Comments Thread For: Eddie Hearn on PBC-Amazon Deal: Maybe The Stubbornness Will Remain; Hopefully We Can Make Some Big Fights

[Eff Pandas]

the PBC model is harmful to the overall sport.

Why is that model harmful to the sport?

Everyone is playing the in-house fight game. They just do it without a promoter leading the way. And I'd argue promoters having too much power these days is a bigger problem to the sport than boxers doing their own thing. But I get it cuz platforms hold the most power so its easier to sign a promoter with boxers than signing individual boxers. Thing is I think the sport would be better off IF there were managers/advisors doing platform deals than promoters. Managers/Advisors win with fights being made, promoters win with the right fights being made at the right time.

[Bronx2245]

The point is you always make it a huge deal as if your uncle and Fulton were giving everyone favors. It's a fight in Japan. Nothing to do at all with crossing the street crap. Arum wasn't even involved. Fighters all over the world, thai boxers, UFC/MMA fighters, karate fighters, wrestlers, you name it, accept offers from that country in a heartbeat without consulting their with their uncles. They talk to their own families, instead.
Japanese stars are big in Japan. The rest of the world could care less about them, let alone the sport of boxing. The GGG fight was bigger. It's big in Europe and Asia. Fulton fight wasn't even big in the US. The time difference alone don't favor you. So stop lying about which one did well.

Anyways, if that's how you saw it, can't do anything about it. Peace brotha.

The point of this thread is Eddie Hearn stating "maybe the stubborness will remain." Well, I've illustrated 2 cross-promotion fights that were HUGE for the sport, in 2023! I didn't include lower fights like Jared Anderson vs. Charles Martin, because I know most think it's not a big deal. However PBC has shown a willingness to work with others, it's only Eddie that has the problem! Right now, Teofimo Lopez and Subriel Matias are in talks for a unification fight. I'm not holding my breath, but I won't be surprised if it happens! I hope it does, but the haters don't!

[OnePunch]

Why is that model harmful to the sport?

Everyone is playing the in-house fight game. They just do it without a promoter leading the way. And I'd argue promoters having too much power these days is a bigger problem to the sport than boxers doing their own thing. But I get it cuz platforms hold the most power so its easier to sign a promoter with boxers than signing individual boxers. Thing is I think the sport would be better off IF there were managers/advisors doing platform deals than promoters. Managers/Advisors win with fights being made, promoters win with the right fights being made at the right time.

because the sport needs BOTH managers AND promoters. PBC has basically eliminated promoters and turned them into paid site coordinators, with no financial stake in the promotion. A promoter has no fiduciary duty to the fighter, so he can function in a role that best suits the promotion and the viewer (consumer). With PBC, you have the manager negotiating BOTH sides of the fight, which is absurd. Money is not infinite. Anything negotiated for Fighter A comes at the expense of Fighter B, so how can PBC (a licensed manager) fulfill its fiduciary duty to both sides when it is essentially negotiating against their interests? At least with a promoter, he has no fiduciary duty, and both fighters in a negotiation can have independent managers fighting for their well being. Its a huge conflict of interest, and clearly violates the Ali Act. But nobody cares, because alot of PBC fighters are making decent money fighting endless tuneups.

People lately have been saying the PBC makes the biggest fights, and blah blah blah. But I would challenge anyone (without looking it up) to name 10 "BIG" fights PBC has made in the past 9 years. They had unlimited money, unlimited TV dates, over 250 fighters under contract, and yet you would struggle to name 10 "big" fights they made. And Im not talking about Spence-Garcia 4, or Thurman-Porter 3, I'm talking about BIG fights, cross promotional fights, etc.......

[Eff Pandas]

because the sport needs BOTH managers AND promoters. PBC has basically eliminated promoters and turned them into paid site coordinators, with no financial stake in the promotion. A promoter has no fiduciary duty to the fighter, so he can function in a role that best suits the promotion and the viewer (consumer). With PBC, you have the manager negotiating BOTH sides of the fight, which is absurd. Money is not infinite. Anything negotiated for Fighter A comes at the expense of Fighter B, so how can PBC (a licensed manager) fulfill its fiduciary duty to both sides when it is essentially negotiating against their interests? At least with a promoter, he has no fiduciary duty, and both fighters in a negotiation can have independent managers fighting for their well being. Its a huge conflict of interest, and clearly violates the Ali Act. But nobody cares, because alot of PBC fighters are making decent money fighting endless tuneups.

People lately have been saying the PBC makes the biggest fights, and blah blah blah. But I would challenge anyone (without looking it up) to name 10 "BIG" fights PBC has made in the past 9 years. They had unlimited money, unlimited TV dates, over 250 fighters under contract, and yet you would struggle to name 10 "big" fights they made. And Im not talking about Spence-Garcia 4, or Thurman-Porter 3, I'm talking about BIG fights, cross promotional fights, etc.......

Idk that promoters think about viewers as much as their long term business payoff if they can turn that 8-0 prospect into a 20-0 PPV guy & belt holder in 3-4yrs. Oftentimes it seems as if promoters are guarding guys or moving them cleverly towards big fights over giving viewers the most competitive fights today or matchups ppl gaf about. Honestly I don't see THAT much difference between what anyone is doing, but it does seem like promoters having long term deals with boxers prevents a lot of fights from happening is the big minus with them. I also suspect if promoters were paid site coordinators over a required necessity to getting on TV & getting on the path to making money for boxers it'd make more fights makeable cuz there would be less ppl to please in the big fight makeability math of it all.

That said ideally the game should be about making the best show tonight over next year or in 3yrs. Idk that anyone is doing that with a "promoter" or with a paid site coordinator these days so EVERYONE is being harmful to the sport from that POV I'd argue.

[OnePunch]

Idk that promoters think about viewers as much as their long term business payoff if they can turn that 8-0 prospect into a 20-0 PPV guy & belt holder in 3-4yrs. Oftentimes it seems as if promoters are guarding guys or moving them cleverly towards big fights over giving viewers the most competitive fights today or matchups ppl gaf about. Honestly I don't see THAT much difference between what anyone is doing, but it does seem like promoters having long term deals with boxers prevents a lot of fights from happening is the big minus with them. I also suspect if promoters were paid site coordinators over a required necessity to getting on TV & getting on the path to making money for boxers it'd make more fights makeable cuz there would be less ppl to please in the big fight makeability math of it all.

That said ideally the game should be about making the best show tonight over next year or in 3yrs. Idk that anyone is doing that with a "promoter" or with a paid site coordinator these days so EVERYONE is being harmful to the sport from that POV I'd argue.

If a promoter does not have a long term deal with the fighter, then what incentive does the promoter have in funding the development of that fighter? It takes at least 250 grand to move a fighter to 20-0, probably even more these days. I guarantee you Top Rank didn't make a nickel on Oscar or Floyd's first 15 or 20 fights. So why would a promoter invest that capital, only to have the fighter leave and go to a rival promoter before the investment can be recaptured? The average promoter will only turn a profit on 1 out of 40 fighters, if they are lucky. So who then will develop the fighters, if not for the promoter? Managers did it back in the day, but that doesn't happen anymore. PBC blew through over a BILLION dollars in 9 years, and who did they actually develop?? And I dont mean what fighters did they poach who already had 20 fights or more, but what guys did they build from scratch?? Again, a BILLION dollars over 9 years and the results are?????

[Eff Pandas]

If a promoter does not have a long term deal with the fighter, then what incentive does the promoter have in funding the development of that fighter? It takes at least 250 grand to move a fighter to 20-0, probably even more these days. I guarantee you Top Rank didn't make a nickel on Oscar or Floyd's first 15 or 20 fights. So why would a promoter invest that capital, only to have the fighter leave and go to a rival promoter before the investment can be recaptured? The average promoter will only turn a profit on 1 out of 40 fighters, if they are lucky. So who then will develop the fighters, if not for the promoter? Managers did it back in the day, but that doesn't happen anymore. PBC blew through over a BILLION dollars in 9 years, and who did they actually develop?? And I dont mean what fighters did they poach who already had 20 fights or more, but what guys did they build from scratch?? Again, a BILLION dollars over 9 years and the results are?????

Why should a promoter have long term development invested into a boxer? Thats definitely one of the problems to making the best fight today that I'm speaking on. The way things work now a promoter is locked into a guy getting easy fights for years before they risk his 0.

I'd argue fighter development should happen in the ring ideally. I think the whole hype of 0's goes away real quick in that kind of boxing world where iron sharpens iron.

I've always been of the opinion fighters make themselves. Al, Bob or Eddie ain't doing it thats for sure. Promoters can slow you down or fook up your trajectory I'd suggest, but they don't make you. They can get you in position to fail at a higher level, but idk that that does anyone much good except the promoter & maybe the fighter if he/she can get some good money from it they might not have otherwise gotten if they had to earn their position.

[OnePunch]

Why should a promoter have long term development invested into a boxer? Thats definitely one of the problems to making the best fight today that I'm speaking on. The way things work now a promoter is locked into a guy getting easy fights for years before they risk his 0.

I'd argue fighter development should happen in the ring ideally. I think the whole hype of 0's goes away real quick in that kind of boxing world where iron sharpens iron.

I've always been of the opinion fighters make themselves. Al, Bob or Eddie ain't doing it thats for sure. Promoters can slow you down or fook up your trajectory I'd suggest, but they don't make you. They can get you in position to fail at a higher level, but idk that that does anyone much good except the promoter & maybe the fighter if he/she can get some good money from it they might not have otherwise gotten if they had to earn their position.

I think you would be wrong. Skilled matchmakers like Bruce Trampler and Brad Goodman have pretty much perfected the method of developing and moving fighters at the proper speed. Each fighter is different, but a skilled matchmaker finds that sweet spot. If you move them too fast, they dont retain anything. If you move them too slow, they get complacent and hold on to too many bad habits. Each fighter has a development "zone", and Trampler and Goodman are the best in the business at finding it.

[Eff Pandas]

I think you would be wrong. Skilled matchmakers like Bruce Trampler and Brad Goodman have pretty much perfected the method of developing and moving fighters at the proper speed. Each fighter is different, but a skilled matchmaker finds that sweet spot. If you move them too fast, they dont retain anything. If you move them too slow, they get complacent and hold on to too many bad habits. Each fighter has a development "zone", and Trampler and Goodman are the best in the business at finding it.

This is the type of thinking that is really hurting boxing. "Developing" a fighter is counterproductive to the sport & is killing interest in boxing. You boxing business guys got it all wrong. You guys think fans wanna see one guy almost murdering another guy with almost no chance to win for several years til you can cash out with some 15-0 kid who's never been in a 50/50 fight. Fans want competitive fun fights where there is real drama & excitement or the potential of it at a minimum.

Do you think guys weren't maxing out their abilities back in the old days cuz they took L's early & were in more competitive fights out of the gate? Do you think fans weren't as interested in boxing back then? I'd argue there was more talent back then & fans were more into boxing. I think you boxing business guys are more interested in profit than anything else & thats an issue for the rest of us. And you know the investment of a boxer pays off better if you put them in low risk fights for years til you get them a big fight for a big check that you are hoping he wins & can turn into a few more belt fight pay days.

[OnePunch]

This is the type of thinking that is really hurting boxing. "Developing" a fighter is counterproductive to the sport & is killing interest in boxing. You boxing business guys got it all wrong. You guys think fans wanna see one guy almost murdering another guy with almost no chance to win for several years til you can cash out with some 15-0 kid who's never been in a 50/50 fight. Fans want competitive fun fights where there is real drama & excitement or the potential of it at a minimum.

Do you think guys weren't maxing out their abilities back in the old days cuz they took L's early & were in more competitive fights out of the gate? Do you think fans weren't as interested in boxing back then? I'd argue there was more talent back then & fans were more into boxing. I think you boxing business guys are more interested in profit than anything else & thats an issue for the rest of us. And you know the investment of a boxer pays off better if you put them in low risk fights for years til you get them a big fight for a big check that you are hoping he wins & can turn into a few more belt fight pay days.

well if the business ran by your model, every decent prospect would end up as 21-13-6 journeymen. And a good matchmaker doesn't put his prospect in with dummies. He puts him in fights that are 60-40, maybe 70-30 at worst. You want to challenge your fighter, develop his skills, provide him opponents that are going to force him to raise his level, but hopefully not get him beat. And if he cant beat guys in those 60-40 or 70-30 fights, then the promoter needs to know it before wasting 200 grand or more trying to develop someone who wont rise past "opponent" status.

And in the old days, it was managers who were funding the development of fighters, instead of promoters doing it. But the method was no different. To this day people criticize Marcianos level of opposition, or JCCs first 75 fights, or Joe Louis' "Bum of the Month" club, or 1,000 other examples......

[Eff Pandas]

well if the business ran by your model, every decent prospect would end up as 21-13-6 journeymen. And a good matchmaker doesn't put his prospect in with dummies. He puts him in fights that are 60-40, maybe 70-30 at worst. You want to challenge your fighter, develop his skills, provide him opponents that are going to force him to raise his level, but hopefully not get him beat. And if he cant beat guys in those 60-40 or 70-30 fights, then the promoter needs to know it before wasting 200 grand or more trying to develop someone who wont rise past "opponent" status.

And in the old days, it was managers who were funding the development of fighters, instead of promoters doing it. But the method was no different. To this day people criticize Marcianos level of opposition, or JCCs first 75 fights, or Joe Louis' "Bum of the Month" club, or 1,000 other examples......

Yea again you are putting the business & profit of promoters above the sport of boxing, the fans & the entertainment value. This is a structural problem with the sport. Promoters have far too much power.

A decent prospect who ended up with a 21-13-6 record if matches were made with the sport ahead of the busines is the same decent prospect whos 22-1 now. And who ppl call a bum anyway. If you beat nobody at 21-13-6 or 22-1 you still beat nobody. Theres just less bs involved in how the 21-13-6 guy was moved.