BoxRec

fergusg wrote:

Ain't you a hoot. I bet you laugh hysterically at filling your gas tank, speaking to a mortgage advisor or tying your shoe laces.

fergusg, you are the one who is naive or obsessed with everything following some rules.

There is only one real rule: money rules, so if money is right, then f4ck the other rules.

I wrote an article on the matter which sums it up quite nicely!

http://www.boxingnews24.com/2014/11/al- ... beginning/

We also have a similar one over here in the UK too...

(Fwank Warren OR BoxN@tion) + (Eddie Hearn OR SKY) = NO FIGHT!!!

Its a bit like the Monday night wars in the late 90's between WWF and WCW

fergusg wrote:

ikorolev wrote:fergusg, you are the one who is naive or obsessed with everything following some rules.

There is only one real rule: money rules, so if money is right, then f4ck the other rules.

As we've seen with huge paydays offered by Roc Nation to several Haymon fighters, coupled with Arum's offer to promote a Khan-Pacquiao fight, which were all declined by Haymon... not everything is about money... it's about power and retaining control of assets!

It means that the money wasn't right for Haymon taking into account his feud with Jay Z and other factors.

Am I the only one who finds all the stuff about these background guys and all the reasons their fighters won't fight boring?

fergusg wrote: Every time I read posts from naive uneducated forum posters, claiming that fighter "A" is "ducking" fighter "B" due to "cowardice"... then leads me to laugh at their ignorance!

As demonstrated by your relentless use of a laughing face emotion. Do you think you laugh more or less than 1. A Clown at a child's Birthday Party? 2. Santa Clause before he shouts Merry Christmas? 3. Muttley, whenever Dick Dastardly has a plan that goes wrong?

Seems like we need a league ...

Its definitely boring sh!t all these lil clicks in the sport, but its stuff people keep trying to act like is not an issue so I think you are doing a boxing fan tutorial or public service of why certain things don't happen.

loved loved loved Kevin Iole taunting Fat Dan @Twitter during #pacquiaoalgieri about the Ringside food service...

This is the real formula:

Al Haymon Fighter + Credible Opponent = NO FIGHT

This is a disgrace. Who is this Al Hayman anyway???
I just want to see Vasquez on HBO. Showtime's broadcast sucks. The only guy they got that's any knowledgeable is Al Berstein

I was Anti-Haymon up until a few days ago. I'm in a holding pattern on my own verdict until I see this NBC plan play out. This really could be one of the best things to hit boxing in history. But this thing can go one of two ways, great or horrible, and we should know which by the end of 2015. If the first couple of cards are any indication, it's going to be a great thing for the sport. Many were critical of the lack of competition in Haymon boxing cards in 2014 and thought that it was becoming his MO or business style. IMO, he just didn't want to hand over great fights to his future competitors (HBO/SHOW). To me, it makes all the sense in world and i don't blame him.

HBO/SHO compete for boxing events, the highest bidder owns it. Whether it's a loser card or a winner, it doesn't matter. It's bought and paid for. With NBC, Haymon bought airtime for around $20m through 2015. He bought time, not a boxing event. His job now is to make the fights that will bring the most viewers in those time slots. Haymo now can't afford to put together a Garcia vs. Salka main event. If his numbers are low this year, NBC will not be in the boxing business next year. So there's a ton of pressure on Haymon right now to make fights that the public want to see. If he fails then we'll go back to the HBO /SHO monopoly. If he prevails, we all win. Haymon has over 160 high quality boxers to pair up so this is going to be really interesting to see how shakes out. Plus, aren't we all a little sick of paying $79.99 for a fight?

True formula is:
Al Haymon + Other promoter = NO FIGHT!

It has been demonstrated already and so far there is no sign of Haymon changing the stance. NBC deal is completely irrelevant. As long as he keeps making strictly in house fights Haymon is bad for boxing.

Tarkus wrote:True formula is:
Al Haymon + Other promoter = NO FIGHT!

It has been demonstrated already and so far there is no sign of Haymon changing the stance. NBC deal is completely irrelevant. As long as he keeps making strictly in house fights Haymon is bad for boxing.

Haymon is not a promoter. He works with DiBella, Goossen Promotions, Mayweather Promotions, etc. The formula is:

Haymon + Promoter who wants to participate in matchmaking = no fight. All matchmaking decisions have to be made by Haymon.

ikorolev wrote:All matchmaking decisions have to be made by Haymon.

That makes him a promoter in a manner of speaking. And now that he has a network he probably will become officially a promoter.

fergusg wrote:

klitoris wrote:This is the real formula:

Al Haymon Fighter + Credible Opponent = NO FIGHT

• Keith Thurman vs. Robert Guerrero
• Adrien Broner vs. John Molina Jr.
• Danny Garcia vs. Lamont Peterson (WBA, WBC and IBF light welterweight unification clash)

Seems like they thought it all out.
1. It´s all "in house"
2. Though way more competitive on paper than their last opponents is is not hard to guess who's supposed to win these match-ups.

fergusg wrote:Dan Rafael [ESPN] has done his own count… and he believes that Al Haymon may have at least 174 men in his stable of fighters… he also thinks that he may have missed a few.

Lucas Matthyse just walked away from Haymon.

I don't really buy that arguement at all as I tend to work to the theory of, any major fight is makeable it is just down will it sell in terms of tickets at the arena that hosts it and PPV numbers for all involved to make a handsome profit and the fighters get a good payday. Because the networks use the advertising revenue to help for it (along with the selling of their shows overseas etc) To pay for our boxing fix gentlemen which needs to be considered.