Comments Thread For: What is Al Haymon Planning?

[Risen]

Al Haymon is smart. Scary smart one person who has dealt with him over the years calls him. He is also adept at telling people what they want to hear, a good listener, and very much into control.

I didn't take the above to mean what you did. Given the whole paragraph above, I don't see how you got that but we can agree to disagree.

With all due respect there are very few times where writers use or reference "scary" to describe something positively.

Ability to see the true definition of "scary smart" in the context provided is like having the sense to decipher sarcasm when it's there.

[The Big Dunn]

Weren't both of those fights ordered by the WBC tho?



And for the record, believe me... I hope I'm wrong bro. But I don't see it


Haymons goal is to get his fighters the most money for as little of a risk as possible. Or am I missing something? I.e- ducking a unification with Kovalev to fight Fonfara for a career high pay day (fighting the low risk guy for the pay day. Instead of the unification bout with the "risk" guy for the same career payment if not more)

MIchel , stevenson's promter secured and HBO approved the fonfora fight long before Haymon got involved. Rick Reenos article detailed everything.

Yes, Haymon does that as an manager/advisor. Thats his job. His job isn't to help HBO/SHO mae money or get ratings.

I just think we should fault Haymon when and where he deserves it, not make him the scapegoat for all failures from ODH/HBO/Herschman/GBP.

[King_]

MIchel , stevenson's promter secured and HBO approved the fonfora fight long before Haymon got involved. Rick Reenos article detailed everything.

Yes, Haymon does that as an manager/advisor. Thats his job. His job isn't to help HBO/SHO mae money or get ratings.

I just think we should fault Haymon when and where he deserves it, not make him the scapegoat for all failures from ODH/HBO/Herschman/GBP.

We'll see what happens then.


If it goes the way I say it does... I don't want to see you supporting it

[hectari]

This article was being worked on for several weeks. Maybe a month or so. Montoya was pushing Hauser's PED article hard on the social networks, until Hauser won the award and that tells you everything that you need to know.

Montoya is a blowhard.

Dude got jealous when hauser won the award, Montoya is also rat finck cry baby, I remember when he put boxing scene on blast, after only working for the site for a super short period of time I think he said he wanted more money or something but than later retracted that and claimed it was because of journalistic integrity lol

Montoya is one of the most arrogant annoying boxing writers, he always talks about how he is this great theater actor yet we haven't seen anything he has done, dude loves to toot his own horn. He also thinks he has leading man looks.

a true ego maniac with delusion so grandeur.

[SUBZER0ED]

[QUOTE=The Big Dunn;14733459]Then he would be amassing power like Scott Boras has. That isn't a monopoly its an oligarchy-not that a Haymon and a few others running boxing would be a good thing because all oligarchy's are frought with problems.

we agree it would be good for boxing so long as Haymon makes the best matches and the fights fans want to see. If it then makes HBO put on Haymon fighters so we get the cross promotional fights we've missed-then its truly great. We also agree if danny v salka and the 8/9 card becomes the rule rather than the exception than it would be horrible.

But that model isn't sustainable-especially when HBO, ESPN and Epix are all broadcasting boxing. A lot of posters consumed with hate haven't actually thought about the competition and how it will surely affect whatever shows haymon puts on.

As dealikeme pointed out-consolidation of power into one boxing entity has long been a model NSB posterati has supported. To go against it just because its Haymon says a whole lot.[/QUOTE]

I see a contradiction of terms in your post. In the first bolded sentence, you suggest Haymon would be part of an oligarchy, or sharing power with a few. In the second bolded sentence, you mention consolidation of power into one enitity (Haymon). I thought this discussion was in the vein of Haymon effectively taking over boxing, by signing most (if not all) of the big names. If that happens, the other players in the game would likely argue that he has a monopoly of the sport. They probably would not consider themselves part of an oligarchy, if Haymon has virtually full control.

[The Big Dunn]

We'll see what happens then.


If it goes the way I say it does... I don't want to see you supporting it

Al haymon is not going to prevent me from watching boxing. He's doing the same stuff others have tried. Lets not get sanctimonious and act like ARum, King, Main events, K2, etc. give us great cards with great fights every time out.

If Haymon does the same thing they do-I don't want to see ytou getting upset if you weren't before.

[The Big Dunn]

[QUOTE=SUBZER0ED;14733644]

Then he would be amassing power like Scott Boras has. That isn't a monopoly its an oligarchy-not that a Haymon and a few others running boxing would be a good thing because all oligarchy's are frought with problems.

we agree it would be good for boxing so long as Haymon makes the best matches and the fights fans want to see. If it then makes HBO put on Haymon fighters so we get the cross promotional fights we've missed-then its truly great. We also agree if danny v salka and the 8/9 card becomes the rule rather than the exception than it would be horrible.

But that model isn't sustainable-especially when HBO, ESPN and Epix are all broadcasting boxing. A lot of posters consumed with hate haven't actually thought about the competition and how it will surely affect whatever shows haymon puts on.

As dealikeme pointed out-consolidation of power into one boxing entity has long been a model NSB posterati has supported. To go against it just because its Haymon says a whole lot.[/QUOTE]

I see a contradiction of terms in your post. In the first bolded sentence, you suggest Haymon would be part of an oligarchy, or sharing power with a few. In the second bolded sentence, you mention consolidation of power into one enitity (Haymon). I thought this discussion was in the vein of Haymon effectively taking over boxing, by signing most (if not all) of the big names. If that happens, the other players in the game would likely argue that he has a monopoly of the sport. They probably would not consider themselves part of an oligarchy, if Haymon has virtually full control.

I was speaking of Haymon/schaffer/network as the oligarchy and also as the one boxing entity.

AGain, people in baseball complain but it isn't a monopoly. Control isn't determined though sole ownership, its determined through the ability to utilize resources collectively. The others may get pissed-but its sour gapes. Did main events share sweet pea, meldrick, breland or holyfield in the 80's with anyone?

Haymon has more resources so yes he will likely be able to acquire more talent.

[warp1432]

It wouldn't be NBC's money, though, it'd Haymon's money.

And I don't see Haymon spending money on the fights and the production costs, etc. to put his guys in tough fights.

Hauser suggets these NBC fights could be for the non-GBP boxers...the ones still in their developmental stages, so perhaps he would primarily just be taking his Shobox level fights to NBC Sports and leaving the championship fights on SHO.

If so, it'll be more like what Main Events did on NBC during the early Rocky Juarez, Panchito Bojado, et al. years, where they showcased some of their boxers.

Oh ****. You're right. I misread on that.

Well that's strange. Normally the network provides the dough.

[King_]

Al haymon is not going to prevent me from watching boxing. He's doing the same stuff others have tried. Lets not get sanctimonious and act like ARum, King, Main events, K2, etc. give us great cards with great fights every time out.

If Haymon does the same thing they do-I don't want to see ytou getting upset if you weren't before.

If Haymon does the same thing they do- which is math their fighters against fighters from other promoters, I have no problem and you will not see me complaining.

If Haymon does what Haymons been doing- not giving us a single fight with other promoters fighters who actually no how to fight.... Everyone will have a problem.


K2, main events, and even Don Freakin king have and do match their fighters against fighters from other promoters. Golovkin-Geale. Stevens-Golovkin. Lebedev-jones. Crawfor-Gamboa. Etc. These promoters/fighters fighting good out of house fighters literally happens every month.

It has not happened a SINGLE time with Haymon yet. There have been 3 examples posted in this thread. Garcia-Matthysee, Broner-Maidaina and Stiverne-Arreola. The first two were all Haymon fighters. The last one was mandated by the WBC. Actually the only one I can think of is Rodriguez-Ward....

It is what if is.... If the latter continues to happen. No true boxing fan should support that.

[mercenario]

The article says that the will buy air time, 20 mill worth of it. It doesn't say that there's a 20 mill budget. This is open tv. Premium tv is subscription base and don't sell advertising. Open tv is more concerned about ratings and he more ratings the more advertising cost. Like a super bowl commercial will be more expensive than a 11 o'clock news spot. Now there's overhead sponsors venues ticket sales marketing advertising and risk. Before GBP was doing the leg work and taking the risk. I don't think they can get away with the Berto vs TBA any more.