Boxing News Thread
- Thread starter heyzel
- Start date
while I agree, EVERY promoter is hurting the sport long term. It's a money game homes. They're all in it for short term gain, and it's a damn shame. That's why I like what the UFC did. They took their show on the road and hit damn near every decent sized city in almost every area in the country and built a ton of new fans and new prospects by doing so. Boxing needs to learn from that.
You never heard about that? Some tranny pornstar was saying he/she or whatever the fuck it is was getting down with Haymon. I first read about it in this forum.
Props:
T-Rip and T-Rip
Boxing can't do that because it's been around for over a hundred years. UFC was was able to do what they did because it was new.
In oder for boxing to have something like UFC it would need one promotional company to dominate, like Golden Boy for example, and all the others become irrelevant. Then we'd have the Golden Boy belt etc would never work
In oder for boxing to have something like UFC it would need one promotional company to dominate, like Golden Boy for example, and all the others become irrelevant. Then we'd have the Golden Boy belt etc would never work
lol
Murren hints MGM’s ties with boxing promoter Arum might be over
By NORM CLARKE
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Jim Murren, chairman and CEO of gaming giant MGM Resorts International, is strongly hinting that his company’s turbulent relationship with boxing promoter Bob Arum might be over.
In a newsletter sent to 62,000 company employees on Wednesday, Murren addressed the 83-year-old promoter’s epic tirade against the MGM Grand without mentioning Arum by name.
Bullying will not be tolerated, Murren said in the newsletter, and “your company will not associate with abusive individuals.”
Asked whether that last comment meant Murren was severing relations with Arum, MGM Resorts spokesman Clark Dumont said via email, “There is no further comment.”
The newsletter was leaked to the Review-Journal by a long-time employee.
Arum lashed out last week, days before his Manny Pacquiao-Tim Bradley fight Saturday at MGM Grand after seeing signage at the hotel promoting the May 3 fight between Floyd Mayweather and Marcos Maidana.
Arum ridiculed Richard Sturm, president of entertainment & sports for MGM Resorts International, who sat nearby, then delivered a low blow at the company run by Murren.
Arum said The Venetian “wouldn’t make a mistake like that” and added, “But that’s why one company makes a billion dollars a quarter and the other is hustling to pay its debt.”
The chief executive of Top Rank boxing, who has promoted 10 Pacquiao fights at the MGM Grand, urged Filipinos “to boycott the MGM forever.”
Arum booked Pacquiao’s previous fight in The Venetian’s Macau property and twice took the Filipino star to Jerry Jones’ Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas.
Murren, in his response to the “mean-spirited barrage,” said, “I don’t approve of bullying by children, and I won’t tolerate it by adults in our workplace.
“An attack on any of our 62,000 men and women of the MGM army is an attack on all of us. Actions have reactions, and this reaction is that your company will not associate with abusive individuals.”
Murren hints MGM’s ties with boxing promoter Arum might be over
By NORM CLARKE
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Jim Murren, chairman and CEO of gaming giant MGM Resorts International, is strongly hinting that his company’s turbulent relationship with boxing promoter Bob Arum might be over.
In a newsletter sent to 62,000 company employees on Wednesday, Murren addressed the 83-year-old promoter’s epic tirade against the MGM Grand without mentioning Arum by name.
Bullying will not be tolerated, Murren said in the newsletter, and “your company will not associate with abusive individuals.”
Asked whether that last comment meant Murren was severing relations with Arum, MGM Resorts spokesman Clark Dumont said via email, “There is no further comment.”
The newsletter was leaked to the Review-Journal by a long-time employee.
Arum lashed out last week, days before his Manny Pacquiao-Tim Bradley fight Saturday at MGM Grand after seeing signage at the hotel promoting the May 3 fight between Floyd Mayweather and Marcos Maidana.
Arum ridiculed Richard Sturm, president of entertainment & sports for MGM Resorts International, who sat nearby, then delivered a low blow at the company run by Murren.
Arum said The Venetian “wouldn’t make a mistake like that” and added, “But that’s why one company makes a billion dollars a quarter and the other is hustling to pay its debt.”
The chief executive of Top Rank boxing, who has promoted 10 Pacquiao fights at the MGM Grand, urged Filipinos “to boycott the MGM forever.”
Arum booked Pacquiao’s previous fight in The Venetian’s Macau property and twice took the Filipino star to Jerry Jones’ Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas.
Murren, in his response to the “mean-spirited barrage,” said, “I don’t approve of bullying by children, and I won’t tolerate it by adults in our workplace.
“An attack on any of our 62,000 men and women of the MGM army is an attack on all of us. Actions have reactions, and this reaction is that your company will not associate with abusive individuals.”
They can easily do it, bro. All they have to do is make a new company that is an llc/private and run everything through that or do some changes to something like GB and then it's good. They don't have to eliminate the belts. In fact, all they have to do is hit up the organizations and have them contribute a bit more to the pot and then it's golden. In truth man, these guys don't need HBO or Showtime. There are other avenues they can go right now. They can go internet, regular tv or a closed proprietary format like PSN or Xbox Live as both offer exclusive content.
Another reason why it would be easy to do is because of the different regulations from state to state and the lack of an overall body like you see with the MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, etc.
I'm telling you man, change is coming soon. This network cold war contributed to this shit.
Another reason why it would be easy to do is because of the different regulations from state to state and the lack of an overall body like you see with the MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, etc.
I'm telling you man, change is coming soon. This network cold war contributed to this shit.
Nope. Because you show the numbers you were able to do with those networks and then you charge pretty much the same thing. Why? Advertisements and the revenue associated with it. ESPN and friday night fights don't rake in big money because they don't have big names on those fight shows. Now if you put people who have a big name on those shows then the viewership goes up. The viwership goes up and you charge more for advertising and that is just a small piece.
They don't need hbo or showtime to offer PPV. All they need is a deal with whoever is going to provide the signal. Comcast, or whoever, and that is pretty much it. If they lock that down you can kiss hbo and showtime boxing goodbye.
They don't need hbo or showtime to offer PPV. All they need is a deal with whoever is going to provide the signal. Comcast, or whoever, and that is pretty much it. If they lock that down you can kiss hbo and showtime boxing goodbye.
They could do it, if they wanted to. What did UFC do? They brought something new with the UFC, but it wasn't like that style of fighting was new to the world of martial arts. They made their own PPV, probably didn't sell a lot of PPV's in the beginning. They even abandoned their hardcore fan base with major changes to their rules to make it more marketable. Fast forward to today, they were so successful that they bought out basically everyone. Bellator started way after the fact, and chances are, they'll be bought out eventually too.
GBP could easily do something like that. Instead of trying to create a seat at the network's table, they could go get their own damn table. That's what UFC did, then Fox came knocking at their door eventually. They're still doing what they've always done, but they're also branching out, creating their own network in a sense, etc... I'm not saying they have to fight for the "Golden Boy" belt, but they could if they wanted to do that. Why not? That also worked for the UFC. There is no sanctioning body B.S. in the UFC. Now that I think about it, this all isn't a bad idea. They could basically stick it to all of the sanctioning bodies and create their own damn belt. It worked for UFC, Pride, Strikeforce, Bellator, WWF/E, WCW, etc... It's not like they're going to lose fans by doing something like that, especially if they're putting on good shows, fans won't give a crap. GBP and Top Rank already aren't working together. Now would be the time to do it.
GBP could easily do something like that. Instead of trying to create a seat at the network's table, they could go get their own damn table. That's what UFC did, then Fox came knocking at their door eventually. They're still doing what they've always done, but they're also branching out, creating their own network in a sense, etc... I'm not saying they have to fight for the "Golden Boy" belt, but they could if they wanted to do that. Why not? That also worked for the UFC. There is no sanctioning body B.S. in the UFC. Now that I think about it, this all isn't a bad idea. They could basically stick it to all of the sanctioning bodies and create their own damn belt. It worked for UFC, Pride, Strikeforce, Bellator, WWF/E, WCW, etc... It's not like they're going to lose fans by doing something like that, especially if they're putting on good shows, fans won't give a crap. GBP and Top Rank already aren't working together. Now would be the time to do it.
Business of Boxing: How Does the Pay-Per-View Deal Work? | BoxingInsider.com
Where does the money go when a fan plunks down $49.95 to see a pay-per-view fight on television? Does it go directly to the fighters? Does it go into the hands of promoters? What role do the networks play? Maybe this piece will, in a basic sort of way, shine some light on it for you.
As the apparatus of pay-per-view has matured, it has evolved into a process that customarily works like this: the promoter will make a fight between two combatants, along with an undercard to support it. He approaches the pay-per-view distributor, like HBO PPV or Showtime PPV (or the new entrant, Epix) with that fight, and the distributor makes the decision as to whether to carry it or not. If the fight gets the green light, the distributor goes to work clearing the fight with the MSO’s (multiple system operators) who control virtually the entire cable universe. These include companies like Time Warner, Cablevision, Comcast. Cox and Charter.
The cable systems are in on the deal; that’s their price tag for carrying a certain amount of weight on the local and regional level. They are going to run commercials for the event, and sometimes the promotional materials can be provided by the promoter, although often the cable people will put together their own, because they may have certain special promotions they will do in association with the event.
The standard breakdown as far as money is concerned is a 10% fee off the top for the distributor, with 45% each for the cable system and the promoter. So when you see a price tag on a fight, you know that the promoter will get about 45% of that.
Let’s say a fight is priced at $49.95, which for the sake of simplicity we are going to round up to $50. If it’s HBO PPV that is being used, HBO is not a party that is at risk as far as the fight itself is concerned but will take the 10% fee off the top ($5). The promoter and the cable companies both wind up with $22.50 per “sub” (or subscriber).
If a fight sells a million pay-per-view subscribers, HBO’s pay-per-view arm will get $5 million and the promoters will pocket $22,500,000. If that level of revenue, along with the other revenue streams (live gate or casino site fee, merchandising, international rights, etc.) did not meet what the promoter guaranteed the fighters, well, let’s just say that would be an unfortunate occurrence.
Some semantics might be in order at this time. The term “pay-per-view,” as it applies to fights that are transmitted into the home in exchange for a fee, is kind of a misnomer, as promoters have discovered. When fights go into a movie theater or another venue that gets it via closed circuit, it is much closer to the actual concept of “pay-per-view,” because it gets much closer to the ideal that everyone who views it has to pay for it. When it goes into homes, it may turn out to be, in fact, pay per MANY views, as buyers often invite multiple friends over. As we mentioned in a story last week, that’s why promoters are interested in experimenting with going the theater route.
That method does not necessarily involve HBO PPV, but don’t get the impression that they are just going along for a free ride when they engineer the pay-per-view distribution. The strength of a company like that is that it not only can instantly make an event happen and effectively coordinate it over the television platform (not to mention produce it as well), it can also apply some marketing muscle on a national level. You have seen that with the “24/7″ series that HBO airs, which doubles as an entertainment piece and a de facto infomercial for the pay-per-view telecast.
Now Time Warner is expanding that promotional vehicle to other outlets like CNN, which they control. Showtime Pay-Per-View has done the same through its “Fight Camp 360,” which was used in four parts to promote the Manny Pacquiao-Shane Mosley fight, and aired not on Showtime’s premium channel but to a wider audience on CBS, which is also owned by Viacom. This kind of programming might be the most effective in selling an upcoming fight to the more casual audience, because it shows the fighters in a more human “reality” setting.
In this atmosphere where media conglomerates own many properties across the spectrum of broadcast, cable, premium and even satellite programming, they are starting to expand their horizons and operate more creatively for a potential constituency that has many more choices on their remote than they had when pay-per-view first became a prominent part of the boxing culture. You can expect that activity on the part of HBO, Showtime and even ESPN (which has a pay-per-view apparatus), all of which are owned by a different conglomerate, will reflect that into the future.
---------------------------
Change is on the way, bro. Watch what I tell you. He isn't signing all these fighters just to move them over to Showtime.
Where does the money go when a fan plunks down $49.95 to see a pay-per-view fight on television? Does it go directly to the fighters? Does it go into the hands of promoters? What role do the networks play? Maybe this piece will, in a basic sort of way, shine some light on it for you.
As the apparatus of pay-per-view has matured, it has evolved into a process that customarily works like this: the promoter will make a fight between two combatants, along with an undercard to support it. He approaches the pay-per-view distributor, like HBO PPV or Showtime PPV (or the new entrant, Epix) with that fight, and the distributor makes the decision as to whether to carry it or not. If the fight gets the green light, the distributor goes to work clearing the fight with the MSO’s (multiple system operators) who control virtually the entire cable universe. These include companies like Time Warner, Cablevision, Comcast. Cox and Charter.
The cable systems are in on the deal; that’s their price tag for carrying a certain amount of weight on the local and regional level. They are going to run commercials for the event, and sometimes the promotional materials can be provided by the promoter, although often the cable people will put together their own, because they may have certain special promotions they will do in association with the event.
The standard breakdown as far as money is concerned is a 10% fee off the top for the distributor, with 45% each for the cable system and the promoter. So when you see a price tag on a fight, you know that the promoter will get about 45% of that.
Let’s say a fight is priced at $49.95, which for the sake of simplicity we are going to round up to $50. If it’s HBO PPV that is being used, HBO is not a party that is at risk as far as the fight itself is concerned but will take the 10% fee off the top ($5). The promoter and the cable companies both wind up with $22.50 per “sub” (or subscriber).
If a fight sells a million pay-per-view subscribers, HBO’s pay-per-view arm will get $5 million and the promoters will pocket $22,500,000. If that level of revenue, along with the other revenue streams (live gate or casino site fee, merchandising, international rights, etc.) did not meet what the promoter guaranteed the fighters, well, let’s just say that would be an unfortunate occurrence.
Some semantics might be in order at this time. The term “pay-per-view,” as it applies to fights that are transmitted into the home in exchange for a fee, is kind of a misnomer, as promoters have discovered. When fights go into a movie theater or another venue that gets it via closed circuit, it is much closer to the actual concept of “pay-per-view,” because it gets much closer to the ideal that everyone who views it has to pay for it. When it goes into homes, it may turn out to be, in fact, pay per MANY views, as buyers often invite multiple friends over. As we mentioned in a story last week, that’s why promoters are interested in experimenting with going the theater route.
That method does not necessarily involve HBO PPV, but don’t get the impression that they are just going along for a free ride when they engineer the pay-per-view distribution. The strength of a company like that is that it not only can instantly make an event happen and effectively coordinate it over the television platform (not to mention produce it as well), it can also apply some marketing muscle on a national level. You have seen that with the “24/7″ series that HBO airs, which doubles as an entertainment piece and a de facto infomercial for the pay-per-view telecast.
Now Time Warner is expanding that promotional vehicle to other outlets like CNN, which they control. Showtime Pay-Per-View has done the same through its “Fight Camp 360,” which was used in four parts to promote the Manny Pacquiao-Shane Mosley fight, and aired not on Showtime’s premium channel but to a wider audience on CBS, which is also owned by Viacom. This kind of programming might be the most effective in selling an upcoming fight to the more casual audience, because it shows the fighters in a more human “reality” setting.
In this atmosphere where media conglomerates own many properties across the spectrum of broadcast, cable, premium and even satellite programming, they are starting to expand their horizons and operate more creatively for a potential constituency that has many more choices on their remote than they had when pay-per-view first became a prominent part of the boxing culture. You can expect that activity on the part of HBO, Showtime and even ESPN (which has a pay-per-view apparatus), all of which are owned by a different conglomerate, will reflect that into the future.
---------------------------
Change is on the way, bro. Watch what I tell you. He isn't signing all these fighters just to move them over to Showtime.
Last edited:
You're guessing that's what Haymon is doing. More than likely he's going to start his own promotional or merge with his buddy Mayweather since Haymon doesn't like the public eye and sits in the shadows. It's more of a personal self serving power move. Until he says otherwise and outlines some revolutionary plan looks like he's going to just be another promoter.
That would seriously suck. It would be Golden Boy and everyone else. We've seen Top Rank and Golden Boy fighters fight eachother, when a sanctioning body orders a fight and a purse bid. We saw that with Vanes vs Lara and just today Gary Russell jr and Lomachenko. If Golden Boy was like the UFC there would be zero chance of a non Golden Boy fighter fighting.
Again it worked with UFC because MMA as we know it is still just a baby, it wad new to Americans. Boxing as we know it has been here for over a hundred years. There are multiple sanctioning bodies, hundreds/thousands of promoters from the local scenes to the big guys, etc. IMO there would need to be a central body created to oversee the sport and regulate it. I wouldn't want a promotional company running the sport.
Again it worked with UFC because MMA as we know it is still just a baby, it wad new to Americans. Boxing as we know it has been here for over a hundred years. There are multiple sanctioning bodies, hundreds/thousands of promoters from the local scenes to the big guys, etc. IMO there would need to be a central body created to oversee the sport and regulate it. I wouldn't want a promotional company running the sport.
Although I agree with everything
@HERESY
is saying, the only problem would be the competition. UFC now goes up against Bellator as Bellator is gonna put up their first PPV and it looks pretty good. As young fighters come up, they will have to decide what company they will sign with. Some fighters want to fight the best, while others are just chasing the money and great fighters exist in both categories. That causes a scenario where we won't see the best fight the best unless the fighter jumps ship. Shit, I'm still waiting for Sting to join WWE! So the promotional boxing situation along with beer sponsors and networks there is just too much easy money coming in for these promoters. So all though having a boxing promo turn company sounds good and can happen, we still won't see the best fight the best and GBP vs HBO is just hurting boxing in the long run
@HERESY
is saying, the only problem would be the competition. UFC now goes up against Bellator as Bellator is gonna put up their first PPV and it looks pretty good. As young fighters come up, they will have to decide what company they will sign with. Some fighters want to fight the best, while others are just chasing the money and great fighters exist in both categories. That causes a scenario where we won't see the best fight the best unless the fighter jumps ship. Shit, I'm still waiting for Sting to join WWE! So the promotional boxing situation along with beer sponsors and networks there is just too much easy money coming in for these promoters. So all though having a boxing promo turn company sounds good and can happen, we still won't see the best fight the best and GBP vs HBO is just hurting boxing in the long run
It's not the best route for the fans, short term. But does it really change anything the current landscape? GB fighters are only fighting GB fighters. Honestly, it's a bit of a shock to see a purse bid for the Lomachenko/Russell fight. TR could still say screw it and have Lomachenko give up his bid for the title in this case right now too.
the biggest problem for fans would be the once per month PPV model that UFC uses. No way am I'm paying for 1 PPV a month.
the biggest problem for fans would be the once per month PPV model that UFC uses. No way am I'm paying for 1 PPV a month.
Not THAT frequently. It does happen though. If anything, those other promoters tend to gravitate towards HBO as it stands anyways at this point because HBO is fully aware of what's going on obviously, and they're trying to lock any of those remaining fighters who aren't with Golden Boy on to their network by offering them future fights on HBO.
Props:
battle619 and battle619
Schaefer intrigued by Mayweather vs. Porter fight possibility
April 21st, 2014 | Post Comment - 212 Comments
235Share 3 268Share 9Tweet
Richard Schaefer shawn porter floyd mayweather jr By Scott Gilfoid: IBF welterweight champion Shawn Porter (24-0-1, 15 KO’s) made a name for himself last Saturday night in destroying a still very good Paulie Malignaggi (33-6, 7 KO’s) in a 4th round TKO victory on Showtime. The victory showed clearly that Porter is one of the best fighters in the 147lb division, and he’s ready for bigger fights against the big names in the division.
Porter’s promoter Richard Schaefer of Golden Boy Promotions says he likes the idea of matching him against WBC welterweight champion Floyd Mayweather Jr. in the future, and he thinks it would be a great fight.
“We’ll discuss it [Porter vs. Mayweather] with team Porter and why not? Me as a fan, after we’ve seen what he’s done with Devon, who is an outstanding boxer, and what he’s done with Paulie, who is an outstanding boxer and Floyd is the best boxer from a boxing point of view,” Schaefer said via Sky Sports. “I’d love to see the match-up with someone as young, as aggressive, as relentless as Porter.”
I totally agree with Schaefer. Porter would be a perfect opponent for Mayweather’s September fight after he takes care of WBA welterweight champion Marcos Maidana on May 3rd. There’s been talk of Mayweather possibly facing Amir Khan if he beats 32-year-old veteran fighter Luis Collazo on May 3rd on the Mayweather-Maidana undercard, but Khan still would need a solid victory over a relevant fighter before he should be put in with Mayweather.
Even if Khan beats Collazo, his record in his last 5 fights would be 3-2, and that’s pitiful for someone getting a fight against Mayweather. None of Khan’s wins will have been against good, young quality fighters. I think Schaefer needs to have Khan face Porter, and then the winner of that fight would then get the fight against Mayweather.
If Khan can get past Porter, he would clearly deserve to share the same ring with Mayweather, but you can’t say that if Khan beats Collazo. If you look at Collazo’s resume, he’s not beaten any notable opposition in at least 7 years. I don’t count a rusty Victor Ortiz as being a good opponent because he’d been out of boxing for almost 2 years when Collazo beat him last January.
If Mayweather wants to fight only the best then Porter is the perfect opponent for him next September. A fight against the pressure fighter Maidana will be a good tune-up for Mayweather to get him ready for what he’ll be facing in taking on the pressure fighter Porter. Maidana is a bigger version of Porter with a little more power, but not as good on the inside.
Mayweather would need to shift gears to beat Porter, because he couldn’t stand in place using the shoulder roll to deflect all the incoming punches that Porter would be throwing. Mayweather also couldn’t let himself fight with his back against the ropes against Porter, because he’s got a habit of leaning on his opponents with his big upper body and not letting them have space to throw punches
Read more at Schaefer intrigued by Mayweather vs. Porter fight possibility
April 21st, 2014 | Post Comment - 212 Comments
235Share 3 268Share 9Tweet
Richard Schaefer shawn porter floyd mayweather jr By Scott Gilfoid: IBF welterweight champion Shawn Porter (24-0-1, 15 KO’s) made a name for himself last Saturday night in destroying a still very good Paulie Malignaggi (33-6, 7 KO’s) in a 4th round TKO victory on Showtime. The victory showed clearly that Porter is one of the best fighters in the 147lb division, and he’s ready for bigger fights against the big names in the division.
Porter’s promoter Richard Schaefer of Golden Boy Promotions says he likes the idea of matching him against WBC welterweight champion Floyd Mayweather Jr. in the future, and he thinks it would be a great fight.
“We’ll discuss it [Porter vs. Mayweather] with team Porter and why not? Me as a fan, after we’ve seen what he’s done with Devon, who is an outstanding boxer, and what he’s done with Paulie, who is an outstanding boxer and Floyd is the best boxer from a boxing point of view,” Schaefer said via Sky Sports. “I’d love to see the match-up with someone as young, as aggressive, as relentless as Porter.”
I totally agree with Schaefer. Porter would be a perfect opponent for Mayweather’s September fight after he takes care of WBA welterweight champion Marcos Maidana on May 3rd. There’s been talk of Mayweather possibly facing Amir Khan if he beats 32-year-old veteran fighter Luis Collazo on May 3rd on the Mayweather-Maidana undercard, but Khan still would need a solid victory over a relevant fighter before he should be put in with Mayweather.
Even if Khan beats Collazo, his record in his last 5 fights would be 3-2, and that’s pitiful for someone getting a fight against Mayweather. None of Khan’s wins will have been against good, young quality fighters. I think Schaefer needs to have Khan face Porter, and then the winner of that fight would then get the fight against Mayweather.
If Khan can get past Porter, he would clearly deserve to share the same ring with Mayweather, but you can’t say that if Khan beats Collazo. If you look at Collazo’s resume, he’s not beaten any notable opposition in at least 7 years. I don’t count a rusty Victor Ortiz as being a good opponent because he’d been out of boxing for almost 2 years when Collazo beat him last January.
If Mayweather wants to fight only the best then Porter is the perfect opponent for him next September. A fight against the pressure fighter Maidana will be a good tune-up for Mayweather to get him ready for what he’ll be facing in taking on the pressure fighter Porter. Maidana is a bigger version of Porter with a little more power, but not as good on the inside.
Mayweather would need to shift gears to beat Porter, because he couldn’t stand in place using the shoulder roll to deflect all the incoming punches that Porter would be throwing. Mayweather also couldn’t let himself fight with his back against the ropes against Porter, because he’s got a habit of leaning on his opponents with his big upper body and not letting them have space to throw punches
Read more at Schaefer intrigued by Mayweather vs. Porter fight possibility
Props:
trips and trips