Charlo well when he’s in his prime.

Agreed.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 09:43They could have made a better fight here and chose not to because they didn’t want to co-broadcast.

Showtime could have made a better fight for Charlo, but it was reasonable for Stephen Espinoza to decline DAZN's extra demands to make the Munguiga bout.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 10:17

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 10:02

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 09:43I would have preferred Showtime/PBC to make a meaningful fight for Charlo rather than another really poor one.

Agreed.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 09:43I’d they didn’t want to make the Munguia fight with DAZN then they could have made a better fight.

Showtime were hoping to stage the Charlo-Munguia bout using precisely the same terms as previous fights [they've done with DAZN fighters], as per Espinoza's tweets:

• Matchroom made the offer/paid for Joshua-Ruiz, so the fight was on Matchroom's platform, DAZN.
• TGB made the offer/pays for Charlo-Munguia, so TGB chooses the network: SHO.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 09:43None of us know what was requested but if DAZN wanted to co-broadcast in the US (and that were the only thing requested) then I would rather Showtime to split costs/revenues and do that over making a poor fight.

That was never going to happen for a fight that is nowhere near to commercial size as Lewis-Tyson or Myaweather-Pacquiao.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 09:43All I’ve seen was that they wanted to co-broadcast in the US.

Yes.

• DAZN wanted exclusive broadcast rights over DAZN's AJ versus Showtime's Ruiz Jr, since DAZN initiated discussions and also paid for the fight.
• Showtime wanted exclusive broadcast rights over Showtime's Charlo versus DAZN's Munguia, since Showtime initiated discussions and also paid for the fight.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 09:43I don’t fully blame Showtime/PBC for Munguia/Charlo not happening.

Good.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 09:43I blame them for not matching Charlo well when he’s in his prime.

Agreed.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 09:43They could have made a better fight here and chose not to because they didn’t want to co-broadcast.

Showtime could have made a better fight for Charlo, but it was reasonable for Stephen Espinoza to decline DAZN's extra demands to make the Munguiga bout.

You say it was reasonable for Espinoza to decline DAZN’s extra demands. What were they? The only thing I’ve seen them looking to do is co-broadcast in the US. What were the other demands they made?

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 10:22

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 10:17

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 10:02
Agreed.

Showtime were hoping to stage the Charlo-Munguia bout using precisely the same terms as previous fights [they've done with DAZN fighters], as per Espinoza's tweets:

• Matchroom made the offer/paid for Joshua-Ruiz, so the fight was on Matchroom's platform, DAZN.
• TGB made the offer/pays for Charlo-Munguia, so TGB chooses the network: SHO.

That was never going to happen for a fight that is nowhere near to commercial size as Lewis-Tyson or Myaweather-Pacquiao.

Yes.

• DAZN wanted exclusive broadcast rights over DAZN's AJ versus Showtime's Ruiz Jr, since DAZN initiated discussions and also paid for the fight.
• Showtime wanted exclusive broadcast rights over Showtime's Charlo versus DAZN's Munguia, since Showtime initiated discussions and also paid for the fight.

Good.

Agreed.

Showtime could have made a better fight for Charlo, but it was reasonable for Stephen Espinoza to decline DAZN's extra demands to make the Munguiga bout.

You say it was reasonable for Espinoza to decline DAZN’s extra demands. What were they? The only thing I’ve seen them looking to do is co-broadcast in the US. What were the other demands they made?

See above (your questions in blue and my responses in red).

Showtime were willing to compromise - DAZN was not. Oscar De La Hoya confirmed DAZN's stance.

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 10:43

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 10:22

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 10:17

You say it was reasonable for Espinoza to decline DAZN’s extra demands. What were they? The only thing I’ve seen them looking to do is co-broadcast in the US. What were the other demands they made?

See above (your questions in blue and my responses in red).

Showtime were willing to compromise - DAZN was not. Oscar De La Hoya confirmed DAZN's stance.

My question was what other demands were made because your wording (extra demands) implies they asked for several things. I still can’t see that and the bits you highlighted don’t show that either.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 10:49

maverick23 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 10:43

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 10:22
See above (your questions in blue and my responses in red).

Showtime were willing to compromise - DAZN was not. Oscar De La Hoya confirmed DAZN's stance.

My question was what other demands were made because your wording (extra demands) implies they asked for several things. I still can’t see that and the bits you highlighted don’t show that either.

I don't know how many times I need to answer the same question.

What normally happens is that the promoter that pays for the fight, get to choose which network the bout appears on (as per the Tweet below, coupled with what we know from the usual purse bid process).

DAZN didn't offer to pay for the fight, but they wanted to share the US broadcast rights.




The fact that it's exceptionally rare for networks to share broadcast rights, surely means DAZN made an unusual request (especially considering the Munguia's lack of accomplishments at 160lbs).

Bandog wrote: ↑15 Mar 2022, 20:44 It's funny to watch EO scramble to spin things when. Charlo is involved.

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 12:12

Bandog wrote: ↑15 Mar 2022, 20:44 It's funny to watch EO scramble to spin things when. Charlo is involved.

remind me- he's the one that defends Charlo and attacks Andrade, and you're the one that defends Andrade, is that right?

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑16 Mar 2022, 12:45
I've defended Showtime's conduct in this thread, not Charlo's.
.