Comments Thread For: Gary Russell Jr. Furious, Says Interview Became Haymon Hit Piece

[turnedup]

And yet its the most attention Russell has gotten since the Lomancheko fight.

[MC Hammer]

The voices in Russell's head must be messing with him. How anyone would construe Abrahamson's article as a hit piece on Haymon is beyond me.

"Russell (27-1, 16 knockouts) made it clear he’s happy with the way Haymon has handled his career, even if he hasn’t fought since April 16. His last fight before then was March 28 of 2015, a fourth-round stoppage of Jhonny Gonzalez. A number of high profile fighters under Haymon have also been plagued with inactivity and fought only once this year, such as Danny Garcia, Danny Jacobs, Keith Thurman and Shawn Porter, among others. No one has complained publicly and Russell was careful to make sure his comments weren’t construed as criticism of Haymon.

“Al Haymon has done a wonderful job so far with my entire career,” Russell said. “I’ve been blessed. We’ve had a smooth working relationship with Al for my entire career. There’s nothing that I haven’t asked him for that he didn’t fulfill and I’m looking forward to moving on this year.” Because of that relationship, Russell plans to stay with Haymon for the rest of his career, he said."

You don't understand how any of that could be construed as negativity? The fact that he mentions all of these fighters that have nothing to do with the interview, the fact that he says "haven't complained publicly" assumes that privately they do so, and mentioning the fact that he hasn't fought since April when that wasn't the topic of the interview doesn't come off fishy at all to you?

[nycsmooth]

Gary either needs to fight better opposition or move to 130...

[TheSurgeonMDMPH]

Not sure I believe any of this. I read somewhere that Haymon has a clause in his contracts with fighters that say they're not ALLOWED to say anything negative about him, or they could get in trouble legally. So it's possible Russell really doesn't like Haymon, but Haymon pressured him to send out this "correction" to make it seem like everything is good, otherwise Russell might get in trouble. He could just be issuing this "correction" because he feels he has to, legally.

Or it could be legitimate. It's always impossible to know if fighters are contractually obligated not to say anything negative. Because of that you can never know if the praise is real, or just what they're contractually obligated to do. All those "Thank Al Haymon" post-fight call outs may also be contractually obligated. Who knows.

U are an assclown. Lol Flawed Logic

[bigjavi973]

They are owned by Golden Boy, what did he expect?

beat me to it!

[Teetotaler]

Gary either needs to fight better opposition or move to 130...

Whats the point of moving to 130? To keep fighting tba's?

[Finito2K]

And yet its the most attention Russell has gotten since the Lomancheko fight.

[Finito2K]

You don't understand how any of that could be construed as negativity? The fact that he mentions all of these fighters that have nothing to do with the interview, the fact that he says "haven't complained publicly" assumes that privately they do so, and mentioning the fact that he hasn't fought since April when that wasn't the topic of the interview doesn't come off fishy at all to you?

It would be fishy if that statement were an assumption. But it isn't. Russell and those stablemates that were mentioned have in fact been relatively inactive.

This is a gross overreaction on Russell's part.

[Finito2K]

Possibly but he's within his rights to take umbrage with how the piece was crafted. "Careful not to criticize Haymon?" That's nonsense that fits the writer's narrative.

The quote reads:

"No one has complained publicly and Russell was careful to make sure his comments weren’t construed as criticism of Haymon."

Maybe its just a matter of interpretation. IMO no one was being thrown under the bus with that statement

[IMDAZED]

The quote reads:

"No one has complained publicly and Russell was careful to make sure his comments weren’t construed as criticism of Haymon."

Maybe its just a matter of interpretation. IMO no one was being thrown under the bus with that statement

How was Russell careful not to when he was effusive in praise?