I am not sure if he is overrated or not. The fighters who hired him usually seem pleased with him. It seems like he is spread too thin to do his best work for everybody he works for. Sometimes it seems like one out of every three main event fighters is advised by Haymon.
Is Al Haymon overrated?
Collapse
-
Comment
-
He gets average fighters huge paydays and almost always keeps them relevant longer than they ever should have been. He's the best at what he does.Comment
-
-
So what about Thurman? Is he going to fold too when he steps up in opposition? Broner lost to a better fighter. There's no harm in that. Quillin is being brought up slow. I agree with that. But he's also had to learn how to fight on the fly. He only had like 15 amateur fights. All I'm reading on this site is a bunch of wining *****es crying about every damn thing. So forgive me if I can't take you guys seriously. All I have to say is get used to Haymon being around because the fighters are running away from Arum and De La Hoya and running straight to him.I think you are missing the T/S's point. Of course that it's on the fighter to perform, but when his "adviser" is advising him to fight nothing but bums for the better part of his young career, and then abruptly matches him up with semi-decent/decent fighter, he chokes because he is so used to fighting soft touches per the advisement of Haymon.
Take Cotto for example, he was matched steadily with a variety of different styles and gradually upped his level of competition and competed on even terms with pretty solid competition as result (in conjunction with decent skills of course). Whoever was advising him was good adviser. Even the example you gave (Mares) was matched properly, he just got caught against a monstrous puncher.
Haymon is not a good adviser, he's just a good con-man.Comment
Comment