BoxRec

man wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:I think that fraud, Adonis Stevenson, is a worse champion or at just as bad.

you don't mean that.

with all of my heart

man wrote:

candyslim wrote:Agreed. He is charismatic, athletic, unpredictable, exciting to watch, and carries a warhead in that right hand.

It makes it all the more frustrating that he hasn't been allowed to fight a meaningful opponent. Whether or not he's complicit, it's not a good image.

really? you believe that?

I thought it already indicated my uncertainty by saying "whether or not he's complicit". He's definitely over-protected but I don't know whether he's happy about that, what do you think?

There is nothing I said in my post that I did not mean.

digzee wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

digzee wrote: The point is that Wilder has a big promoter who could've got him good opponents if he wanted. The US don't care about the HW champion? AJ has got an exclusive deal with Showtime so they clearly do care.

No, the us doesn't care at all. Showtime televises boxing, aj is a big deal but the American public has no idea who he is. Wilder isn't known either. If you don't know that, your points aren't ones to be bothered with.

So why would Showtime have an exclusive deal with only AJ? They aint gonna throw money at him for no reason. Wilder is as well known just as much as other non ppv fighters and gets 2m+ ratings for his fights, but yeah no one cares.

You didn't get the point in the first place you arrogant prick, you're going on ignore.

Showtime didn't have an exclusive deal. They had the right to match any offer. Wilder's last fight barely got a million in ratings and AJ has never even had that here. Yes, put me on ignore. Saves me from having to do it to you, you idiotic prick.

candyslim wrote:

man wrote:

candyslim wrote:Agreed. He is charismatic, athletic, unpredictable, exciting to watch, and carries a warhead in that right hand.

It makes it all the more frustrating that he hasn't been allowed to fight a meaningful opponent. Whether or not he's complicit, it's not a good image.

really? you believe that?

I thought it already indicated my uncertainty by saying "whether or not he's complicit". He's definitely over-protected but I don't know whether he's happy about that, what do you think?

i can hardly believe that the reigning
champion has NO say in who he is
fighting. i know they sometimes say
that, but i cannot imagine that he is
forced against his will. if so then he
is either utterly dumb for signing
such contract or utterly weak for
not getting his way.

my guess is that there was good
reason to protect him in the early
going and now they got stuck with
this strategy longer than intended.
what it definitely means though is
no one, neither deontay nor his
management, feels the urge to step
it up.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Showtime didn't have an exclusive deal. They had the right to match any offer. Wilder's last fight barely got a million in ratings and AJ has never even had that here.

Prior to the start-up of Eddie Hearn’s US business venture, which led to Danny Jacobs’ contract with HBO, Deontay Wilder would not have required an exclusive contract with Showtime, since he’s automatically affiliated with them by proxy of his contractual relationship with Al Haymon.

It’s the same situation that Adonis Stevenson has with Showtime.

Many of Haymon’s fighters don’t have exclusive contractual ties to their promoters or TV networks (such as Danny Garcia), since it’s redundant, because of their contractual ties to the PBC chief.

It was proven during GBP’s failed lawsuit that it was HBO that refused to do business with any big names affiliated to Haymon, unless mega money was involved.

Similarly, Top Rank has an exclusive contract with ESPN, meaning that they cannot stage fights on other networks. So whilst the fighters affiliated to Bob Arum’s stable don’t have a direct contractual relationship with ESPN, they’re still affiliated to that network by proxy of Top Rank’s obligations.

Anyway back on topic, according to Wikipedia and BS.com, Deontay Wilder’s last outing against Gerald Washington was “the most watched boxing match in the United States for 2017, until the Thurman-Garcia unification fight...” (watched by an average audience of 1.76 million viewers, peaking at 1.86 million).

Thanks for the novel. We were talking about Joshua.

man wrote:

candyslim wrote:

man wrote: really? you believe that?

I thought it already indicated my uncertainty by saying "whether or not he's complicit". He's definitely over-protected but I don't know whether he's happy about that, what do you think?

i can hardly believe that the reigning
champion has NO say in who he is
fighting. i know they sometimes say
that, but i cannot imagine that he is
forced against his will. if so then he
is either utterly dumb for signing
such contract or utterly weak for
not getting his way.

my guess is that there was good
reason to protect him in the early
going and now they got stuck with
this strategy longer than intended.
what it definitely means though is
no one, neither deontay nor his
management, feels the urge to step
it up.

I share your skepticism but I give him a fair bit of stick on here, so was trying to balance it a little by giving him the benefit of the doubt.

The trouble is now Ortiz has joined Povetkin on the naughty step, Deontay is fast running out of opponents of sufficient quality for him to satisfy Eddies Hearn's demand that he should beat a quality opponent in order to get his shot at Joshua. Who is there realistically?: Parker, Pulev (if Joshua leaves his credibility intact), possibly Miller or Breazeale at a pinch although many would scoff. Whyte would satisfy Eddie although some would certainly scoff (Not too many Brits though)

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Thanks for the novel. We were talking about Joshua.

I quoted your prompt about Wilder. You already know this.

candyslim wrote:The trouble is now Ortiz has joined Povetkin on the naughty step, Deontay is fast running out of opponents of sufficient quality for him to satisfy Eddies Hearn's demand that he should beat a quality opponent in order to get his shot at Joshua. Who is there realistically?: Parker, Pulev (if Joshua leaves his credibility intact), possibly Miller or Breazeale at a pinch although many would scoff. Whyte would satisfy Eddie although some would certainly scoff (Not too many Brits though)

i believe this is all much more simple.
if wilder wants joshua, he gets him.
why? because it is possibly the richest
heavy fight in over decade and for that
kind of money, promoters give blowjobs.

I'm sure he does but the question is when? Joshua can sell out the biggest arenas in the UK facing top opponents. I wouldn't rule out him being able to sell out those same arenas fighting distinctly average opponents. He doesn't need Wilder and AJ and Hearn will have no problem staying busy and making money as the clamour for that match builds.

Joshua has beaten Klitschko this year and is about to defend against an irrefutably top 10 opponent, generally reckoned to be about 6th in the world. Next up was going to be Luis Ortiz but Wilder's team have put the kybosh on that. He is due a couple of easy ones (once he has discharged his WBA mandatory) if he wants them.

Hearn has said Wilder needs to do something to raise his profile in the UK and offered him silly-money to do just that by fighting Whyte in London. Wilder for reasons we can only speculate about, told Eddie to do one. Hearn is not now going to be tripping over himself in his rush to accommodate Deontay Wilder's wishes.

In the meantime Haymon has got the problem of keeping Deontay unbeaten and in the public demand for the Joshua fight. We have seen ample evidence that his confidence in Wilder's ability to dispatch top quality opposition is lacking, and understandably so: Wilder would have a decent chance of knocking out any boxer who ever lived, but neither is it difficult to envisage him getting knocked out by inferior opposition. Molina hurt him, had him momentarily stunned. The much smaller and less than stellar Artur Szpilka was outboxing Wilder until the ceiling fell on him. I don't regard Dominic Breazeale (for example) as an easy fight for Wilder nor is Jarrell Miller. It's going to be a tight-rope walk trying to find him opponents good enough to satisfy a public grown tired of the diet of Molinas, Szpilkas, Arreolas, Washingtons, and Stivernes yet who are not going to be seen as too risky by Al Haymon.

Hearn won't want to interrupt that process - after being more or less told to f-off, he'll be enjoying watching it too much. I think I will too

Wilder has to step up at least once, one Parker, Ortiz, Povetkin, Jun Long Zhang, Pulev, Dubois, Spong, someone. But even Takam, Hughie and Andy Ruiz jr are probably to much of a risk according to his promoters. I can name over a 100 boxers who would beat Stiverne, even retired boxers and cruiserweights. I know nobody who doubts who the winner will become, there are more people wondering if Stiverne will simply survive it as people thinking he will win.

Asdfjkl: Do you seriously think that Wilder fighting Zhang Jun Long or Tyrone Spong is going to be regarded as “stepping up” by Eddie Hearn or the boxing public at large?

You often make some very good points but they often get buried because when people read this kind of thing they tend to write you off as a fruit-cake and then take no notice when you type something that is very insightful.

Hearn is about as bad as Arum as far as lying to the public.

In his capacity as a promoter I'm sure he's not above telling a few porkies but did you have anything specific in mind ?

I always enjoy listening to him. He's extremely entertaining and most of what he says is refreshingly honest and open. That's obviously an image he wants to portray, and like I say - I'm sure he can bend or break the truth with the best of 'em when occasion demands or when it's to his advantage to do so.

Badhusker wrote:Hearn is about as bad as Arum as far as lying to the public.

He's certainly selective with the information he reveals. Like not mentioning the options on the proposed fights. That being said, he gets fights done. Wilder would be better off with hearn, deontay is crazy loyal to lou and Al.

Hearn's exacting matchmaking might not be quite to Deontay's taste. Hearn expects his fighters to take part in fights that pull in the punters. Basically step up or step off.

There again, who knows - he might find being regularly tested agrees with him and improves him.

candyslim wrote:Hearn's exacting matchmaking might not be quite to Deontay's taste. Hearn expects his fighters to take part in fights that pull in the punters. Basically step up or step off.

There again, who knows - he might find being regularly tested agrees with him and improves him.

remove the man's testicals from your mouth and have a think about the career of, say, Kell Brook, and you'll find there were as many Frankie Gavins and Jo Jo Dans as there were Porters and Golovkins

Counter-puncher wrote:

candyslim wrote:Hearn's exacting matchmaking might not be quite to Deontay's taste. Hearn expects his fighters to take part in fights that pull in the punters. Basically step up or step off.

There again, who knows - he might find being regularly tested agrees with him and improves him.

remove the man's testicals from your mouth and have a think about the career of, say, Kell Brook, and you'll find there were as many Frankie Gavins and Jo Jo Dans as there were Porters and Golovkins

his Wilder obsession is creepy as fornicate. Too bad for Wilder this board doesn't represent the general public. He'd be massive.

if only Wilder was with Hearn he'd have fought nothing but pure 50/50 fights for the last 3 years

Counter-puncher wrote:if only Wilder was with Hearn he'd have fought nothing but pure 50/50 fights for the last 3 years

Would hearn stop Wilder from rigging drug tests?

man wrote:

candyslim wrote:

man wrote: really? you believe that?

I thought it already indicated my uncertainty by saying "whether or not he's complicit". He's definitely over-protected but I don't know whether he's happy about that, what do you think?

i can hardly believe that the reigning
champion has NO say in who he is
fighting. i know they sometimes say
that, but i cannot imagine that he is
forced against his will. if so then he
is either utterly dumb for signing
such contract or utterly weak for
not getting his way.

my guess is that there was good
reason to protect him in the early
going and now they got stuck with
this strategy longer than intended.
what it definitely means though is
no one, neither deontay nor his
management, feels the urge to step
it up.

Wilder is NOT a reigning champion. He's an installed puppet pretender 100% completely owned and protected and choreographed by Alvin Haymon. This alabama puppet is haymon's last chance to survive in the boxing business as a major player. This puppet is Haymon's last chance to generate any kind of leverage with any network so to rebuild his crashed empire of B and C level boxers and freak show misfits. If puppet wilder crashes, Haymon is finished. If Wilder can be protected with another two or three years of smoke and mirrors and maybe Joshua loses, the cornered rat haymon may have a smidgen of a chance to rebuild his crashed empire of fake minor league in house boxing rubbish sparring sessions.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:if only Wilder was with Hearn he'd have fought nothing but pure 50/50 fights for the last 3 years

Would hearn stop Wilder from rigging drug tests?

candyslim wrote:Next up was going to be Luis Ortiz but Wilder's team have put the kybosh on that.

Counter-puncher wrote:Would hearn stop Wilder from rigging drug tests?

Seriously? You guys genuinely believe that Team Wilder rigged Luis Ortiz’s VADA drug test results? FFS!

no great surprise to see your sarcasm detector is permanently disabled, well, saad's comment you incorrectly quoted as mine, was sarcastic.

the other fella, sadly, probably wasn't being sarcastic

Counter-puncher wrote:no great surprise to see your sarcasm detector is permanently disabled, well, saad's comment you incorrectly quoted as mine, was sarcastic.

the other fella, sadly, probably wasn't being sarcastic

Yeah, I don't know what happened with Saad's quote.

Sorry about that. I didn't mean to do that.

For the record, sarcasm is hard to detect when someone has a proven track record of making allegations that cannot be substantiated.

I've encountered this in debates before when someone proposes something ludicrous and then subsequently attempts to conceal their embarrassment at being proven wrong by claiming they were "only joking". It's the go-to answer for everything...

Therefore, I find that most of the bizarre claims I read on this forum are sincere in nature, because 99% of the time they are.