Tweet
another lawsuit
-
-
seem to me that they have proposed deals, dates, and some form of paper trail/evidence about wat they were offered for their compliance...roc nation ran it's first foul to the game here imo..they did wat haymon is supposedly hated for...THEY BLOCKED A FIGHT..and unlike haymon they did not give the fither his money, buy him out of his contract, or give him an easier opponent for more money...if the hbo team says roc nation was actually talkin to them about andrade getting ontheir network this thing has legs..and it has them in many other ways as wellComment
-
no..he could be active bc he is not being sued his promoter is suing another promoter..remember they just tried to make a fight for him a few days ago..he'll bein the ring before 2015 is over imo..
basically roc nation didnt up the 2 million dollar buy out that they promised..likely bc they got ward firstComment
-
good first point..roc nation seems to have a beef..or maybe they got ward first and said screw paying 2 million for andrade...
but his managers have a paper trail and recordings of their deals obviously..they have legs to stand on if hbo comes out and say roc nation was pushing for andrade to get dates...Comment
-
Its a comparable struggle, but I think its clearly a path that would prove harder in boxing. Boxing throws away guys too easily. One L & you suck, two L's you need to retire. In MMA they care more about good fights & care far less how many L's a guy has. Broner is a bum & should retire already to some cats on this very forum lol.
More importantly it was still an emerging market at that time. Putting together better fights was probably enough to separate UFC from Pride. I don't think just better fights would do the same in boxing with how long some of these en****** have been around. You can always go back 40 years or w/e with HBO's great fights even if Kovalev & GGG are fighting supbar opposition on HBO now or you can look back at the great PPV cards while watching Pacquiao vs Algieri on PPV.
Plus you can't make those epic fights without the names & right now HBO has 3 of the biggest 4 guys in boxing. That suggests to me PBC needs to grow some names, than match them up & in a couple years when Mayweather, Pacquiao & Cotto are out of the game to take those guys spots with some emerging PPV or national TV huge fights.
Everyone keeps thinking PBC is supposed to do game changing **** in 4 months. No one is doing game changing **** in boxing in 4 months. This is a long game plan of attack that is risky & could fail even with that long game approach.Comment
-
1-2 losses and a fighter is done is a complete misnomer. It was like that in the 80's when fighters like Duran, Leonard Hearns and haggler did a round robin. Or in late 90's early '00 when there were like 13 fights involving Pac, Barrera, JMM and Morales. Or when de la Hoya fought everyone under the sun, losing some and winning some.
Basically, boxing fans are not idiots. If you cherry pick and still come out with a number of losses, then, yeah - you deserve to be discredited. For instance, Broner has lost the couple of times he stepped up in competition. Its not as it Broner has a number of good wins and some losses. What are his best wins, Antonio Demarco and barely getting by Malignaggi by split dec?
But, if you fight the best, like de la Hoya, Pac, JMM, Barerra, Morales, or even now Khan, Maidana, Lamont Peterson and Lucas Matthyse, who all have 3 or more losses but are still considered a top 5 in 140 or 147 lbs, you're not told that you suck or need to retire. That's absurd. Boxing fans are smarter than that
**edit** to add to that, are fighters named above like Peterson, Khan, Maidana, Matthyse, as well as others like Malignaggi and Provodnikov, all of which have at least a few losses, still getting big fights and making good purses. YES!
bc they're losses were to good fighters and fans respect that. they are still marketable. And even Broner, guranateed he still gets a big purse next time.
Just bc fans say on social media that a guy sucks - that means nothing. These fighters are still ranked in top 10 and still getting big fights and making money.
That's why there is no need to make fights like Thurman v. Collazo when there are so many better options for Thurman to fightLast edited by rasdun; 07-31-2015, 10:53 AM.Comment
-
Things have changed imo. I think losing is considered MUCH worse then when Hagler was around & even more worse then when Pacquiao was becoming Pacquiao.
I don't think most boxing fans are smarter than that. L's = you suck on forums all day. Boxing fans today are fickle. Some aren't. An L is like losing your ******ity to me. It needs to happen or its like this weird thing hanging over your heard & your some sorta freak.If you cherry pick and still come out with a number of losses, then, yeah - you deserve to be discredited. For instance, Broner has lost the couple of times he stepped up in competition. Its not as it Broner has a number of good wins and some losses. What are his best wins, Antonio Demarco and barely getting by Malignaggi by split dec?
But, if you fight the best, like de la Hoya, Pac, JMM, Barerra, Morales, or even now Khan, Maidana, Lamont Peterson and Lucas Matthyse, who all have 3 or more losses but are still considered a top 5 in 140 or 147 lbs, you're not told that you suck or need to retire. That's absurd. Boxing fans are smarter than that
Okay, but there were more points I brought up besides the L thing to. If it was JUST this maybe we get Thurman fighting all his peers. Thing is you can't hang your hat on just good fights in boxing. I thought Mike Tyson promotional company was doing a great job at all levels of bringing good fights to the fans. They're outta business now. Its not as simple as good fights.**edit** to add to that, are fighters named above like Peterson, Khan, Maidana, Matthyse, as well as others like Malignaggi and Provodnikov, all of which have at least a few losses, still getting big fights and making good purses. YES!
bc they're losses were to good fighters and fans respect that. they are still marketable. And even Broner, guranateed he still gets a big purse next time.
Just bc fans say on social media that a guy sucks - that means nothing. These fighters are still ranked in top 10 and still getting big fights and making money.
That's why there is no need to make fights like Thurman v. Collazo when there are so many better options for Thurman to fight
Mainly though PBC isn't nor was going to change the boxing landscape from March to July of 2015. This is on a slow burn. Its a 4 year plan/minimum it would seem & we are already seeing good matchups & they will get better & PBC will get better fighters as deadass promoter contracts end & then we'll get even better fights & hopefully in 2020-2025 PBC reaches some critical mass of talent & we got a emerging & becoming stronger ever day NBA of boxing going on. Thats the ideal PBC plan from the investors outlook I'm betting. You guys thinking this ship is gonna sink cuz Thurman isn't fighting Brook 5 months into the plan got a lot of *****ing to do over the next 4 to 10 years as PBC succeeds or fails with this plan.Comment
-
You're missing the point. Who cares if fans on forums say a fighter sucks. if the netwroks are still willing to put that fighter on, then it has no business impact. Isn't that what were discussing. Your saying PBC isn't making the best fights they can because its a long-term plan and if the fighters get a L or 2, theyre done.
That just isn't true. Again, no one is asking PBC to "change the boxing landscape in 4 months". Just make the best fights you can! its a simple recipe. make the best fights and fans will come back for more.
How is it bad for PBC to make Thurman vs. Porter or Garcia or Khan? Why Thurman v. Collazo and Garcia v. Malignaggi. It should've been Thurman v. Garcia and Malignaggi v. Collazo. That's a good card! and whoever losses out of Thurman v. Garcia will take a step back, but surely, they will still be marketable!Comment
Comment