Why do people still claim that Al Haymon is a promoter?

[Enlightened-One]

Why do people insist on claiming that Al Haymon is a promoter, despite the fact that GBP, Top Rank and Main Events have all had their lawsuits either (very quickly) dismissed by numerous judges or they voluntarily dropped their cases due to not possessing any sort of evidence whatsoever?

Here’s my understanding of the role of that the PBC and Al Haymon plays in the sport of boxing?

• Al Haymon is the head honcho of the PBC and also plays the role of an advisor or manager to a roster of almost 200 fighters.

• The PBC is the primary boxing content provider for Fox, FS1, CBS & Showtime. The PBC is essentially a TV series.

• The PBC employs the services of numerous promoters to promote the events of the fights televised by their TV networks (i.e. DiBella, GYM, Mayweather Promotions, Murphys Boxing, Goossen Promotions, TGB, Warriors Boxing and many others).

• The same set of promoters, backed by Al Haymon, also allow their fighters to compete on fight cards managed by third-party rival promoters and TV networks (i.e. Top Rank -> ESPN; GBP -> ESPN/HBO; Main Events -> HBO; K2/GGG -> HBO; Queensberry -> BT; Matchroom -> Sky/DAZN).

For example: A fighter promoted by GYM, Eleider Alvarez, who is also advised by Al Haymon, recently competed in a fight televised by HBO, against a man promoted by Main Events, Sergey Kovalev.

• Al Haymon also works with fighters, like Danny Jacobs and Amir Khan, who usually don’t appear on PBC fight cards, as they’re members of the Matchroom stable. Lee Selby and James DeGale are in a similar position, as they now compete on Queensberry events televised by BT.

Here’s my understanding of the legal definitions/obligations of a promoter and manager:

• Manager = the fighter’s primary negotiating agent and representative who holds a “fiduciary duty” to his fighter, which means the manager must act in the fighter’s best interest

• Promoter = the producer of the boxing event, not the representative of any of the participants. The promoter is entitled to maximize his own profit from each fight promotion, because they're supposed to be the party that takes the financial risk of the fight promotion

On a separate note: a "matchmaker" and a "promoter" fulfil two distinct roles. Some promoters multi-task and perform their own matchmaking, whilst most either employ a matchmaker or use the services of an independent contractor. Either way, a matchmaker is not a promoter.

So why on earth do people continue to accuse a man they’ve never met, never even seen talk, never read any of his interview transcripts, a person they know absolutely nothing about, of being a PROMOTER when it’s blatantly obvious that he isn’t?

[Ruthless-RKO]

That should clear it up.

Just bump the thread every other week.

[jamamb]

the ppl who dont bother to read up and see why hes not a promoter unfortunately will prob just not read that post and just stll call al a promoter

[walter5]

PBC is not essentially a TV series.

When Al Haymon hires a promoter he basically hires them to function as an Event Manager. It's been reported Haymon still selects the venue, controls all revenues, sets the purses, ticket prices, undercard lineup and basically any other duty of consequence pertaining to a high level event. Exactly what a promoter does.

It's true that there are some fighters he works with in an advisory role only, but to use that as some sort of example that he doesn't function as a promoter overall is wrong in my opinion. Some Al Haymon advised fighters have legit contracts with other promoters. These types of partnerships are advantageous for both sides. In those cases Haymon may be less hands on with those events and may not be handling any functions a promoter does.

[Enlightened-One]

PBC is not essentially a TV series.

When Al Haymon hires a promoter he basically hires them to function as an Event Manager. It's been reported Haymon still selects the venue, controls all revenues, sets the purses, ticket prices, undercard lineup and basically any other duty of consequence pertaining to a high level event. Exactly what a promoter does.

It's true that there are some fighters he works with in an advisory role only, but to use that as some sort of example that he doesn't function as a promoter overall is wrong in my opinion. Some Al Haymon advised fighters have legit contracts with other promoters. These types of partnerships are advantageous for both sides. In those cases Haymon may be less hands on with those events and may not be handling any functions a promoter does.

There simply isn’t any evidence that supports any accusations of Al Haymon being a promoter, by proxy or otherwise. It doesn’t matter what’s been “reported” by anonymous sources that are clearly unable to substantiate their claims.

Several promoters have filed lawsuits against the PBC chief making the same sort of accusations (i.e. Golden Boy, Top Rank & Main Events), but every single one of them failed – and failed badly, since none of them were able to provide a single shred of evidence. A case in point is the GBP lawsuit that actually backfired on Oscar De La Hoya's company.

Simply put: your accusations have been discussed in minute detail during the course of several lawsuits and every single one of them have been proven to be untrue.

It’s your prerogative to determine guilt based solely upon the "no smoke without a fire" justice system, since you clearly possess no evidence to support your allegation.

If you do, then please provide it? Let's see if you're able to "Talk the Talk and Walk the Walk"!

[walter5]

So you're saying there's no evidence that he:

1. Negotiates license fees for events with the rights buyers like Showtime?

2. Dictates what fights are on what televised shows?

3. Dictates ticket pricing?

4. Selects venues for events?

5. Dictates what televised fighters are getting paid?

[Enlightened-One]

So you're saying there's no evidence that he:

1. Negotiates license fees for events with the rights buyers like Showtime?

2. Dictates what fights are on what televised shows?

3. Dictates ticket pricing?

4. Selects venues for events?

5. Dictates what televised fighters are getting paid?

I am saying that there is no evidence of Al Haymon violating any antitrust laws or the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act.

The burden of proof is on you to provide sufficient evidence to support your accusations. Nobody else has been able to do, so I'm assuming you can't either.

I’ll also repeat my stance once again, since it seems that you’ve paid no attention to it…

I flatly-refuse to accuse a man that I’ve never met, never even seen talk, never read any of his interview transcripts, a person I know absolutely nothing about, of being a PROMOTER when it’s blatantly obvious that he isn’t.

I am willing to argue that you’ve never met Al Haymon, you’ve never seen him talk, you’ve never read any of his interview transcripts and you also know absolutely nothing about this man!

Am I wrong?

Let's see if you're able to "Talk the Talk and Walk the Walk", because so far, you haven't!

[Mexi-Box]

Sounds more like the Un-Enlightened One needs to educate himself.

[Enlightened-One]

Sounds more like the Un-Enlightened One needs to educate himself.

Please educate me Mexi-Box. Pretty please!

[Mexi-Box]

Sounds more like the Un-Enlightened One needs to educate himself.

Please educate me Mexi-Box. Pretty please!

walter already educated you, but you refuse to educate yourself. Wasted keystrokes...

[Enlightened-One]

Sounds more like the Un-Enlightened One needs to educate himself.

Please educate me Mexi-Box. Pretty please!

walter already educated you, but you refuse to educate yourself. Wasted keystrokes...

Mmmm...

[Enlightened-One]

the ppl who dont bother to read up and see why hes not a promoter unfortunately will prob just not read that post and just stll call al a promoter

It seems that you've been proven right about this on multiple occasions, but I didn't expect it to be so quickly.

[Thomastearns]

The media shy Al Haymon can be called many things - but not to his face. He didn't get to be the most powerful man in combat sports on his charm alone. Or by following any standard boxing conventions. Trying to stick a label on someone with that much influence is more or less pointless and only for the public records. A bit like Al Capone's business card claiming he was a used furniture dealer.

Anyway, Hearn v Haymon could be the interesting outside the ring battle in the years to come if Eddie is up for it.

Who holds the winning card?

[walter5]

So you're saying there's no evidence that he:

1. Negotiates license fees for events with the rights buyers like Showtime?

2. Dictates what fights are on what televised shows?

3. Dictates ticket pricing?

4. Selects venues for events?

5. Dictates what televised fighters are getting paid?

I am saying that there is no evidence of Al Haymon violating any antitrust laws or the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act.

The burden of proof is on you to provide sufficient evidence to support your accusations. Nobody else has been able to do, so I'm assuming you can't either.

I’ll also repeat my stance once again, since it seems that you’ve paid no attention to it…

I flatly-refuse to accuse a man that I’ve never met, never even seen talk, never read any of his interview transcripts, a person I know absolutely nothing about, of being a PROMOTER when it’s blatantly obvious that he isn’t.

I am willing to argue that you’ve never met Al Haymon, you’ve never seen him talk, you’ve never read any of his interview transcripts and you also know absolutely nothing about this man!

Am I wrong?

Let's see if you're able to "Talk the Talk and Walk the Walk", because so far, you haven't!

There isn't any "burden of proof" on me! I'm not in litigation with Al Haymon. Dude, it's a message board, don't take it so seriously! But anyways, let's talk the talk.

You have to quit throwing around the Ali Act as if it's some sort of living entity that is enforced. It's not. It has no teeth, never has and never will until there's an Attorney General that cares in the slightest. The Association of Boxing Commissions, which is actually referenced in the bill to come up with minimum contract provisions, presented and appealed to the United States Attorney General with what they believe to be EVIDENCE that Al Haymon was acting as both a promoter and manager among other things. Since it's boxing this was completely ignored. If you'd like to read their findings and what they called evidence here's the link:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ako ... ajYGQo/pub

I'll answer your other questions in a moment, but my question is "Who cares?" The Attorney General didn't care how Haymon operated and never looked into the case. The ABC changed leadership and decided to declare that Haymon wasn't under investigation and they apparently no longer care. Nobody in boxing cares how Haymon operates anymore so why do you care how it's labeled? Does it change your income or life in any way, shape or form? What is with this obsession? I can't for the life of me figure out why these topics are so contentious. Only Al Haymon should care. I'll explain why in a bit.

Haymon's anti trust cases were not trials to find out whether or not he functioned as a promoter. For the longest time people argued that Haymon wasn't a manager, but was in fact an advisor only. Being an advisor would leave him outside of the Ali Act completely. Now you say you've never read any Al Haymon interview transcripts. That's too bad. If you were actually following these anti-trust suits and are as enlightened as you claim you would have already read Haymon's depositions from these cases because they give incredible insight not only into the person, but how the business of the PBC is run. In his depositions for the Golden Boy lawsuit Haymon finally admitted that he was in fact a boxing manager and it was found that he had actually been licensed as such in Nevada. Here's some fantastic coverage from Fight Opinion that goes much more in-depth.

http://www.fightopinion.com/2016/11/10/ ... -contract/

So now Haymon has admitted he's a manager. Let's say somehow there was more backlash against him and the United States got an Attorney General that wanted to go after him and actually use the Ali Act for once. It would be a HUGE problem for Haymon, in my opinion, if he admitted to being both a manager and a promoter in depositions. He'd basically admit to knowingly being in violation. So what argument did Haymon's legal team use as to why he's not a promoter? They claimed the TV networks were actually the promoters. Yep. Haymon used Kerry Davis, formerly of HBO and largely credited for helping Haymon claim as much power as he now has in boxing, and Golden Boy used former promoter Gary Shaw as witnesses. Here's another great article from fight opinion:

http://www.fightopinion.com/2016/11/01/ ... positions/

Haymon's old advisory deals had language that prevented fighters from signing with promoters unless approved by Haymon. In response to Golden Boy's anti trust suit, Haymon waived that provision. Haymon also waived the exclusivity he had with TV networks he worked with. With those two things gone anyone claiming he was going to have a monopoly was going to have a very hard time proving it. The truth is those anti-trust cases fell pretty flat as the PBC struggled to gain market share, but to point to their dismissal as vindication that Haymon isn't a promoter is asinine. That was a very small part of what they were about.

https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/12/1/1 ... oxing-news

There are a couple very easy ways to look at this so both sides can be right:

One side can say Al Haymon technically isn't a promoter because he isn't licensed as one. Sure, technically correct. These boxing commissions aren't going to push the issue, require him to get licensed and lose huge shows for their jurisdictions to try dig into an issue that NOBODY CARES ABOUT ANYMORE! There's about 150 matchmakers operating in the US that have never been licensed as one either though. It's just how things go. I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe that whoever holds the little piece of paper given out by the state as a promoter's license is always the one pulling the promotional strings.

If the other side were to say that Al Haymon and his companies perform every single duty of a promoter with the exception of getting licensed I believe you'd also be technically correct! They do! It's the old "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck......." I don't need someone to get a piece of paper from a state to know what they are. He runs his business the way he wants and just got a huge deal with Fox that will be good for boxing. He's doing fine. I hope he gives us a ton of good fights.

Lastly, yes I actually met Al Haymon backstage at the MGM Grand in 2013 before the Mayweather/Canelo weigh ins. I was a guest of his personal matchmaker. I only briefly said hello. He was very soft spoken and seemed beloved by everyone there who knew who he was.

[Counter-puncher]

It's so depressing that fantastic post will probably be ignored or denied or falsely equivocated. Everybody reading but one will recognise it, though, I'm sure. Tremendous wrk Walter

[Enlightened-One]

So you're saying there's no evidence that he:

1. Negotiates license fees for events with the rights buyers like Showtime?

2. Dictates what fights are on what televised shows?

3. Dictates ticket pricing?

4. Selects venues for events?

5. Dictates what televised fighters are getting paid?

I am saying that there is no evidence of Al Haymon violating any antitrust laws or the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act.

The burden of proof is on you to provide sufficient evidence to support your accusations. Nobody else has been able to do, so I'm assuming you can't either.

I’ll also repeat my stance once again, since it seems that you’ve paid no attention to it…

I flatly-refuse to accuse a man that I’ve never met, never even seen talk, never read any of his interview transcripts, a person I know absolutely nothing about, of being a PROMOTER when it’s blatantly obvious that he isn’t.

I am willing to argue that you’ve never met Al Haymon, you’ve never seen him talk, you’ve never read any of his interview transcripts and you also know absolutely nothing about this man!

Am I wrong?

Let's see if you're able to "Talk the Talk and Walk the Walk", because so far, you haven't!

There isn't any "burden of proof" on me! I'm not in litigation with Al Haymon. Dude, it's a message board, don't take it so seriously! But anyways, let's talk the talk.

You have to quit throwing around the Ali Act as if it's some sort of living entity that is enforced. It's not. It has no teeth, never has and never will until there's an Attorney General that cares in the slightest. The Association of Boxing Commissions, which is actually referenced in the bill to come up with minimum contract provisions, presented and appealed to the United States Attorney General with what they believe to be EVIDENCE that Al Haymon was acting as both a promoter and manager among other things. Since it's boxing this was completely ignored. If you'd like to read their findings and what they called evidence here's the link:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ako ... ajYGQo/pub

I'll answer your other questions in a moment, but my question is "Who cares?" The Attorney General didn't care how Haymon operated and never looked into the case. The ABC changed leadership and decided to declare that Haymon wasn't under investigation and they apparently no longer care. Nobody in boxing cares how Haymon operates anymore so why do you care how it's labeled? Does it change your income or life in any way, shape or form? What is with this obsession? I can't for the life of me figure out why these topics are so contentious. Only Al Haymon should care. I'll explain why in a bit.

Haymon's anti trust cases were not trials to find out whether or not he functioned as a promoter. For the longest time people argued that Haymon wasn't a manager, but was in fact an advisor only. Being an advisor would leave him outside of the Ali Act completely. Now you say you've never read any Al Haymon interview transcripts. That's too bad. If you were actually following these anti-trust suits and are as enlightened as you claim you would have already read Haymon's depositions from these cases because they give incredible insight not only into the person, but how the business of the PBC is run. In his depositions for the Golden Boy lawsuit Haymon finally admitted that he was in fact a boxing manager and it was found that he had actually been licensed as such in Nevada. Here's some fantastic coverage from Fight Opinion that goes much more in-depth.

http://www.fightopinion.com/2016/11/10/ ... -contract/

So now Haymon has admitted he's a manager. Let's say somehow there was more backlash against him and the United States got an Attorney General that wanted to go after him and actually use the Ali Act for once. It would be a HUGE problem for Haymon, in my opinion, if he admitted to being both a manager and a promoter in depositions. He'd basically admit to knowingly being in violation. So what argument did Haymon's legal team use as to why he's not a promoter? They claimed the TV networks were actually the promoters. Yep. Haymon used Kerry Davis, formerly of HBO and largely credited for helping Haymon claim as much power as he now has in boxing, and Golden Boy used former promoter Gary Shaw as witnesses. Here's another great article from fight opinion:

http://www.fightopinion.com/2016/11/01/ ... positions/

Haymon's old advisory deals had language that prevented fighters from signing with promoters unless approved by Haymon. In response to Golden Boy's anti trust suit, Haymon waived that provision. Haymon also waived the exclusivity he had with TV networks he worked with. With those two things gone anyone claiming he was going to have a monopoly was going to have a very hard time proving it. The truth is those anti-trust cases fell pretty flat as the PBC struggled to gain market share, but to point to their dismissal as vindication that Haymon isn't a promoter is asinine. That was a very small part of what they were about.

https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/12/1/1 ... oxing-news

There are a couple very easy ways to look at this so both sides can be right:

One side can say Al Haymon technically isn't a promoter because he isn't licensed as one. Sure, technically correct. These boxing commissions aren't going to push the issue, require him to get licensed and lose huge shows for their jurisdictions to try dig into an issue that NOBODY CARES ABOUT ANYMORE! There's about 150 matchmakers operating in the US that have never been licensed as one either though. It's just how things go. I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe that whoever holds the little piece of paper given out by the state as a promoter's license is always the one pulling the promotional strings.

If the other side were to say that Al Haymon and his companies perform every single duty of a promoter with the exception of getting licensed I believe you'd also be technically correct! They do! It's the old "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck......." I don't need someone to get a piece of paper from a state to know what they are. He runs his business the way he wants and just got a huge deal with Fox that will be good for boxing. He's doing fine. I hope he gives us a ton of good fights.

Lastly, yes I actually met Al Haymon backstage at the MGM Grand in 2013 before the Mayweather/Canelo weigh ins. I was a guest of his personal matchmaker. I only briefly said hello. He was very soft spoken and seemed beloved by everyone there who knew who he was.

You haven't provided any proof, only allegations that have never been substantiated. And we know this for certain based on the outcome of every single lawsuit that has ever been filed against Al Haymon... and you cannot possibly say otherwise.

You've also admitted to not actually knowing anything about Al Haymon. Saying "hello" to someone (if it actually happened), does not constitute having engaged in a conversation with the man.

The various lawsuits that all failed, were alleging that Haymon employed "sham" promoters, as he was actually promoting the PBC events, but there was no direct evidence of this. And we're not only talking about pieces of paper, certificates, emails etc., but also any testimonies from actual human beings. There was no direct evidence.... NONE! Absolutely fûck all!

None of the prosecuting lawyers were able to supply any compelling testimonies from reliable witnesses to substantiate their allegations. Not a single one of them.

So we're not talking about Al Haymon being an "unofficial" promoter in any sort of capacity, because he isn't. And you cannot prove otherwise

I'll say it again, in case you need reminding, the reason why EVERY SINGLE LAWSUIT AGAINST AL HAYMON FAILED was because THERE WAS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE to substantiate any of the allegations being proposed by the prosecuting lawyers!

So quoting various documents that were ultimately ignored during various lawsuits FAILS TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT!

If you can provide a NEW set of irrefutable direct evidence to substantiate your allegation of Al Haymon of being a promoter, then I can provide you with the contact details of GBP, Top Rank and Main Events, because they would likely pay you millions of dollars for your invaluable information.

I suspect that you're gullible and adopted the very same mainstream opinions possessed by the Lemming-like masses, without bothering to independently fact-check the validity of their claims, hence the reason why you cannot support your own stance.

Your confirmation bias, which was your weak attempt to win an argument on a forum, is not the same as independently fact-checking the validity of your own claims.

Good luck to you kid!

[Thomastearns]

So you're saying there's no evidence that he:

1. Negotiates license fees for events with the rights buyers like Showtime?

2. Dictates what fights are on what televised shows?

3. Dictates ticket pricing?

4. Selects venues for events?

5. Dictates what televised fighters are getting paid?

I am saying that there is no evidence of Al Haymon violating any antitrust laws or the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act.

The burden of proof is on you to provide sufficient evidence to support your accusations. Nobody else has been able to do, so I'm assuming you can't either.

I’ll also repeat my stance once again, since it seems that you’ve paid no attention to it…

I flatly-refuse to accuse a man that I’ve never met, never even seen talk, never read any of his interview transcripts, a person I know absolutely nothing about, of being a PROMOTER when it’s blatantly obvious that he isn’t.

I am willing to argue that you’ve never met Al Haymon, you’ve never seen him talk, you’ve never read any of his interview transcripts and you also know absolutely nothing about this man!

Am I wrong?

Let's see if you're able to "Talk the Talk and Walk the Walk", because so far, you haven't!

There isn't any "burden of proof" on me! I'm not in litigation with Al Haymon. Dude, it's a message board, don't take it so seriously! But anyways, let's talk the talk.

You have to quit throwing around the Ali Act as if it's some sort of living entity that is enforced. It's not. It has no teeth, never has and never will until there's an Attorney General that cares in the slightest. The Association of Boxing Commissions, which is actually referenced in the bill to come up with minimum contract provisions, presented and appealed to the United States Attorney General with what they believe to be EVIDENCE that Al Haymon was acting as both a promoter and manager among other things. Since it's boxing this was completely ignored. If you'd like to read their findings and what they called evidence here's the link:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ako ... ajYGQo/pub

I'll answer your other questions in a moment, but my question is "Who cares?" The Attorney General didn't care how Haymon operated and never looked into the case. The ABC changed leadership and decided to declare that Haymon wasn't under investigation and they apparently no longer care. Nobody in boxing cares how Haymon operates anymore so why do you care how it's labeled? Does it change your income or life in any way, shape or form? What is with this obsession? I can't for the life of me figure out why these topics are so contentious. Only Al Haymon should care. I'll explain why in a bit.

Haymon's anti trust cases were not trials to find out whether or not he functioned as a promoter. For the longest time people argued that Haymon wasn't a manager, but was in fact an advisor only. Being an advisor would leave him outside of the Ali Act completely. Now you say you've never read any Al Haymon interview transcripts. That's too bad. If you were actually following these anti-trust suits and are as enlightened as you claim you would have already read Haymon's depositions from these cases because they give incredible insight not only into the person, but how the business of the PBC is run. In his depositions for the Golden Boy lawsuit Haymon finally admitted that he was in fact a boxing manager and it was found that he had actually been licensed as such in Nevada. Here's some fantastic coverage from Fight Opinion that goes much more in-depth.

http://www.fightopinion.com/2016/11/10/ ... -contract/

So now Haymon has admitted he's a manager. Let's say somehow there was more backlash against him and the United States got an Attorney General that wanted to go after him and actually use the Ali Act for once. It would be a HUGE problem for Haymon, in my opinion, if he admitted to being both a manager and a promoter in depositions. He'd basically admit to knowingly being in violation. So what argument did Haymon's legal team use as to why he's not a promoter? They claimed the TV networks were actually the promoters. Yep. Haymon used Kerry Davis, formerly of HBO and largely credited for helping Haymon claim as much power as he now has in boxing, and Golden Boy used former promoter Gary Shaw as witnesses. Here's another great article from fight opinion:

http://www.fightopinion.com/2016/11/01/ ... positions/

Haymon's old advisory deals had language that prevented fighters from signing with promoters unless approved by Haymon. In response to Golden Boy's anti trust suit, Haymon waived that provision. Haymon also waived the exclusivity he had with TV networks he worked with. With those two things gone anyone claiming he was going to have a monopoly was going to have a very hard time proving it. The truth is those anti-trust cases fell pretty flat as the PBC struggled to gain market share, but to point to their dismissal as vindication that Haymon isn't a promoter is asinine. That was a very small part of what they were about.

https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/12/1/1 ... oxing-news

There are a couple very easy ways to look at this so both sides can be right:

One side can say Al Haymon technically isn't a promoter because he isn't licensed as one. Sure, technically correct. These boxing commissions aren't going to push the issue, require him to get licensed and lose huge shows for their jurisdictions to try dig into an issue that NOBODY CARES ABOUT ANYMORE! There's about 150 matchmakers operating in the US that have never been licensed as one either though. It's just how things go. I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe that whoever holds the little piece of paper given out by the state as a promoter's license is always the one pulling the promotional strings.

If the other side were to say that Al Haymon and his companies perform every single duty of a promoter with the exception of getting licensed I believe you'd also be technically correct! They do! It's the old "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck......." I don't need someone to get a piece of paper from a state to know what they are. He runs his business the way he wants and just got a huge deal with Fox that will be good for boxing. He's doing fine. I hope he gives us a ton of good fights.

Lastly, yes I actually met Al Haymon backstage at the MGM Grand in 2013 before the Mayweather/Canelo weigh ins. I was a guest of his personal matchmaker. I only briefly said hello. He was very soft spoken and seemed beloved by everyone there who knew who he was.

Great information there, walter5. It is important because it could very well determine the future of our sport. Haymon seems to be an alter ego of Don King and no worse for it. The same drive and determination with a totally different persona.

That's what Harvard can do for you.

[punchoutsb]

So you're saying there's no evidence that he:

1. Negotiates license fees for events with the rights buyers like Showtime?

2. Dictates what fights are on what televised shows?

3. Dictates ticket pricing?

4. Selects venues for events?

5. Dictates what televised fighters are getting paid?

I am saying that there is no evidence of Al Haymon violating any antitrust laws or the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act.

The burden of proof is on you to provide sufficient evidence to support your accusations. Nobody else has been able to do, so I'm assuming you can't either.

I’ll also repeat my stance once again, since it seems that you’ve paid no attention to it…

I flatly-refuse to accuse a man that I’ve never met, never even seen talk, never read any of his interview transcripts, a person I know absolutely nothing about, of being a PROMOTER when it’s blatantly obvious that he isn’t.

I am willing to argue that you’ve never met Al Haymon, you’ve never seen him talk, you’ve never read any of his interview transcripts and you also know absolutely nothing about this man!

Am I wrong?

Let's see if you're able to "Talk the Talk and Walk the Walk", because so far, you haven't!

There isn't any "burden of proof" on me! I'm not in litigation with Al Haymon. Dude, it's a message board, don't take it so seriously! But anyways, let's talk the talk.

You have to quit throwing around the Ali Act as if it's some sort of living entity that is enforced. It's not. It has no teeth, never has and never will until there's an Attorney General that cares in the slightest. The Association of Boxing Commissions, which is actually referenced in the bill to come up with minimum contract provisions, presented and appealed to the United States Attorney General with what they believe to be EVIDENCE that Al Haymon was acting as both a promoter and manager among other things. Since it's boxing this was completely ignored. If you'd like to read their findings and what they called evidence here's the link:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ako ... ajYGQo/pub

I'll answer your other questions in a moment, but my question is "Who cares?" The Attorney General didn't care how Haymon operated and never looked into the case. The ABC changed leadership and decided to declare that Haymon wasn't under investigation and they apparently no longer care. Nobody in boxing cares how Haymon operates anymore so why do you care how it's labeled? Does it change your income or life in any way, shape or form? What is with this obsession? I can't for the life of me figure out why these topics are so contentious. Only Al Haymon should care. I'll explain why in a bit.

Haymon's anti trust cases were not trials to find out whether or not he functioned as a promoter. For the longest time people argued that Haymon wasn't a manager, but was in fact an advisor only. Being an advisor would leave him outside of the Ali Act completely. Now you say you've never read any Al Haymon interview transcripts. That's too bad. If you were actually following these anti-trust suits and are as enlightened as you claim you would have already read Haymon's depositions from these cases because they give incredible insight not only into the person, but how the business of the PBC is run. In his depositions for the Golden Boy lawsuit Haymon finally admitted that he was in fact a boxing manager and it was found that he had actually been licensed as such in Nevada. Here's some fantastic coverage from Fight Opinion that goes much more in-depth.

http://www.fightopinion.com/2016/11/10/ ... -contract/

So now Haymon has admitted he's a manager. Let's say somehow there was more backlash against him and the United States got an Attorney General that wanted to go after him and actually use the Ali Act for once. It would be a HUGE problem for Haymon, in my opinion, if he admitted to being both a manager and a promoter in depositions. He'd basically admit to knowingly being in violation. So what argument did Haymon's legal team use as to why he's not a promoter? They claimed the TV networks were actually the promoters. Yep. Haymon used Kerry Davis, formerly of HBO and largely credited for helping Haymon claim as much power as he now has in boxing, and Golden Boy used former promoter Gary Shaw as witnesses. Here's another great article from fight opinion:

http://www.fightopinion.com/2016/11/01/ ... positions/

Haymon's old advisory deals had language that prevented fighters from signing with promoters unless approved by Haymon. In response to Golden Boy's anti trust suit, Haymon waived that provision. Haymon also waived the exclusivity he had with TV networks he worked with. With those two things gone anyone claiming he was going to have a monopoly was going to have a very hard time proving it. The truth is those anti-trust cases fell pretty flat as the PBC struggled to gain market share, but to point to their dismissal as vindication that Haymon isn't a promoter is asinine. That was a very small part of what they were about.

https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/12/1/1 ... oxing-news

There are a couple very easy ways to look at this so both sides can be right:

One side can say Al Haymon technically isn't a promoter because he isn't licensed as one. Sure, technically correct. These boxing commissions aren't going to push the issue, require him to get licensed and lose huge shows for their jurisdictions to try dig into an issue that NOBODY CARES ABOUT ANYMORE! There's about 150 matchmakers operating in the US that have never been licensed as one either though. It's just how things go. I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe that whoever holds the little piece of paper given out by the state as a promoter's license is always the one pulling the promotional strings.

If the other side were to say that Al Haymon and his companies perform every single duty of a promoter with the exception of getting licensed I believe you'd also be technically correct! They do! It's the old "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck......." I don't need someone to get a piece of paper from a state to know what they are. He runs his business the way he wants and just got a huge deal with Fox that will be good for boxing. He's doing fine. I hope he gives us a ton of good fights.

Lastly, yes I actually met Al Haymon backstage at the MGM Grand in 2013 before the Mayweather/Canelo weigh ins. I was a guest of his personal matchmaker. I only briefly said hello. He was very soft spoken and seemed beloved by everyone there who knew who he was.

That’s a KO 1 if ever I’ve seen one. Savage beatdown

[Counter-puncher]

EO got knocked out so badly he actually thinks he is still in the fight

[Boxerbeetle]

EO got knocked out so badly he actually thinks he is still in the fight

[Boxerbeetle]

I am saying that there is no evidence of Al Haymon violating any antitrust laws or the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act.

The burden of proof is on you to provide sufficient evidence to support your accusations. Nobody else has been able to do, so I'm assuming you can't either.

I’ll also repeat my stance once again, since it seems that you’ve paid no attention to it…

I flatly-refuse to accuse a man that I’ve never met, never even seen talk, never read any of his interview transcripts, a person I know absolutely nothing about, of being a PROMOTER when it’s blatantly obvious that he isn’t.

I am willing to argue that you’ve never met Al Haymon, you’ve never seen him talk, you’ve never read any of his interview transcripts and you also know absolutely nothing about this man!

Am I wrong?

Let's see if you're able to "Talk the Talk and Walk the Walk", because so far, you haven't!

There isn't any "burden of proof" on me! I'm not in litigation with Al Haymon. Dude, it's a message board, don't take it so seriously! But anyways, let's talk the talk.

You have to quit throwing around the Ali Act as if it's some sort of living entity that is enforced. It's not. It has no teeth, never has and never will until there's an Attorney General that cares in the slightest. The Association of Boxing Commissions, which is actually referenced in the bill to come up with minimum contract provisions, presented and appealed to the United States Attorney General with what they believe to be EVIDENCE that Al Haymon was acting as both a promoter and manager among other things. Since it's boxing this was completely ignored. If you'd like to read their findings and what they called evidence here's the link:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ako ... ajYGQo/pub

I'll answer your other questions in a moment, but my question is "Who cares?" The Attorney General didn't care how Haymon operated and never looked into the case. The ABC changed leadership and decided to declare that Haymon wasn't under investigation and they apparently no longer care. Nobody in boxing cares how Haymon operates anymore so why do you care how it's labeled? Does it change your income or life in any way, shape or form? What is with this obsession? I can't for the life of me figure out why these topics are so contentious. Only Al Haymon should care. I'll explain why in a bit.

Haymon's anti trust cases were not trials to find out whether or not he functioned as a promoter. For the longest time people argued that Haymon wasn't a manager, but was in fact an advisor only. Being an advisor would leave him outside of the Ali Act completely. Now you say you've never read any Al Haymon interview transcripts. That's too bad. If you were actually following these anti-trust suits and are as enlightened as you claim you would have already read Haymon's depositions from these cases because they give incredible insight not only into the person, but how the business of the PBC is run. In his depositions for the Golden Boy lawsuit Haymon finally admitted that he was in fact a boxing manager and it was found that he had actually been licensed as such in Nevada. Here's some fantastic coverage from Fight Opinion that goes much more in-depth.

http://www.fightopinion.com/2016/11/10/ ... -contract/

So now Haymon has admitted he's a manager. Let's say somehow there was more backlash against him and the United States got an Attorney General that wanted to go after him and actually use the Ali Act for once. It would be a HUGE problem for Haymon, in my opinion, if he admitted to being both a manager and a promoter in depositions. He'd basically admit to knowingly being in violation. So what argument did Haymon's legal team use as to why he's not a promoter? They claimed the TV networks were actually the promoters. Yep. Haymon used Kerry Davis, formerly of HBO and largely credited for helping Haymon claim as much power as he now has in boxing, and Golden Boy used former promoter Gary Shaw as witnesses. Here's another great article from fight opinion:

http://www.fightopinion.com/2016/11/01/ ... positions/

Haymon's old advisory deals had language that prevented fighters from signing with promoters unless approved by Haymon. In response to Golden Boy's anti trust suit, Haymon waived that provision. Haymon also waived the exclusivity he had with TV networks he worked with. With those two things gone anyone claiming he was going to have a monopoly was going to have a very hard time proving it. The truth is those anti-trust cases fell pretty flat as the PBC struggled to gain market share, but to point to their dismissal as vindication that Haymon isn't a promoter is asinine. That was a very small part of what they were about.

https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/12/1/1 ... oxing-news

There are a couple very easy ways to look at this so both sides can be right:

One side can say Al Haymon technically isn't a promoter because he isn't licensed as one. Sure, technically correct. These boxing commissions aren't going to push the issue, require him to get licensed and lose huge shows for their jurisdictions to try dig into an issue that NOBODY CARES ABOUT ANYMORE! There's about 150 matchmakers operating in the US that have never been licensed as one either though. It's just how things go. I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe that whoever holds the little piece of paper given out by the state as a promoter's license is always the one pulling the promotional strings.

If the other side were to say that Al Haymon and his companies perform every single duty of a promoter with the exception of getting licensed I believe you'd also be technically correct! They do! It's the old "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck......." I don't need someone to get a piece of paper from a state to know what they are. He runs his business the way he wants and just got a huge deal with Fox that will be good for boxing. He's doing fine. I hope he gives us a ton of good fights.

Lastly, yes I actually met Al Haymon backstage at the MGM Grand in 2013 before the Mayweather/Canelo weigh ins. I was a guest of his personal matchmaker. I only briefly said hello. He was very soft spoken and seemed beloved by everyone there who knew who he was.

You haven't provided any proof, only allegations that have never been substantiated. And we know this for certain based on the outcome of every single lawsuit that has ever been filed against Al Haymon... and you cannot possibly say otherwise.

You've also admitted to not actually knowing anything about Al Haymon. Saying "hello" to someone (if it actually happened), does not constitute having engaged in a conversation with the man.

The various lawsuits that all failed, were alleging that Haymon employed "sham" promoters, as he was actually promoting the PBC events, but there was no direct evidence of this. And we're not only talking about pieces of paper, certificates, emails etc., but also any testimonies from actual human beings. There was no direct evidence.... NONE! Absolutely fûck all!

None of the prosecuting lawyers were able to supply any compelling testimonies from reliable witnesses to substantiate their allegations. Not a single one of them.

So we're not talking about Al Haymon being an "unofficial" promoter in any sort of capacity, because he isn't. And you cannot prove otherwise

I'll say it again, in case you need reminding, the reason why EVERY SINGLE LAWSUIT AGAINST AL HAYMON FAILED was because THERE WAS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE to substantiate any of the allegations being proposed by the prosecuting lawyers!

So quoting various documents that were ultimately ignored during various lawsuits FAILS TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT!

If you can provide a NEW set of irrefutable direct evidence to substantiate your allegation of Al Haymon of being a promoter, then I can provide you with the contact details of GBP, Top Rank and Main Events, because they would likely pay you millions of dollars for your invaluable information.

I suspect that you're gullible and adopted the very same mainstream opinions possessed by the Lemming-like masses, without bothering to independently fact-check the validity of their claims, hence the reason why you cannot support your own stance.

Your confirmation bias, which was your weak attempt to win an argument on a forum, is not the same as independently fact-checking the validity of your own claims.

Good luck to you kid!

It’s very clear who the ‘kid’ is in this exchange.

[punchoutsb]

There isn't any "burden of proof" on me! I'm not in litigation with Al Haymon. Dude, it's a message board, don't take it so seriously! But anyways, let's talk the talk.

You have to quit throwing around the Ali Act as if it's some sort of living entity that is enforced. It's not. It has no teeth, never has and never will until there's an Attorney General that cares in the slightest. The Association of Boxing Commissions, which is actually referenced in the bill to come up with minimum contract provisions, presented and appealed to the United States Attorney General with what they believe to be EVIDENCE that Al Haymon was acting as both a promoter and manager among other things. Since it's boxing this was completely ignored. If you'd like to read their findings and what they called evidence here's the link:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ako ... ajYGQo/pub

I'll answer your other questions in a moment, but my question is "Who cares?" The Attorney General didn't care how Haymon operated and never looked into the case. The ABC changed leadership and decided to declare that Haymon wasn't under investigation and they apparently no longer care. Nobody in boxing cares how Haymon operates anymore so why do you care how it's labeled? Does it change your income or life in any way, shape or form? What is with this obsession? I can't for the life of me figure out why these topics are so contentious. Only Al Haymon should care. I'll explain why in a bit.

Haymon's anti trust cases were not trials to find out whether or not he functioned as a promoter. For the longest time people argued that Haymon wasn't a manager, but was in fact an advisor only. Being an advisor would leave him outside of the Ali Act completely. Now you say you've never read any Al Haymon interview transcripts. That's too bad. If you were actually following these anti-trust suits and are as enlightened as you claim you would have already read Haymon's depositions from these cases because they give incredible insight not only into the person, but how the business of the PBC is run. In his depositions for the Golden Boy lawsuit Haymon finally admitted that he was in fact a boxing manager and it was found that he had actually been licensed as such in Nevada. Here's some fantastic coverage from Fight Opinion that goes much more in-depth.

http://www.fightopinion.com/2016/11/10/ ... -contract/

So now Haymon has admitted he's a manager. Let's say somehow there was more backlash against him and the United States got an Attorney General that wanted to go after him and actually use the Ali Act for once. It would be a HUGE problem for Haymon, in my opinion, if he admitted to being both a manager and a promoter in depositions. He'd basically admit to knowingly being in violation. So what argument did Haymon's legal team use as to why he's not a promoter? They claimed the TV networks were actually the promoters. Yep. Haymon used Kerry Davis, formerly of HBO and largely credited for helping Haymon claim as much power as he now has in boxing, and Golden Boy used former promoter Gary Shaw as witnesses. Here's another great article from fight opinion:

http://www.fightopinion.com/2016/11/01/ ... positions/

Haymon's old advisory deals had language that prevented fighters from signing with promoters unless approved by Haymon. In response to Golden Boy's anti trust suit, Haymon waived that provision. Haymon also waived the exclusivity he had with TV networks he worked with. With those two things gone anyone claiming he was going to have a monopoly was going to have a very hard time proving it. The truth is those anti-trust cases fell pretty flat as the PBC struggled to gain market share, but to point to their dismissal as vindication that Haymon isn't a promoter is asinine. That was a very small part of what they were about.

https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/12/1/1 ... oxing-news

There are a couple very easy ways to look at this so both sides can be right:

One side can say Al Haymon technically isn't a promoter because he isn't licensed as one. Sure, technically correct. These boxing commissions aren't going to push the issue, require him to get licensed and lose huge shows for their jurisdictions to try dig into an issue that NOBODY CARES ABOUT ANYMORE! There's about 150 matchmakers operating in the US that have never been licensed as one either though. It's just how things go. I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe that whoever holds the little piece of paper given out by the state as a promoter's license is always the one pulling the promotional strings.

If the other side were to say that Al Haymon and his companies perform every single duty of a promoter with the exception of getting licensed I believe you'd also be technically correct! They do! It's the old "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck......." I don't need someone to get a piece of paper from a state to know what they are. He runs his business the way he wants and just got a huge deal with Fox that will be good for boxing. He's doing fine. I hope he gives us a ton of good fights.

Lastly, yes I actually met Al Haymon backstage at the MGM Grand in 2013 before the Mayweather/Canelo weigh ins. I was a guest of his personal matchmaker. I only briefly said hello. He was very soft spoken and seemed beloved by everyone there who knew who he was.

You haven't provided any proof, only allegations that have never been substantiated. And we know this for certain based on the outcome of every single lawsuit that has ever been filed against Al Haymon... and you cannot possibly say otherwise.

You've also admitted to not actually knowing anything about Al Haymon. Saying "hello" to someone (if it actually happened), does not constitute having engaged in a conversation with the man.

The various lawsuits that all failed, were alleging that Haymon employed "sham" promoters, as he was actually promoting the PBC events, but there was no direct evidence of this. And we're not only talking about pieces of paper, certificates, emails etc., but also any testimonies from actual human beings. There was no direct evidence.... NONE! Absolutely fûck all!

None of the prosecuting lawyers were able to supply any compelling testimonies from reliable witnesses to substantiate their allegations. Not a single one of them.

So we're not talking about Al Haymon being an "unofficial" promoter in any sort of capacity, because he isn't. And you cannot prove otherwise

I'll say it again, in case you need reminding, the reason why EVERY SINGLE LAWSUIT AGAINST AL HAYMON FAILED was because THERE WAS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE to substantiate any of the allegations being proposed by the prosecuting lawyers!

So quoting various documents that were ultimately ignored during various lawsuits FAILS TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT!

If you can provide a NEW set of irrefutable direct evidence to substantiate your allegation of Al Haymon of being a promoter, then I can provide you with the contact details of GBP, Top Rank and Main Events, because they would likely pay you millions of dollars for your invaluable information.

I suspect that you're gullible and adopted the very same mainstream opinions possessed by the Lemming-like masses, without bothering to independently fact-check the validity of their claims, hence the reason why you cannot support your own stance.

Your confirmation bias, which was your weak attempt to win an argument on a forum, is not the same as independently fact-checking the validity of your own claims.

Good luck to you kid!

It’s very clear who the ‘kid’ is in this exchange.

Do you think he’s still willing to argue that Walter has never met, seen, or read anything from Al Haymon?

Absolutely disgusting one shot walk off KO.

[gilgamesh]

EO got knocked out so badly he actually thinks he is still in the fight

Like the guy throwing punches on the canvas while the Doctors are shining a light in his eyes

[boxing_rocks]

Knocking EO out is inhumane like fighting an elementary school child.

[Counter-puncher]

EO got knocked out so badly he actually thinks he is still in the fight

Like the guy throwing punches on the canvas while the Doctors are shining a light in his eyes