Who benefits from a robbery?
How can a promoter, sanctioning body, etc. Benefit from robberies? Wouldn't robberies actually hurt everybody in the sport? Starting with the fans, viewers, consumers, etc.? I see it this way, correct me if I am wrong...Imagine you have a restaurant and you serve good quality food, service, etc. But one day, you decide to save some money and pay your waiters less, buy cheaper ingredients, etc. To maximize profit. Sure, at the beginning it may seem as if things are doing good. You are saving some money running your business and profits may be higher. But in the long run, wouldn't that hurt your business? Having clients look for other restaurants where food and service is top quality. That's how I see robberies in boxing. Some people may benefit but in the long run, people won't be following boxing as much as before. PPV and attendnace have gone down, right?
What are your thoughts?:rolleyes:
Re: Who benefits from a robbery?
remember sometimes there are influences that aren't directly tied to boxing, such as betting, also robberies in boxing are sometimes used to set up fights, fucked up what people will do to get their way
Re: Who benefits from a robbery?
Yes, I have imagined that too. For example, giving a gift decision to a guy that can bring lots of cash in a big fight. For example, we all know that Mayweather and Pac is a multimillion fight right there. If Pac lost vs Cotto on a decision then the opportunity to make loads of money with Maweather vs Pac would be lost so, what happens? Pac gets the gift decision. You get the idea. Still, in the long run it might not be good.
NOTE: I am not implying Pac will get a gift decision, blah blah blah. It's just an example.
Re: Who benefits from a robbery?
The thief, obviously.
Oh... you mean a boxing robbery?
Re: Who benefits from a robbery?
Pauly had it right in his post fight interview. The person who gets robbed gets screwed. Even when every one knows it was robbery.
Re: Who benefits from a robbery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chino
How can a promoter, sanctioning body, etc. Benefit from robberies? Wouldn't robberies actually hurt everybody in the sport? Starting with the fans, viewers, consumers, etc.? I see it this way, correct me if I am wrong...Imagine you have a restaurant and you serve good quality food, service, etc. But one day, you decide to save some money and pay your waiters less, buy cheaper ingredients, etc. To maximize profit. Sure, at the beginning it may seem as if things are doing good. You are saving some money running your business and profits may be higher. But in the long run, wouldn't that hurt your business? Having clients look for other restaurants where food and service is top quality? That's how I see robberies in boxing. Some people may benefit but in the long run, people won't be following boxing as much as before. PPV and attendnace have gone down, right?
What are your thoughts?:rolleyes:
You answered your own question.. In the restaurant business you have substitutes for the service/food you are currently receiving. You CAN go to another restaurant and get better food. In boxing what choice do you have? Besides not buying a PPV for a Golden Boy fight, or a PPV in the state of Texas, etc.. It's not the same as something as simple as going to eat at another restaurant, because in the boxing world, that would be comparable to going to another sport.. MMA..
The fighter benefits from it.. how? because a year down the line when they're trying to sell a fight for the fighter who may have kept an unblemished record due to a robbery they can market it as two undefeated fighters, etc.. or market the guy as the guy who beat so and so (robbery or not).
Re: Who benefits from a robbery?
Sad but true, in some cases, both fighters benefit. In fact, both guys probably win with this fight. Diaz gets the win on paper and that helps him get another big fight. Paulie put himself back on the map, and he's in a better position than he was before last night to get a good fight. Remember Vernon Forrest vs Ike Quartey? Forrest won on paper put himself in a position to fight fight for a vacant belt. Quartey got a payday against Winky - a bigger fight than Forrest's fight against Baldomir, probably.
Paulie took the fight knowing he would have to pitch a shutout to win. He obviously knew there was a good chance this would happen, and I'm sure he understood that he if looked good and got screwed, he would still help his career. Why the hell else would he have gone to Texas?
Re: Who benefits from a robbery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chino
How can a promoter, sanctioning body, etc. Benefit from robberies? Wouldn't robberies actually hurt everybody in the sport? Starting with the fans, viewers, consumers, etc.? I see it this way, correct me if I am wrong...Imagine you have a restaurant and you serve good quality food, service, etc. But one day, you decide to save some money and pay your waiters less, buy cheaper ingredients, etc. To maximize profit. Sure, at the beginning it may seem as if things are doing good. You are saving some money running your business and profits may be higher. But in the long run, wouldn't that hurt your business? Having clients look for other restaurants where food and service is top quality. That's how I see robberies in boxing. Some people may benefit but in the long run, people won't be following boxing as much as before. PPV and attendnace have gone down, right?
What are your thoughts?:rolleyes:
You are right of course, but the powers that be aren't thinking long term health of the sport, their thinking maximum dollar for themselves.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Benefit of the doubt goes to the more marketable fighter. Mag has had his run. Diaz will make more money for more people.
Re: Who benefits from a robbery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chino
How can a promoter, sanctioning body, etc. Benefit from robberies? Wouldn't robberies actually hurt everybody in the sport? Starting with the fans, viewers, consumers, etc.? I see it this way, correct me if I am wrong...Imagine you have a restaurant and you serve good quality food, service, etc. But one day, you decide to save some money and pay your waiters less, buy cheaper ingredients, etc. To maximize profit. Sure, at the beginning it may seem as if things are doing good. You are saving some money running your business and profits may be higher. But in the long run, wouldn't that hurt your business? Having clients look for other restaurants where food and service is top quality. That's how I see robberies in boxing. Some people may benefit but in the long run, people won't be following boxing as much as before. PPV and attendnace have gone down, right?
What are your thoughts?:rolleyes:
You are right of course, but the powers that be aren't thinking long term health of the sport, their thinking maximum dollar for themselves.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Benefit of the doubt goes to the more marketable fighter. Mag has had his run. Diaz will make more money for more people.
That's true that Diaz will make more long term money, but does this hurt Paulie? I don't think so. Same was probably true for Forrest against Ike.
Re: Who benefits from a robbery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RozzySean
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chino
How can a promoter, sanctioning body, etc. Benefit from robberies? Wouldn't robberies actually hurt everybody in the sport? Starting with the fans, viewers, consumers, etc.? I see it this way, correct me if I am wrong...Imagine you have a restaurant and you serve good quality food, service, etc. But one day, you decide to save some money and pay your waiters less, buy cheaper ingredients, etc. To maximize profit. Sure, at the beginning it may seem as if things are doing good. You are saving some money running your business and profits may be higher. But in the long run, wouldn't that hurt your business? Having clients look for other restaurants where food and service is top quality. That's how I see robberies in boxing. Some people may benefit but in the long run, people won't be following boxing as much as before. PPV and attendnace have gone down, right?
What are your thoughts?:rolleyes:
You are right of course, but the powers that be aren't thinking long term health of the sport, their thinking maximum dollar for themselves.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Benefit of the doubt goes to the more marketable fighter. Mag has had his run. Diaz will make more money for more people.
That's true that Diaz will make more long term money, but
does this hurt Paulie? I don't think so. Same was probably true for Forrest against Ike.
I'm not sure what your point is. How does Paulie getting hurt (figuratively) fit into this alleged decision to award the decision to Diaz? I don't see it as relevant. Nor does the amount of money Diaz will make for himself play into it. It's about the financial benefit of the powers thqt be.
Re: Who benefits from a robbery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RozzySean
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
You are right of course, but the powers that be aren't thinking long term health of the sport, their thinking maximum dollar for themselves.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Benefit of the doubt goes to the more marketable fighter. Mag has had his run. Diaz will make more money for more people.
That's true that Diaz will make more long term money, but
does this hurt Paulie? I don't think so. Same was probably true for Forrest against Ike.
I'm not sure what your point is. How does Paulie getting hurt (figuratively) fit into this alleged decision to award the decision to Diaz? I don't see it as relevant. Nor does the amount of money Diaz will make for himself play into it. It's about the financial benefit of the powers thqt be.
Go back to my first post.
"Paulie took the fight knowing he would have to pitch a shutout to win. He obviously knew there was a good chance this would happen, and I'm sure he understood that he if looked good and got screwed, he would still help his career. Why the hell else would he have gone to Texas?"
The question is "who benefits?". Sure the powers that be benefit. But in some cases, the fighters can benefit, at least indirectly because neither fighters really "lost' in the eyes of the fans. And yes, that benefits the powers that be as well, at least in the short term. That's why we see so much of this. Long term, it hurts everybody, but in the short term, in can help individuals. Paulie got a good paycheck and regardless of the outcome on paper, he is now in a position to get another fight. Basically, fights can be silent accomplices by being willing to put themselves in a position to get robbed. Then they point out the obvious foul play.
In this case, the only people who lost were the fans and the overall integrity and long term health of the sport.
Re: Who benefits from a robbery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RozzySean
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RozzySean
That's true that Diaz will make more long term money, but does this hurt Paulie? I don't think so. Same was probably true for Forrest against Ike.
I'm not sure what your point is. How does Paulie getting hurt (figuratively) fit into this alleged decision to award the decision to Diaz? I don't see it as relevant. Nor does the amount of money Diaz will make for himself play into it. It's about the financial benefit of the powers thqt be.
Go back to my first post.
"Paulie took the fight knowing he would have to pitch a shutout to win. He obviously knew there was a good chance this would happen, and I'm sure he understood that he if looked good and got screwed, he would still help his career. Why the hell else would he have gone to Texas?"
The question is "who benefits?". Sure the powers that be benefit. But in some cases, the fighters can benefit, at least indirectly because neither fighters really "lost' in the eyes of the fans. And yes, that benefits the powers that be as well, at least in the short term. That's why we see so much of this. Long term, it hurts everybody, but in the short term, in can help individuals. Paulie got a good paycheck and regardless of the outcome on paper, he is now in a position to get another fight. Basically, fights can be silent accomplices by being willing to put themselves in a position to get robbed. Then they point out the obvious foul play.
In this case, the only people who lost were the fans and the overall integrity and long term health of the sport.
ok, point taken, I think. I didn't address your original post as well as I might have. I was just speaking as to the reasons why a bogus decision might be awarded, which was the benefit of the powers that be. I didn't really try to offer an opinion on some of the other points you made, particularly in regards to Paulie.
Re: Who benefits from a robbery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chino
How can a promoter, sanctioning body, etc. Benefit from robberies? Wouldn't robberies actually hurt everybody in the sport? Starting with the fans, viewers, consumers, etc.? I see it this way, correct me if I am wrong...Imagine you have a restaurant and you serve good quality food, service, etc. But one day, you decide to save some money and pay your waiters less, buy cheaper ingredients, etc. To maximize profit. Sure, at the beginning it may seem as if things are doing good. You are saving some money running your business and profits may be higher. But in the long run, wouldn't that hurt your business? Having clients look for other restaurants where food and service is top quality. That's how I see robberies in boxing. Some people may benefit but in the long run, people won't be following boxing as much as before. PPV and attendnace have gone down, right?
What are your thoughts?:rolleyes:
Great analogy actually, and IMO thats what happened to boxing. Thats why you can have a chat about MMA and UFC with just about anyone you meet on the street, but if you want to talk about boxing you have to come here.
The corruption and greed has nearly killed boxing over the years, Paulie was right with what he said in the post-fight interview.
Re: Who benefits from a robbery?
Re: Who benefits from a robbery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RozzySean
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
I'm not sure what your point is. How does Paulie getting hurt (figuratively) fit into this alleged decision to award the decision to Diaz? I don't see it as relevant. Nor does the amount of money Diaz will make for himself play into it. It's about the financial benefit of the powers thqt be.
Go back to my first post.
"Paulie took the fight knowing he would have to pitch a shutout to win. He obviously knew there was a good chance this would happen, and I'm sure he understood that he if looked good and got screwed, he would still help his career. Why the hell else would he have gone to Texas?"
The question is "who benefits?". Sure the powers that be benefit. But in some cases, the fighters can benefit, at least indirectly because neither fighters really "lost' in the eyes of the fans. And yes, that benefits the powers that be as well, at least in the short term. That's why we see so much of this. Long term, it hurts everybody, but in the short term, in can help individuals. Paulie got a good paycheck and regardless of the outcome on paper, he is now in a position to get another fight. Basically, fights can be silent accomplices by being willing to put themselves in a position to get robbed. Then they point out the obvious foul play.
In this case, the only people who lost were the fans and the overall integrity and long term health of the sport.
ok, point taken, I think. I didn't address your original post as well as I might have. I was just speaking as to the reasons why a bogus decision might be awarded, which was the benefit of the powers that be. I didn't really try to offer an opinion on some of the other points you made, particularly in regards to Paulie.
And I agree with you on that and it's a great point. I was just pointing out another side of it - fighters and managers being silent accomplices. It's easy to blame promoters and sanctioning bodies or even HBO (clearly they are one of the "powers that be."
Mar hit it on the head = "follow the money". That includes the boxers themselves sometimes.
