Excellent article on HBO Boxing's recent missteps

[DC Fight Fan]

Here we go again

[-EX-]

I love Hauser. His work on HBO in recent years has been fantastic and deadly accurate. THIS is what a journalist is supposed to do, not nuthug their fave fighter. Powerful words here:

You would take out an excerpt regarding Floyd


But its a good article...

But you can't expect HBO to make all the right moves...


Picking up Tarver-Dawson 2 was ****** tho...

Berto-Urango was supposed to be a highlight show for Andre but he looked good and clinched whenever Urango got on him...

[el malo]

wow great read. hbo is ****ing up.

[IMDAZED]

You would take out an excerpt regarding Floyd


But its a good article...

But you can't expect HBO to make all the right moves...


Picking up Tarver-Dawson 2 was ****** tho...

Berto-Urango was supposed to be a highlight show for Andre but he looked good and clinched whenever Urango got on him...

Contrary to what you think Executioner, I'm a fan of Floyd. I really am. I just happen to like boxing better.

And I don't think the article is talking about HBO making all the right moves...not to be disrespectful but did you read it all? Hauser delves a little deeper than that.

[superchamp]

I thought it was a pretty good article, but Hauser's problem is that as unbiased as he tries to be, he still has his biases, and sometimes looks at things through some serious hater glasses.

The Dawson-Tarver II fight is something that nobody wanted except for Tarver and paying $3.2 million for it was an absolute joke.

But the Dawson-Johnson II fight is something that everybody wanted/wants, and Dawson was under a lot of pressure to take it. As far as I am concerned, HBO listened to the public on that one, and shouldn't be criticized.

Bute-Andrade II is another fight I have no problem with. Both those guys are young and have bright futures in the sport, and their first fight was great scrap that ended in a controversy. A rematch is easy to market/

It is also a fight that features two of the best guys in the division and I think it has a lot of fan interest. Furthermore, I don't think HBO is overpaying for it. Most of the money in that one comes from Quebec.

Finally, He is a little harsh on Baldomir.

Baldomir may not seem like the best welterweight in the world, but the fact remains that he beat the UNDISPUTED welterweight champion fair and square. He also followed that up with an impressive KO of Arturo Gatti.

He was every bit deserving of an HBO fight. You can't duck the undisputed champ, and the ring champ just because you don't like him. (Look at what happened to Nate Campbell).

Also, there was most definitely not a half dozen fighters recognized as better than Baldomir in the division at the time.

The top 10 welterweights in 2006 (at the time of the Mayweather fight) were:

Baldomir (Champ)
Margarito
Judah
Spinks
Mosley
Collazo
Daamgard
Rivera
Urkal
Estrada

You have to give Baldomir more credit that most of those guys.

Mosley was fighting at 154. Judah had lost. Cotto was still at 140. Daamgard had just lost to Gatti, who then lost to Baldomir.

Where are 6 guys better than Baldomir on that list? Or even 2 for that matter?

[IMDAZED]

I thought it was a pretty good article, but Hauser's problem is that as unbiased as he tries to be, he still has his biases, and sometimes looks at things through some serious hater glasses.

The Dawson-Tarver II fight is something that nobody wanted except for Tarver and paying $3.2 million for it was an absolute joke.

But the Dawson-Johnson II fight is something that everybody wanted/wants, and Dawson was under a lot of pressure to take it. As far as I am concerned, HBO listened to the public on that one, and shouldn't be criticized.

Bute-Andrade II is another fight I have no problem with. Both those guys are young and have bright futures in the sport, and their first fight was great scrap that ended in a controversy. A rematch is easy to market/

It is also a fight that features two of the best guys in the division and I think it has a lot of fan interest. Furthermore, I don't think HBO is overpaying for it. Most of the money in that one comes from Quebec.

Finally, He is a little harsh on Baldomir.

Baldomir may not seem like the best welterweight in the world, but the fact remains that he beat the UNDISPUTED welterweight champion fair and square. He also followed that up with an impressive KO of Arturo Gatti.

He was every bit deserving of an HBO fight. You can't duck the undisputed champ, and the ring champ just because you don't like him. (Look at what happened to Nate Campbell).

Also, there was most definitely not a half dozen fighters recognized as better than Baldomir in the division at the time.

The top 10 welterweights in 2006 (at the time of the Mayweather fight) were:

Baldomir (Champ)
Margarito
Judah
Spinks
Mosley
Collazo
Daamgard
Rivera
Urkal
Estrada

You have to give Baldomir more credit that most of those guys.

Mosley was fighting at 154. Judah had lost. Cotto was still at 140. Daamgard had just lost to Gatti, who then lost to Baldomir.

Where are 6 guys better than Baldomir on that list? Or even 2 for that matter?

I don't think he's arguing Baldomir didn't belongon HBO. He's arguing how the Ring championship is flawed. Baldomir had the Ring Belt but at the very highest, should've been behind Margarito.

You do make some good points - so does Hauser. These are the kind of debates the sport needs.

[-EX-]

Contrary to what you think Executioner, I'm a fan of Floyd. I really am. I just happen to like boxing better.

And I don't think the article is talking about HBO making all the right moves...not to be disrespectful but did you read it all? Hauser delves a little deeper than that.

I aint gonna front I didn't read the entire article but it talked about the budget cut and HBO not really having a plan for the future


But as far as some of the fights go HBO can't predict what every outcome will be...but some of the fights they chose to show were pointless like Dawson-Tarver 2...and Juarez-John 2 was an expected boxing lesson by John(I thought he won the first fight)

They are trying to build young prospects...Ortiz, Berto, Angulo(I guess)...and the announcing team for BAD is weak...

But as bad as HBO is I'd take them over Showtime...

[IMDAZED]

I aint gonna front I didn't read the entire article but it talked about the budget cut and HBO not really having a plan for the future


But as far as some of the fights go HBO can't predict what every outcome will be...but some of the fights they chose to show were pointless like Dawson-Tarver 2...and Juarez-John 2 was an expected boxing lesson by John(I thought he won the first fight)

They are trying to build young prospects...Ortiz, Berto, Angulo(I guess)...and the announcing team for BAD is weak...

But as bad as HBO is I'd take them over Showtime...

They aren't trying to build young prospects, they're just giving Golden Boy whatever they want. If they were really trying to build young prospects they wouldn't have aired one of those young prospects fighting for the WBC crown (wtf??) against a joke opponent. The problem is the relationship they've cultivated with Golden Boy which gives the latter leeway to do anything. Like give us countless Rocky Juarez fights even though I saw him get his a** kicked by Humberto Soto years ago.

[-EX-]

If you want more quality fights maybe the FIGHTERS should fight more often...not 2-3 times a year...

[IMDAZED]

If you want more quality fights maybe the FIGHTERS should fight more often...not 2-3 times a year...

This isn't about the fighter, it's about the matchups the networks air and the amount they pay for them.

Your points are weird, bro. Read the article first.