Don King The Greatest Promoter EVER

[billeau2]

I think we have to be VERY careful when making moral judgements within the context of a sport which is on morally shaky grounds from the outset.

I love boxing more than any sport. That said, I can't say I feel particularly moral watching two guys effectively trying to inflict brain dysfunction upon each other. And I won't even begin to describe my feelings witnessing some guy I was rooting against slip from brain dysfunction into brain damage.

I mean, consider the position of ring physician. Here is a guy who has taken the Hippocratic Oath which completely precludes actions which inflict harm or injury upon the patient. And yet he must break that oath every time he takes the role or step in once the first punch is thrown.

Again, I'm not condoning King's actions. But given that competition for audience and/or viewers has arguably never been tougher (think of how many new combat sports have emerged recently) - we've picked a VERY BAD time to ostensibly clean up the sport (a questionable statement, IMO) at the expense of Prime Time fights.

One thing I notice in this argument is that a correlation is imagined (could be/could not be) between King's treatment of fighters and his ability to put on great cards. I would go so far as to say that King had the benefit of a lot of talent and an ethic that dictated that the best wanted to test that hypothesis....regularly. This and other factors had an impact of creating a great card...alas they are all correlative and not necessarily proof that is incontavertable.

By the same token King's psychopathology is not necessarily a reason for success vis a vis the horrendous cards today are not necesarily linked with the new alleged more ethical fight promotions. If we assume golden Boy, Arum ( a real stretch ) are more ethical than King and that this is the reason for antiseptosis in boxing (invent a word!)... this is equally suspect.

I will say that there does seem to be a new attempt at trying to help fighters and this may be why fighters are more risk averse. In King's day fighters like Adrien Bronner would be exposed and thrown in with talent...if they survived only then could they be considered rock stars. This idea makes the most sense to me. I think this trend started with Jones and Mayweather, two elite fighters, mostly family managed, who made it clear that they were the ones who would dictate who they fought and when.

[Mugwump]

One thing I notice in this argument is that a correlation is imagined (could be/could not be) between King's treatment of fighters and his ability to put on great cards. I would go so far as to say that King had the benefit of a lot of talent and an ethic that dictated that the best wanted to test that hypothesis....regularly. This and other factors had an impact of creating a great card...alas they are all correlative and not necessarily proof that is incontavertable.

By the same token King's psychopathology is not necessarily a reason for success vis a vis the horrendous cards today are not necesarily linked with the new alleged more ethical fight promotions. If we assume golden Boy, Arum ( a real stretch ) are more ethical than King and that this is the reason for antiseptosis in boxing (invent a word!)... this is equally suspect.

I will say that there does seem to be a new attempt at trying to help fighters and this may be why fighters are more risk averse. In King's day fighters like Adrien Bronner would be exposed and thrown in with talent...if they survived only then could they be considered rock stars. This idea makes the most sense to me. I think this trend started with Jones and Mayweather, two elite fighters, mostly family managed, who made it clear that they were the ones who would dictate who they fought and when.

King was arguably the last of the great promoters when the power was with the promoters. I take the argument on board that they probably possessed too much whilst the fighters were effectively pawns.

That said, I don't necessarily agree that fighters are the best judges of what's in their best interests.

The thing about great promoters is that they are capable of recognising that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Anyone should be able to sell Mayweather vs Pacquiao. But it takes a promoter to see emergent value from facing two fighters off against each other who aren't obviously box office. It's all about building a narrative. And King was a storyteller par excellance.

[billeau2]

King was arguably the last of the great promoters when the power was with the promoters. I take the argument on board that they probably possessed too much whilst the fighters were effectively pawns.

That said, I don't necessarily agree that fighters are the best judges of what's in their best interests.

The thing about great promoters is that they are capable of recognising that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Anyone should be able to sell Mayweather vs Pacquiao. But it takes a promoter to see emergent value from facing two fighters off against each other who aren't obviously box office. It's all about building a narrative. And King was a storyteller par excellance.

Great points....indeed fighters have proven that they are not always capable of acting in their best interest and, an interesting aside is that the IRS has been far worse than even Don King regarding setting up fighters for a life of bondage.

In a way King's hyperbole, in all its glory, was a renaissance of the times when guys like Rickert (Dempsey's promoter) came into town. King was good enough at it to make it seminal in promoting boxing.

[Mugwump]

Great points....indeed fighters have proven that they are not always capable of acting in their best interest and, an interesting aside is that the IRS has been far worse than even Don King regarding setting up fighters for a life of bondage.

In a way King's hyperbole, in all its glory, was a renaissance of the times when guys like Rickert (Dempsey's promoter) came into town. King was good enough at it to make it seminal in promoting boxing.

Originality is often anything but. As I said, King is a throwback to the old carnival hucksters. If you're old enough to remember such then King is nothing new.

I mean, Jimi Hendrix's guitar tricks were thought to be so utterly original by the baby boomers. But in a recent documentary Hendrix states that he copied the lot from the old jazz hall entertainers. It's weird showing 30/40-somethings Jerry Lee Lewis' piano tricks. After the initial gasps the usual reply is "He did that BACK THEN?!?!"

And let's be honest about King. He never hid the fact that he was dodgy. Indeed, he revelled in the notoriety. And like all good con-artists - even when you KNEW you were being fleeced he did it in such a way that you'd let him do it again tomorrow - because being fleeced never felt so good.

[Humean]

I think we have to be VERY careful when making moral judgements within the context of a sport which is on morally shaky grounds from the outset.

I love boxing more than any sport. That said, I can't say I feel particularly moral watching two guys effectively trying to inflict brain dysfunction upon each other. And I won't even begin to describe my feelings witnessing some guy I was rooting against slip from brain dysfunction into brain damage.

I mean, consider the position of ring physician. Here is a guy who has taken the Hippocratic Oath which completely precludes actions which inflict harm or injury upon the patient. And yet he must break that oath every time he takes the role or step in once the first punch is thrown.

Again, I'm not condoning King's actions. But given that competition for audience and/or viewers has arguably never been tougher (think of how many new combat sports have emerged recently) - we've picked a VERY BAD time to ostensibly clean up the sport (a questionable statement, IMO) at the expense of Prime Time fights.

I'm not just moralizing, i'm saying you just cannot separate the quality of cards King sometimes put on from his crookedness. That was the reality of Don King's promotional career. I don't think the only way to get better fights is for promoters to be allowed to fleece the fighters.

Ring doctors are not breaking the hippocratic oath, not unless they punch a boxer with a left hook as a form of medical procedure.

[Anthony342]

One point of clarification is I think King was corrupt before boxing. He came into the sport already ruthless convicted criminal who had murdered twice.

With that said you are entitled to your opinion.

Who did he kill and how much time did he do for the murders?

[Mugwump]

I'm not just moralizing, i'm saying you just cannot separate the quality of cards King sometimes put on from his crookedness. That was the reality of Don King's promotional career. I don't think the only way to get better fights is for promoters to be allowed to fleece the fighters.

Either you have better information than me about the intimate details of contracts, fight deals, image rights share, company ledgers etc. and you are basing your argument on solid, unimpeachable evidence (in which case I'll concede) or you are substituting such with supposition, guesswork and prejudice - in which case I don't agree that it's impossible to have good cards and not be crooked.

You do realise that all I need do is find ONE good boxing card throughout the entirety of boxing's long history which wasn't run by an obvious crook and you're wrong.

Without being overconfident, I'm kind of fancying those odds.

Ring doctors are not breaking the hippocratic oath, not unless they punch a boxer with a left hook as a form of medical procedure.

In a decision on cuts it is the doctor's call which allows a fighter to take further punishment on not just a patient of the doctor - but a patient who has already approached the doctor for a diagnosis of that injury. Consider, say, the Thriller in Manilla. Any doctor who walks away from that fight knowing he could have stopped one or both fighters from taking brutal punishment (which almost certainly inflicted brain damage of some description on both) and yet doesn't feel he has betrayed his Hippocratic Oath in some way is the kind of doctor I hope I never meet.

[Humean]

Either you have better information than me about the intimate details of contracts, fight deals, image rights share, company ledgers etc. and you are basing your argument on solid, unimpeachable evidence (in which case I'll concede) or you are substituting such with supposition, guesswork and prejudice - in which case I don't agree that it's impossible to have good cards and not be crooked.

You do realise that all I need do is find ONE good boxing card throughout the entirety of boxing's long history which wasn't run by an obvious crook and you're wrong.

Without being overconfident, I'm kind of fancying those odds.

Are you not aware of how often Don King has been sued and how often he has had to pay up? He ripped off fighters, and their managers and promoters, left right and centre.

I didn't say it was impossible to have good cards without crookedness, I said the opposite in my last sentence that you quoted! I'm talking about the stacked cards that Don King was putting on quite regularly. Those cards would make big losses for any promoter who wasn't defrauding at will. Really how can you not see the connection?

In a decision on cuts it is the doctor's call which allows a fighter to take further punishment on not just a patient of the doctor - but a patient who has already approached the doctor for a diagnosis of that injury. Consider, say, the Thriller in Manilla. Any doctor who walks away from that fight knowing he could have stopped one or both fighters from taking brutal punishment (which almost certainly inflicted brain damage of some description on both) and yet doesn't feel he has betrayed his Hippocratic Oath in some way is the kind of doctor I hope I never meet.

If a doctor thinks a fight should be stopped and yet doesn't tell the referee to stop it then yes that may be a violation of his perceived duty as a doctor but merely being a ringside doctor isn't necessarily a violation of it, which is what you initially said. It is not part of the hippocratic oath to prevent harm from occuring.

[Suckmedry]

Reading some of these posts defending King is laughable. Boxing truly has the ****tiest fan base. More concerned with their own entertainment than the well being of those providing it

[billeau2]

Who did he kill and how much time did he do for the murders?

Anthony you can google this and there is a ton of info on it. He shot a man during an alleged robbery and stomped a man to death who owed him money.