Is there a way to remove promoters from the sport?

[Eff Pandas]

Who do you propose will take the financial risk to develop the fighters?? The networks?? hahahahahhaaa

Does anyone need to take a risk on fighters doe? I mean how boxing works now you do obviously. But couldn't boxing in theory work in a more UFC-type & MMA in general way where you make competitive fights from a fighters pro debut & you sink or swim from there.

I'd argue part of the problem with boxing right now is the fact that most successful amateurs go from fighting some of the best amateurs in their state, country & world if they are good enough to fighting some of the worst pro boxers in the world & guys that won't give them competition for the first 2-4 years of their career. That would seem to be a large reason promoters are using fighters as investments & its more of a gamble that requires these 5 year deals.

I think boxing could sell better if there was a legit more competitive slant with going to a boxing show like a MMA show has as we speak. So as guys come up they become more popular, but the expectation is that even if ticket buyers don't know who the f#ck a guy is they'll come to bigger & bigger shows paying more & more money for better & better competitive fights. And you price shows accordingly & pay fighters accordingly to insure you as a promoter profit.

[HAMMER77777]

Does anyone need to take a risk on fighters doe? I mean how boxing works now you do obviously. But couldn't boxing in theory work in a more UFC-type & MMA in general way where you make competitive fights from a fighters pro debut & you sink or swim from there.

I'd argue part of the problem with boxing right now is the fact that most successful amateurs go from fighting some of the best amateurs in their state, country & world if they are good enough to fighting some of the worst pro boxers in the world & guys that won't give them competition for the first 2-4 years of their career. That would seem to be a large reason promoters are using fighters as investments & its more of a gamble that requires these 5 year deals.

I think boxing could sell better if there was a legit more competitive slant with going to a boxing show like a MMA show has as we speak. So as guys come up they become more popular, but the expectation is that even if ticket buyers don't know who the f#ck a guy is they'll come to bigger & bigger shows paying more & more money for better & better competitive fights. And you price shows accordingly & pay fighters accordingly to insure you as a promoter profit.

This could work!

[original zero]

go back to the way things were decades ago where "managers" ate the costs of fighter development, and promoters simply promoted fights.

uhhhhh that's EXACTLY what haymon is doing . . .

[OnePunch]

uhhhhh that's EXACTLY what haymon is doing . . .

no it isnt. Back then you didnt have the "manager" paying the promoter to basically be a glorified site coordinator. Promoters negotiated purses with the managers, and actually took a financial risk on a promotion. Haymon is a manager in name only. His role really is as the promoter.

[The Big Dunn]

Or are they so vital and necessary that the sport can't exist without them?

Haymon had what I thought was a good plan but he didn't execute it very well so it appears as if its failing.

IMO what might work is if a network hired a guy like Schaeffer in Espinoza's position. My guess is he'd make nothing but excellent fights and with a big enough budget he could work directly with fighters managers, thus eliminating the promoter.

[ShoulderRoll]

Haymon had what I thought was a good plan but he didn't execute it very well so it appears as if its failing.

IMO what might work is if a network hired a guy like Schaeffer in Espinoza's position. My guess is he'd make nothing but excellent fights and with a big enough budget he could work directly with fighters managers, thus eliminating the promoter.

If HBO or Showtime would use their power to demand only the best fights that could go a long way.

But even they fall into the pattern of wanting a big PPV payoff eventually. Which leads to signing guys to exclusive deals and matching them carefully in order to build up to the big money fight.

[OnePunch]

Interesting. On those really big shows like those + as a co-promoter to a more notable promoter how are your duties different? I assume you take a back seat in a lot of ways & I'd assume, maybe incorrectly, that you get paid better for less actual work/bs involved in putting a show together.

The duties are a bit different, but many are common. The main differences are that you are taking no financial risk (the lead promoter is), and you are not negotiating the fighter purses or network rights fees (the lead promoter does that as well). In instances like this, the bigger promoter brings on a smaller local promoter to basically handle all the local stuff, and to make use of all their local connections with ticket buyers, vendors, media, commission, etc., and maybe get a few local ticket sellers on the card to help with the live gate. Mainly though its about logistics, and having someone on the ground during the entire promotion, not just when the lead promoter comes in for fight week. For the Lacy-Reid fight, we handled the hotel deal, ground transportation, local media, commission issues, site logistics, and most of the undercard. We handled all that stuff so basically all Gary had to do was to come in with his team for fight week and everything was ready to go.

(on an unrelated note, this is pretty much how Haymon operates, and guys like Dibella are basically co-promoters or site coordinators, depending on how you look at it)

[The Big Dunn]

If HBO or Showtime would use their power to demand only the best fights that could go a long way.

But even they fall into the pattern of wanting a big PPV payoff eventually. Which leads to signing guys to exclusive deals and matching them carefully in order to build up to the big money fight.

Not necessarily. Schaffer seems smart enough to know what fights go on PPV and what fights don't. He would NEVER have put a Crawford/Postol fight on PPV for example (of course I believe Bob did that to keep Crawford's value down).

I don't know if you need to sign exclusive deals. Just make sure you bid the most on the best fights.

[OnePunch]

Does anyone need to take a risk on fighters doe? I mean how boxing works now you do obviously. But couldn't boxing in theory work in a more UFC-type & MMA in general way where you make competitive fights from a fighters pro debut & you sink or swim from there.

I'd argue part of the problem with boxing right now is the fact that most successful amateurs go from fighting some of the best amateurs in their state, country & world if they are good enough to fighting some of the worst pro boxers in the world & guys that won't give them competition for the first 2-4 years of their career. That would seem to be a large reason promoters are using fighters as investments & its more of a gamble that requires these 5 year deals.

I think boxing could sell better if there was a legit more competitive slant with going to a boxing show like a MMA show has as we speak. So as guys come up they become more popular, but the expectation is that even if ticket buyers don't know who the f#ck a guy is they'll come to bigger & bigger shows paying more & more money for better & better competitive fights. And you price shows accordingly & pay fighters accordingly to insure you as a promoter profit.

Boxing's biggest problem is its obsession with someone remaining undefeated. The instant a fighter loses, they are "exposed", or a "hype job", etc etc. Part of that problem is in that fighters only fight 2-3 times a year, some even only once. That isnt enough to undo a loss. Federer might be the best tennis player of all time, and his record is like 1080-240 or something like that. A 75% win-loss ration in boxing has people calling that fighter a "gatekeeper" or "journeyman". But tennis players might play 40, 50, or even 60 times a year, so a "bad day" here and there is easily forgiven.

Boxing is just structurally different than most other sports. Tournaments are difficult, because of injuries. 1 small cut and a fighter is out of the tournament. Unless that tournament takes a year or so like the Super 6, and then most people lose interest.

Its a very difficult problem boxing has. I dont know the solution.

[The Big Dunn]

Boxing's biggest problem is its obsession with someone remaining undefeated. The instant a fighter loses, they are "exposed", or a "hype job", etc etc. Part of that problem is in that fighters only fight 2-3 times a year, some even only once. That isnt enough to undo a loss. Federer might be the best tennis player of all time, and his record is like 1080-240 or something like that. A 75% win-loss ration in boxing has people calling that fighter a "gatekeeper" or "journeyman". But tennis players might play 40, 50, or even 60 times a year, so a "bad day" here and there is easily forgiven.

Boxing is just structurally different than most other sports. Tournaments are difficult, because of injuries. 1 small cut and a fighter is out of the tournament. Unless that tournament takes a year or so like the Super 6, and then most people lose interest.

Its a very difficult problem boxing has. I dont know the solution.

The networks have placed a disproportionate emphasis on being undefeated because casual fans see it as something. So if you are undefeated you are built in one way by the networks, once you lose, you are forced on a different path.