If PBC had belts would you respect / acknowlege them over the Alpphabet titles?

[OnePunch]

If you don't, then we really can't go further until you acknoweldge this concept. You don't have to agree or like Haymon or his goals, but at least acknowledge monopolization as a thing and acknowledge it can happen before we proceed.

If you do, then let's move on: Do you not understand that if Haymon succeeds, that PBC will be THE boxing "universe" in the USA, essentially like the UFC?

If you don't make that connection, then again, we can't move on because you need to grasp these two points to continue or we are just going in circles.

I think this is where alot of people go off the rails. I personally do NOT believe monopolization is possible. Boxing is way too "global" at this point. Haymon represents what maybe 250 fighters total, out of over 10,000 pro fighters in the world. And that 10,000 only represents ones that have fought in the previous 12 months. Haymon doesnt have the capability or the organization to monopolize boxing. He cant even keep his current roster busy.

And consider all the other markets like Eastern Europe, UK, Japan, Australia, etc. If Haymons stable were to set aside all their titles, then Golden Boy, Top Rank, Main Events, Mr. Honda in Japan, Eddie Hearn, Frank Warren, the Russian guy Rybinski or whatever his name is, anyways those guys would all put forth fighters to fight for those vacant titles, and things would continue on pretty much as they are now. There are way too many other managers and promoters out there (big and small) who arent going to just go gently into that goodnight......

[KeyboardWarrior]

Dude....

Why are you guys getting hung up on this?

It's been explained ad nausem here that it's a process.

First, answer me this: Do you understand the concept of monopolizing something? Do you understand what Haymon is trying to accomplish by allowing the existance of the belts until he has the lions share of elite and marketable fighters and leverage?

If you don't, then we really can't go further until you acknoweldge this concept. You don't have to agree or like Haymon or his goals, but at least acknowledge monopolization as a thing and acknowledge it can happen before we proceed.

If you do, then let's move on: Do you not understand that if Haymon succeeds, that PBC will be THE boxing "universe" in the USA, essentially like the UFC?

If you don't make that connection, then again, we can't move on because you need to grasp these two points to continue or we are just going in circles.




And there will never be "five titles", original zero already explained that the PBC belts wouldn't materialize until "check-mate" happens. "Check-mate" is when the above two points I just made, are in full effect and the power is in Haymons hands.

I understand but you guys are complete morons which is why this feeler post was posted to begin with. The Collective IQ is so low with the PBC shills that you have to put these kinds of topics up for discussion and anyone who doesn't drink the same kool aid you drink by the gallon must not understand the PBC model and concept or the meaning of monopolizing.
In other words if you don't agree with us then you just don't understand or must be ******.

I'll watch All outlets that Boxing appears on because I am a Boxing fan first, there's no way the monopolizing of Boxing would ever succeed.
PBC couldn't hold Boxings jock strap or spit bucket.

Every PBC shill acts like they are business experts, marketing experts etc..
I hope they are paying you guys.

[Elroy The Great]

It's not about more money to be distributed, it's about distributing it evenly. Fighters these days feel entitled to more money and the response to that shouldn't be to just give it to them. The top names earn too much, and the journeymen earn too little. And people need to stop pointing to Floyd as if that means there is some new standard, there isn't, he's an outlier and you never concern yourself with the outlier, you concern yourself with the 90%,

non title fights wouldnt warrant middle to high paydays unless the guys are well known. champions rightfully make more money than the challenger. 3+ champs means 3+ guys making more money then they would have if there were only 1 belt. to add, again, their opponents would make more by being the champs opponent. imho, the abc's are a necessary evil.

[aboutfkntime]

Dude....

Why are you guys getting hung up on this?

It's been explained ad nausem here that it's a process.

First, answer me this: Do you understand the concept of monopolizing something? Do you understand what Haymon is trying to accomplish by allowing the existance of the belts until he has the lions share of elite and marketable fighters and leverage?

If you don't, then we really can't go further until you acknoweldge this concept. You don't have to agree or like Haymon or his goals, but at least acknowledge monopolization as a thing and acknowledge it can happen before we proceed.

If you do, then let's move on: Do you not understand that if Haymon succeeds, that PBC will be THE boxing "universe" in the USA, essentially like the UFC?

If you don't make that connection, then again, we can't move on because you need to grasp these two points to continue or we are just going in circles.




And there will never be "five titles", original zero already explained that the PBC belts wouldn't materialize until "check-mate" happens. "Check-mate" is when the above two points I just made, are in full effect and the power is in Haymons hands.

hold on, your question was.....

If PBC created titles in an effort to enforce the "one belt per division across boxing" ideology, would you embrace it as the one true title?

so, when you said..... "in an effort to enforce a one belt per division ideology", you were not insinuating that PBC would be the only sanctioning body in that scenario..... and when you said "would you embrace it as the one true title?"..... you were obviously NOT inferring that the WBA WBC WBO and IBF had all suddenly packed up and disappeared

if PBC was the only sanctioning body, then there would be nothing to "enforce"..... and if PBC was the only sanctioning body, then "embracing" them, would not be an option/required..... so I kinda think your assertion that "there will never be five titles" is a last-minute thing

your question was asking whether fans would accept a PBC title over the existing ABC titles..... and judging from the result of your poll, the answer to that question is a resounding NO

2 other things.....

how on earth do you envisage that PBC will be the only sanctioning body..... in what universe will that happen?

..... even if PBC have " most " - which will not be good enough imho - of the current champions, why would any of the ABC organisations suddenly pack up and leave?

they will simply appoint new champions, just like they do now

also..... you and zero have BOTH admitted that it would take YEARS for that to happen..... and fighters like Canelo who are not aligned to PBC could dominate for years, leaving you guys in for a looooong wait..... making all this sound like nothing more than a pipe-dream

if you were talking about now, then the question is relevant..... but if you are just referring to promises, that may eventuate..... then give me a call when all of that happens..... until then, it is just a pipe-dream

[LoadedWraps]

I think this is where alot of people go off the rails. I personally do NOT believe monopolization is possible. Boxing is way too "global" at this point. Haymon represents what maybe 250 fighters total, out of over 10,000 pro fighters in the world. And that 10,000 only represents ones that have fought in the previous 12 months. Haymon doesnt have the capability or the organization to monopolize boxing. He cant even keep his current roster busy.

And consider all the other markets like Eastern Europe, UK, Japan, Australia, etc. If Haymons stable were to set aside all their titles, then Golden Boy, Top Rank, Main Events, Mr. Honda in Japan, Eddie Hearn, Frank Warren, the Russian guy Rybinski or whatever his name is, anyways those guys would all put forth fighters to fight for those vacant titles, and things would continue on pretty much as they are now. There are way too many other managers and promoters out there (big and small) who arent going to just go gently into that goodnight......

THen that's what people need to say, not just blow over the point and keep rambling on, because the whole premise of the debate at this point is that we assume it will happen.

This is the happy path (happy path means what happens if it all works out):

1. Haymon continues to recruit talent and horde fighters.

2. Eventually HBO and everyone else won't have champions or cash cows

3. When Haymon has all the assets that matter (alphabet champions, cash cows) THEN he releases PBC belts.

4. Alphabets lose value as the only holders (PBC fighters) disregard the belts for the PBC belts the same fighters hold.

5. As the PBC champions, PBC fights, and league get all the exposure, the other titles will quickly lose relevancy with the public.




This is what is getting annoying: people want to complain about how 4 and 5 are not possible, when YOU ARE OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT POINTS 1,2,3 COME FIRST!!!!!

It's not that difficult to understand.

I understand but you guys are complete morons which is why this feeler post was posted to begin with. The Collective IQ is so low with the PBC shills that you have to put these kinds of topics up for discussion and anyone who doesn't drink the same kool aid you drink by the gallon must not understand the PBC model and concept or the meaning of monopolizing.
In other words if you don't agree with us then you just don't understand or must be ******.

I'll watch All outlets that Boxing appears on because I am a Boxing fan first, there's no way the monopolizing of Boxing would ever succeed.
PBC couldn't hold Boxings jock strap or spit bucket.

Every PBC shill acts like they are business experts, marketing experts etc..
I hope they are paying you guys.

What shills?

Do you even know what you are talking about here? Are you even familiar with Al Haymon's background?

It seems like you are under the impression that Haymon and PBC is run by a bunch of amateur blow hards. Haymon is a fuarking Harvard graduate and a successful businessman and his team, and his investors are nothing short of brilliant in vision. They ARE business experts, their accolades are online for the public to see, which means if you are going to attack them, the onus is on you to prove they aren't experts, not for us to prove they are.

If you don't think a monopolization could succeed, then either you aren't paying attention to the facts, or you just aren't very familiar with business and economics in general, because it's not a crazy concept.

It's fine if you are skeptical and don't believe PBC will succeed, but you aren't presenting any real argument as to why it won't, you are just complaining and being pessimistic but without any real foundation. That's hot air.


Don't just say it won't work, give us a reason why, and a real reason, not "I am a fight fan and I will watch all the networks". Like I explained above, in a monopoly situation those networks won't be there any longer, so your point is a moot one. You can do that NOW, because this monopoly isn't in place yet.

hold on, your question was.....

If PBC created titles in an effort to enforce the "one belt per division across boxing" ideology, would you embrace it as the one true title?

Yes, that's true, but the conversation has evolved from that point dude, now we are discussing sort of the same thing but now the belts don't all exist at once, now we are discussing the hypothetical situation of a PBC monopoloy, in which the PBC belt does come out but later on in the timeline.

[aboutfkntime]

non title fights wouldnt warrant middle to high paydays unless the guys are well known. champions rightfully make more money than the challenger. 3+ champs means 3+ guys making more money then they would have if there were only 1 belt. to add, again, their opponents would make more by being the champs opponent. imho, the abc's are a necessary evil.

1) the market would adapt, they would become well-known

2) MANY of today's " champions "..... are completely unknown

[aboutfkntime]

THen that's what people need to say, not just blow over the point and keep rambling on, because the whole premise of the debate at this point is that we assume it will happen.

This is the happy path (happy path means what happens if it all works out):

1. Haymon continues to recruit talent and horde fighters.

2. Eventually HBO and everyone else won't have champions or cash cows

3. When Haymon has all the assets that matter (alphabet champions, cash cows) THEN he releases PBC belts.

4. Alphabets lose value as the only holders (PBC fighters) disregard the belts for the PBC belts the same fighters hold.

5. As the PBC champions, PBC fights, and league get all the exposure, the other titles will quickly lose relevancy with the public.




This is what is getting annoying: people want to complain about how 4 and 5 are not possible, when YOU ARE OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT POINTS 1,2,3 COME FIRST!!!!!

It's not that difficult to understand.


What shills?

Do you even know what you are talking about here? Are you even familiar with Al Haymon's background?

It seems like you are under the impression that Haymon and PBC is run by a bunch of amateur blow hards. Haymon is a fuarking Harvard graduate and a successful businessman and his team, and his investors are nothing short of brilliant in vision. They ARE business experts, their accolades are online for the public to see, which means if you are going to attack them, the onus is on you to prove they aren't experts, not for us to prove they are.

If you don't think a monopolization could succeed, then either you aren't paying attention to the facts, or you just aren't very familiar with business and economics in general, because it's not a crazy concept.

It's fine if you are skeptical and don't believe PBC will succeed, but you aren't presenting any real argument as to why it won't, you are just complaining and being pessimistic but without any real foundation. That's hot air.


Don't just say it won't work, give us a reason why, and a real reason, not "I am a fight fan and I will watch all the networks". Like I explained above, in a monopoly situation those networks won't be there any longer, so your point is a moot one. You can do that NOW, because this monopoly isn't in place yet.

they will simply appoint another champion, just like they do now

[original zero]

About Time -

I agree with you that the sanctioning bodies are the cause of many of boxing's problems. But why do we have multiple sanctioning bodies? Because whenever a major promoter has been unhappy with the amount of world titles he can get his hands on, he just moves to another organization.

But why did we ever have sanctioning bodies to begin with? Because the TV networks thought it added credibility to the titles if they were controlled by a supposed non-profit independent and neutral organization that was beyond reproach.

However, the organizations have been a scam since day one and the entire set up of boxing has been flawed since day one. If boxing is going to survive and hopefully thrive in the future, it needs to catch up with the other major sports and create a centralized league that the public recognizes as the clear cut #1 promotion.

The only way to do that though is to turn the landscape on its head, which is exactly what Haymon is attempting. Some of the major promoters have joined (Dibella, Goossen-Tutor, Warriors, etc). Some have largely vanished (GSP, DKP, M&M, etc).

And a few are hanging on by a thread, splitting what's left of the HBO pie (TR, GBP, ME, etc). As that HBO pie continues to shrink and as the top American prospects all sign with Haymon, TR, GBP & ME slowly get edged out of the game, just as GSP/DKP/M&M/etc were before them.

At that point, PBC can take everything 100% in house, reduce the number of weight classes, crown their own champion in every weight class, and throw the alphabelts in the garbage. The alphabelts will cling to life overseas, but they'll be largely dead in the US.



One Punch -

A worldwide monopoly is not possible, but let's face it, does the NBA have a worldwide monopoly? No, of course not. There are profitable basketball leagues all over the world with plenty of fans. But most of those fans realize there is bigger money in America and therefore MOST, not all, but most of the best talent is competing in America for the big money.

If Haymon is successful, the US would simply be removed from the alphabelt equation, which I do think would help the popularity of boxing in the United States. If fans could tune into CBS, Spike and Showtime, or Fox, FS1 & a PBC subscription service, and see all of the big time boxing taking place in the US, with one world champion per division, the credibility of boxing in the US would increase exponentially.



Keyboard Warrior -

I'm very comfortable with my intellectual credentials. So if the things I'm saying lead you to believe that I am a moron, you are probably the moron. That is the thing about intelligence. It's very different from speed or strength. You don't need to be strong to see someone lift a car over their head and realize how strong they are.

You don't have to be fast to see someone out run a cheetah and realize how quick they are.

But intelligence? If you don't have it, it's hard to understand it. And when you encounter it, you'll often be left confused and assume it's the other party that is lacking, even though it's actually you that has the problem.

I was a child prodigy and started college when I was 11 years old. My IQ has never tested lower than 155 and has tested as high as 172. Extreme intelligence is something that is often scoffed at and can be a bit embarrassing. But if the concepts I'm presenting are going over your head, I can assure you that your suggestion that my "low" IQ is to blame is completely laughable.

I am not a shill. I simply offer my perspective based on 19 years making my living in the combat sports industry. Take it with a grain of salt or not, but my views are based solely on my honest analysis. I have no skin in the game at the moment.

[Elroy The Great]

I think that having multiple sanctioning bodies is the cause of most of the problems within boxing today.

Fair point about generating revenue, but I think that issue falls on the promoters..... and I also think the market would adjust and level out.

Take the UFC..... 1 champion, but fk all people make any money..... that has nothing to do with having only 1 champion, that is because they have a monopoly and do not split the money fairly with the fighters.....

fans would adapt to having only 1 champion, and they would view the boxing landscape differently..... genuine contenders will be more respected, just like they were back in the day

I don't believe that only title fights generate revenue, and I think the market would adjust if the promoters are fair.

that scenario is possible but not guaranteed. as it is, a champs opponent is most likely to be that guys biggest payday. very few eliminator fights generate big $$$$.

more champs available to defend their title, the more $$$ opportunities there are....unless the sport figures out a way to pay guys who arent champs a decent wage. maybe the sport can force promoters to eat the pre fight expenses ?

''When a boxer gets paid, he is required to pay his manager and corner guy out of his own pocket, which is called a purse. Pay increases as boxers move up in rank, but so do the fees for their managers and corner guys. They are also responsible for paying their coaches.''

https://www.reference.com/business-f...996d76c19e171c

"As boxers, we’ve got expiry dates. Not many people box beyond their late thirties, and only 3% of all professionals (a group I’m lucky enough to be in) make enough money to live off it once they retire."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/activ...nal-boxer.html

as it is, pro boxers usually have other jobs.

[Elroy The Great]

1) the market would adapt, they would become well-known

2) MANY of today's " champions "..... are completely unknown

we can hope. champs, even the fringe ones, have a bargaining chip (the lower weight classes will usually get shltted on and stay obscure).

lets take it that theres 1 champ per div. ok, now what ? he gets injured and theres no champ to fight. today, one champ isnt unavailable, there are 2 others who are.

another way to go is for the abc's to force unification fights, regardless of whos the promoter and/or network. i dont think the abcs are against having 1 champ per div, shlt just gets in the way.