Tweet
YES I'M AWARE THAT IT'S A PRETTY LONG POST
There was an article recently saying Al Haymon only disliked due to racism. I wanted to outline why I am critical of Al Haymon and how it doesn't have to do with race.
I'll start with what I like about him.
1. He brings tons more boxing to television. Which I love.
That's it. That is the list. There's not much that I really like about him other than that.
I hear other people say they love Haymon because of a few reasons:
He wants to bring boxing back to mainstream. Yes, I can see wanting boxing to become big so we continue getting the volume of boxing we are getting but other than that, I don't care if the masses watch boxing. If more people start watching then great but I was fine with boxing for many many years without appealing to casuals, I will continue to be just fine without them.
Free Boxing. Again, I don't care. I have HBO and SHO, I'm fine with boxing being on those two channels. In fact, when I hear a show is on a different channel its actually worse. I don't like the production on the network and basic cable channels and I don't like commercials. I'm not against free boxing, I'm sure not everyone has HBO and SHO but I'm also not going to sit here and praise him for giving me a product that I enjoy less.
He pays his fighters. Again, I just don't care. I'm all for guys making money in their life. However, I don't want guys making a-level money to fight c-level guys. It takes away the incentive to fight real fights. Quillin was recently asked when he is going to fight GGG and his response is he's good he's fighting on free tv for big money. I guarantee that if he wasn't making good money he would be a lot hungrier to get in with the top names.
He makes good fights. This one I do care about, very much. The thing is I just don't really agree with it. He has some of the most exciting fighters in the world yet I'm consistently let down when their opponents are picked.
What I dislike about him:
1. First is what I mentioned above about how he has essentially created a culture of low risk high reward (as in inflated purses not greater glory) fighters.
2. He is largely responsible for the current boxing political landscape. His fighters can't fight on HBO because he screwed them, can't fight TR fighters bc he won't do business with them, can't fight GB fighter's bc him and Schaefer screwed them, can't fight Roc Nation fighters and tried to block them from the business due to old fueds. And before the current landscape he got GB banned from HBO and him and Schaefer were responsible for the GB and TR cold war.
3. He completely threw away an entire year of boxing. His fighters were not in one competitive fight all year unless it was a mandatory in all of 2014. They set an absolutely new low for boxing in 2014.
4. Lastly is that I don't like what he seems to be aiming for. He is trying to set up his own league of boxing (or set up a monopoly). That just brings more walls and barriers in the way of making the best possible fights and that is the last thing we need in the sport.
There was an article recently saying Al Haymon only disliked due to racism. I wanted to outline why I am critical of Al Haymon and how it doesn't have to do with race.
I'll start with what I like about him.
1. He brings tons more boxing to television. Which I love.
That's it. That is the list. There's not much that I really like about him other than that.
I hear other people say they love Haymon because of a few reasons:
He wants to bring boxing back to mainstream. Yes, I can see wanting boxing to become big so we continue getting the volume of boxing we are getting but other than that, I don't care if the masses watch boxing. If more people start watching then great but I was fine with boxing for many many years without appealing to casuals, I will continue to be just fine without them.
Free Boxing. Again, I don't care. I have HBO and SHO, I'm fine with boxing being on those two channels. In fact, when I hear a show is on a different channel its actually worse. I don't like the production on the network and basic cable channels and I don't like commercials. I'm not against free boxing, I'm sure not everyone has HBO and SHO but I'm also not going to sit here and praise him for giving me a product that I enjoy less.
He pays his fighters. Again, I just don't care. I'm all for guys making money in their life. However, I don't want guys making a-level money to fight c-level guys. It takes away the incentive to fight real fights. Quillin was recently asked when he is going to fight GGG and his response is he's good he's fighting on free tv for big money. I guarantee that if he wasn't making good money he would be a lot hungrier to get in with the top names.
He makes good fights. This one I do care about, very much. The thing is I just don't really agree with it. He has some of the most exciting fighters in the world yet I'm consistently let down when their opponents are picked.
What I dislike about him:
1. First is what I mentioned above about how he has essentially created a culture of low risk high reward (as in inflated purses not greater glory) fighters.
2. He is largely responsible for the current boxing political landscape. His fighters can't fight on HBO because he screwed them, can't fight TR fighters bc he won't do business with them, can't fight GB fighter's bc him and Schaefer screwed them, can't fight Roc Nation fighters and tried to block them from the business due to old fueds. And before the current landscape he got GB banned from HBO and him and Schaefer were responsible for the GB and TR cold war.
3. He completely threw away an entire year of boxing. His fighters were not in one competitive fight all year unless it was a mandatory in all of 2014. They set an absolutely new low for boxing in 2014.
4. Lastly is that I don't like what he seems to be aiming for. He is trying to set up his own league of boxing (or set up a monopoly). That just brings more walls and barriers in the way of making the best possible fights and that is the last thing we need in the sport.
Comment