Excellent article on HBO Boxing's recent missteps

You are also to hard on juarez for his poor outing against Raheem. At the time he was still a prospect. You don't throw the prospect that you've been builiding off the bandwagon just because he had a poor performance. Another thing that got Juarez a shot against John, he beat Jorge Barrios, which wasn't a bad fight against a solid quality opponent. That's probably Juarez's best win to date and it got him a shot.

Your first sentence is just wrong and your second sentence explains why. Juarez stepped up and failed. Not that he should've been there in the first place, even before the Soto fight he looked awful winning a disgraceful hometown decision against Zahir Raheem. Then got his a** kicked by Soto. So please explain to me how it's justified this guy keeps getting HBO dates? How about Dan Rafael counter with what he heard? Or is he just now starting to do some research? If he knows the number is inaccurate surely he'd have the right one, no? Yes, we should focus on his points. Which did you disagree with? Don't know why I didn't see this until now. Barrera vs Juarez seemed like a decent fight and it was good. HBO was all over Barrera's nuts and it was still a good fight. The rematch, on PPV because of the controversy and good fight the first time, was a dud and sucked. Fast forward three years later and Rocky Juarez fights Chris John on the undercard of Juan Manuel Marquez-Juan Diaz. That was a good undercard fight and it seemed like a decent fight going in too with John never really stepping up and him coming to America. Other times seeing on PPV undercards had more to do with GBP then HBO. How about Dan Rafael counter with what he heard? Or is he just now starting to do some research? If he knows the number is inaccurate surely he'd have the right one, no? Yes, we should focus on his points. Which did you disagree with? Couple of points here about Dan Rafael: 1. He briefly posted this in his chat. It's not like it was an article where he could have gone into depth more. He still had to answer other questions. 2. Who is more trust worthy, the guy who has written countless HBO-hate articles like Thomas Hauser has or the guy who, while has written negatively against HBO in points too, is connected to ESPN, who would have a much easier time in getting more trustworthy numbers. Dan's ESPN connection makes it a lot easier for him to get the facts straight. Plus Hauser's HBO bias doesn't make him credible. If he knows the numbers are inaccurate, then so what? If he has an agenda of discrediting HBO then what's it to him if he gets his numbers wrong? As for the points I disagree with, read this post: Does Thomas Hauser never stop bitching about HBO? This was a terrible article. He made some good points particually the ones about Dawson Tarver 2, but HBO has stepped up this past year in bringing better quality of fights. They've made more competitive match ups and less PPV's (which is what we wanted. By the end of 09, there will have been only 3 HBO PPVs. That is nuts) Besides bitching about HBO, he bitches about how it's golden boy's fault. But let's think about the worst HBO cards this year shall we? Dawson-Tarver II (Promoted by Gary Shaw) Berto-Urango (Promoted by Lou Dibella) Those are non golden boy fighters. Another thing he fails to accknowledge is how much better ratings were. Mosley-Margarito, Cotto-Clottey, Diaz-Malignaggi, and Marquez Diaz all did great ratings. HBO had much better match ups this year compared to last year and it paid off in the ratings. The only thing I agree about with this article is how BAD needs to get better match making, but it's still mostly a terrible article in general. It focuses too much on the negative (which Hauser always does against HBO) and how they overpaid Dawson way to much money.

I'm tired of seeing Rocky Juarez also, but if you keep in mind, them putting him on is kind of justified. Soto vs Juarez was the step up fight and he failed. Then Juarez was the opponent for Barrera. Close, good fight the first time, so put him in a rematch. Then when he came back to HBO it was against John, which was a step up fight for john. The times he was on the undercards of PPV's was GBP fault. Your first sentence is just wrong and your second sentence explains why. Juarez stepped up and failed. Not that he should've been there in the first place, even before the Soto fight he looked awful winning a disgraceful hometown decision against Zahir Raheem. Then got his a** kicked by Soto. So please explain to me how it's justified this guy keeps getting HBO dates? We don't even know if they actually cut the budget by 15 million. According to Dan Rafael, his numbers are inaccurate. We shouldn't attack the author, but focus on his points? He makes some good points, but a lot of them are shit. How about Dan Rafael counter with what he heard? Or is he just now starting to do some research? If he knows the number is inaccurate surely he'd have the right one, no? Yes, we should focus on his points. Which did you disagree with?

I'm tired of seeing Rocky Juarez also, but if you keep in mind, them putting him on is kind of justified. Soto vs Juarez was the step up fight and he failed. Then Juarez was the opponent for Barrera. Close, good fight the first time, so put him in a rematch. Then when he came back to HBO it was against John, which was a step up fight for john. The times he was on the undercards of PPV's was GBP fault.

I have a problem with both. GBP shouldnt get any date they please, wtf? You have to sell the matchup. I don't wanna see Rocky Juarez. I'm with you there...I'm tired of seeing his ass... Damn this budget cut might fukk up how much boxing we're gonna see...

Dan Rafael says a lot of Hauser's numbers are inaccurate...

I'm amazed everyone is attacking the author. Does he have an agenda? Probably. But the focus should be on the article, not him. If Rafael has his own sources why doesn't he do his own in-depth research and provide it to us? We can start with the main point of this article: HBO is cutting their sports budget by 15 million dollars. You know that's about to hit their boxing dept hard. W can't ignore that like it's no big deal. That could be a sign of things to come. So yes, while HBO remains the leader we must continue to scrutinize and demand the best because that's what keeps the sport thriving. Who knows, maybe this happening will be a plus for boxing. Maybe it returns to network TV. But if it doesn't and things take a turn for the worse, we'll all wish we were more vigilant in holding the sport's leaders accountable. We don't even know if they actually cut the budget by 15 million. According to Dan Rafael, his numbers are inaccurate. We shouldn't attack the author, but focus on his points? He makes some good points, but a lot of them are shit.

I'm amazed everyone is attacking the author. Does he have an agenda? Probably. But the focus should be on the article, not him. If Rafael has his own sources why doesn't he do his own in-depth research and provide it to us? We can start with the main point of this article: HBO is cutting their sports budget by 15 million dollars. You know that's about to hit their boxing dept hard. W can't ignore that like it's no big deal. That could be a sign of things to come. So yes, while HBO remains the leader we must continue to scrutinize and demand the best because that's what keeps the sport thriving. Who knows, maybe this happening will be a plus for boxing. Maybe it returns to network TV. But if it doesn't and things take a turn for the worse, we'll all wish we were more vigilant in holding the sport's leaders accountable.

good read....................

Dan Rafael (1:12 PM) Tom is a great writer, a smart guy and a friend, but I felt the piece showed a massive agenda on his part and I don't agree with many of his assertions. I also have my own sources and I believe some of his facts are simply inaccurate. When you write 10 pieces about HBO and every one of them is negative, I have a problem with that. Does HBO deserve some criticism? Absolutely. I have delivered some of my own for sure. But there are lots of good things too. I found the timing surprising as well, considering we were a couple of weeks removed from a massive PPV success and one week removed from the highest rated show of the year, not to mention a couple of days removed from the announcement of a huge HBO fight that is exactly what fans and media want with Pavlik-Williams. Are there some issues and budget problems? Sure. Do I agree with every fight HBO buys? God no. HOWEVER, HBO remains the leader of American televised boxing and puts on a lot more good shows than bad ones. Dan pwns him

Hauser's a great writer, and yes HBO's boxing budget is in dire straits. But how many times does he need to write about what's wrong with HBO? I mean damn, he even ruined his own eulogy on Artie Curry by using the platform to further his own agenda against Ross Greenburg and company. He began the year with basically the same article he'd written a year prior, both of which are the same general theme as the one linked at the start of this thread. He's great at pointing out all of the flaws, but to the point where his view on a particular instance isn't quite the same as that of a less biased observer. Furthermore, HBO seems to be the only source of his anger, as if the rest of the sport is getting it right more often than not. Yes, the HBO-Golden Boy alliance is an unholy one. But so too is ESPN's relationship with Artie Pellulo (exposed by Rick Reeno). ESPN's recent deal with Golden Boy isn't any better, considering that five of their seven shows in 2009 also ranked among the network's worst of the year - their last show (headlined by Vivian Harris-Noe Bolanos) arguably the worst since the return of Friday Night Fights. How about Showtime's affinity for all things Gary Shaw (to where many in the sport refer to the network as Shawtime)? Or that Don King still remains high in their good graces, the only other promoter able to regularly secure TV dates on the network despite crippling their boxing program throughout the 90's. How about Top Rank's output deal with TV Azteca? Or their previous one with Versus? Or the fact that Top Rank and Golden Boy were granted 90% of the available Telefutura dates per year? Or the fact that Fox Sports would air any junk tossed at them by Goossen-Tutor? Why is All Star Boxing the only promoter able to secure dates on Telemundo? Hauser is there to give a hearty rah-rah to Showtime's ending the year strong, but where was he when they basically went limp dick for the first half of 2009? Make no mistaken, Ross Greenburg deserves to shoulder a lot of the blame for what's wrong with HBO. In regards to the declination of the sport, Ross Greenburg is certainly A problem. But that doesn't make him THE problem. Does Thomas Hauser never stop bitching about HBO? This was a terrible article. He made some good points particually the ones about Dawson Tarver 2, but HBO has stepped up this past year in bringing better quality of fights. They've made more competitive match ups and less PPV's (which is what we wanted. By the end of 09, there will have been only 3 HBO PPVs. That is nuts) Besides bitching about HBO, he bitches about how it's golden boy's fault. But let's think about the worst HBO cards this year shall we? Dawson-Tarver II (Promoted by Gary Shaw) Berto-Urango (Promoted by Lou Dibella) Those are non golden boy fighters. Another thing he fails to accknowledge is how much better ratings were. Mosley-Margarito, Cotto-Clottey, Diaz-Malignaggi, and Marquez Diaz all did great ratings. HBO had much better match ups this year compared to last year and it paid off in the ratings. The only thing I agree about with this article is how BAD needs to get better match making, but it's still mostly a terrible article in general. It focuses too much on the negative (which Hauser always does against HBO) and how they overpaid Dawson way to much money. The 2 best posts on this thread imo. Seems like people just will never stop bitching, it used to be that PPV was killing boxing. Now HBO has cut that down and put on some great fights with more to come at the end of the year but people still ain't happy, nobody is saying they are perfect but they have done some great things this year. I enjoy Hauser's articles but his hard on for HBO/Ross Greenburg/Golden Boy has gotten ridiculous.

So do you have more of a problem with Golden Boy putting all there fighters on there...or is it the mismatches? Or both? Both. For the most powerful media outlet in boxing (really, one of the only outlets) to guarantee dates to a single promoter is foolish. It makes no business sense, and I think they've realized that, as it's forced HBO to pass on potentially more significant fights. And as far as the matchmaking goes, I don't subscribe to HBO to see Rocky Juarez fight twice for a title, to watch journeyman welterweight Cosme Rivera try to take on a big, brutal LMW, to watch Andre Berto make a title defense against an ESPN FNF fixture, to watch retiree Jameel McCline, etc, etc...

So do you have more of a problem with Golden Boy putting all there fighters on there...or is it the mismatches? Or both? I have a problem with both. GBP shouldnt get any date they please, wtf? You have to sell the matchup. I don't wanna see Rocky Juarez.

Some of the matchups have been very, very good. Many others involved opponents that had no business being on HBO. So do you have more of a problem with Golden Boy putting all there fighters on there...or is it the mismatches? Or both?

up with you...

I think that Golden Boy sucks when it comes to BAD cards as we've seen with Ortiz and Guerrero doing what they did and bailing out of fights that get tough and the constant preferential treatment toward Rocky Juarez. They have invested in the wrong younger generation of fighters where Top Rank has not. But the problem with Top Rank is, that they put their fighters in with stiffs trying to protect them and then the program bombs because nobody is interested in the fight because of the opponent standing across the ring from the favorite. Examples of these type of fights are Pavlik-Lockett and Cotto-Gomez. Those fights did horrible TV ratings and the Cotto-Gomez fight did the lowest in the history of HBO Championship Boxing. I don't like the fact that Golden Boy has got HBO by the balls, but I wouldn't want Top Rank to be given special treatment either. If it was evened out between the two, it would force both companies to put on better match ups in my opinion.

I thought HBO did pretty well this year, Greenberg will probably lose his job but who knows if the guy that will replace him will help or hurt.

I don't get why people are saying the match making is so bad? 2009 has had a lot better match ups and is ending the year way stronger then last year. The ratings have gone up too compared to last year. HBO has tried to make better quality match ups this year, then previous years. There are some things wrong with it still (particually with the prospects getting way overpaid and how they mostly fight stiffs), but I think HBO is heading in a postive direction. I don't think it helped with them cutting the budget, but whatever. Some of the matchups have been very, very good. Many others involved opponents that had no business being on HBO.

I don't get why people are saying the match making is so bad? 2009 has had a lot better match ups and is ending the year way stronger then last year. The ratings have gone up too compared to last year. HBO has tried to make better quality match ups this year, then previous years. There are some things wrong with it still (particually with the prospects getting way overpaid and how they mostly fight stiffs), but I think HBO is heading in a postive direction. I don't think it helped with them cutting the budget, but whatever.

I thought it was a great article with fair and accurate criticisms that lost credibility by ignoring the other glaring problems with boxing (Bob Arum is not a credible source on the integrity of boxing, yet he is repeatedly cited throughout). Still a good article and very relevant.