GBP=Golden Boy Protectionism?
With Haymons blessings of course. I honestly thought Broner/Khan was a lock but after the latest Schaefer interview it does not seem likely. I might have to send back my Adrien Broner fan membership.
He's squandering a great opportunity to get back in the main frame and if rumour has it, he's more likely to fight Molina.
Quote:
Adrien is thinking about moving down in weight to 140, which is something that I certainly support and endorse. I think there are certainly some big fights for him at 140. He sort of rushed through these divisions and in the process left out the 140-pound weight class
Anyone who has followed this sport longer then yesterday knows that the weight excuse is a complete crock of shit. Hard to believe that Broner is going along with this. He started his career fighting at 135 and over. As if Maidana was some massive welterweight.
Quote:
"I think sometimes you need time to grow into these divisions and grow into these fights.
Another load specifically in this case given Broners size and another boxing catch phrase that is used way to much as an excuse.
Quote:
"Obviously we know that Amir wants a Mayweather fight. For Amir, to move up to 147 is the right path for him. I think hanging around the 140-pound weight class doesn't make any sense for Amir and he's been fighting at 140 for a long time. I know that as he gained muscle mass and moved up in weight, he feels better than he ever has. Virgil [Hunter] has been telling me that as well. He feels strong, he feels good. For him to go back down to 140 right now, it would make no sense."
Talk about overcompensating when catching oneself in the middle of a contradiction. Khan has never fought at welter, looks no bigger then he was at 140 and looked like shit against a worn out Diaz. This is really getting to much. Now Quillin, another Gbp/Haymon stooge frolicking in the wilderness. They just keep chipping away at the interest quotient. Mediocrity is slowly but surly becoming the norm.
Re: GBP=Golden Boy Protectionism?
Schafer just announced that Broner-khan will not happen this may.. broner is down to fight but yea his management is protecting him.
I dont have a problem with gbp though cuz they usually do not baby their fighters except the ones without much experience like wilder which is understandable.. and broner just suffered his first loss in humiliating fashion so its ok if they want him in a confidence builder...
Gbp are cool compared to top rank. TR are the ones who baby their fighters... gbp dont do tnat shit...
Gbp is straight.
Re: GBP=Golden Boy Protectionism?
Honestly in the 130's is where Broner should be boxing at this stage. It was remarkable he stepped up 2 weight classes to begin with but he should have stepped right back down to where he can whack guys around for awhile. Far too much talent in the 140's.
Re: GBP=Golden Boy Protectionism?
Broner is a fat fuck. I mean that just has to be understood, There is zero-zip-natta chance he will "drop" back to 135. He weighed 148 with Escobedo and walks around at 160-180 by the looks of him in down time. The weights are becoming smoke n' mirrors and he is one of the poser poster boys for it.
I def don't think Khan will happen because frankly...Khan has -one- last hoorah and a poss loss..why in the fook will he jump through hoops vs a guy who fell like a exposed rusty anchor with his still high draw power back home etc. If he does this dog & pony show with hopes of Mayweather..again..he needs to have his head checked and a restraining order taken out against him.
Now we have Collazo calling out Khan ??? After signing with Haymon. Collazo needs to watch his back, Haymon is just using him as a decoy cause he would whip Broners ass if you ask me :-X
Re: GBP=Golden Boy Protectionism?
i just think that they dont want to throw him back in there with a dangerous opponent right away. i think that going down to 140 and fighting an easier fight is alright. the main problem though is that the culture of boxing ruins these types of fights. fighters fight so few times throughout the year that we want them to take big fights everytime but if they fought 5-6 times a year then having an easy fight here and there wouldnt seem so bad.
Re: GBP=Golden Boy Protectionism?
Anyone think that russian hooker in those drag photos used a strap-on to f*<k Oscar up the @$$ ?
Some freaky $#!t was definitely goin' on there with a fishnets Oscar out of his mind on alcohol and cocaine, and a hundred to one says she probably boinked him!
Re: GBP=Golden Boy Protectionism?
The jump up in weight seemed daft, a move up to 140 to test the water would have been the
way to go.! But money a bit ego and mouth go hand in hand, most people enjoyed him taking
a panning myself included,;D.
Broner crashed and burned and frankly could not happen to a nicer guy,:rolleyes:, who ever
he fights I feel his opponent will give him a battle, as his air of invincibility as gone down
the pan with the shit he talks.;D
Re: GBP=Golden Boy Protectionism?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Broner is a fat fuck. I mean that just has to be understood, There is zero-zip-natta chance he will "drop" back to 135. He weighed 148 with Escobedo and walks around at 160-180 by the looks of him in down time. The weights are becoming smoke n' mirrors and he is one of the poser poster boys for it.
I def don't think Khan will happen because frankly...Khan has -one- last hoorah and a poss loss..why in the fook will he jump through hoops vs a guy who fell like a exposed rusty anchor with his still high draw power back home etc. If he does this dog & pony show with hopes of Mayweather..again..he needs to have his head checked and a restraining order taken out against him.
Now we have Collazo calling out Khan ??? After signing with Haymon. Collazo needs to watch his back, Haymon is just using him as a decoy cause he would whip Broners ass if you ask me :-X
Indeed. Just say he's going back down and leave it at that. The explanation they give makes a quacking noise. Now it may not be Broner but that's part of the problem to. Being led around on a leash because some pimp considers you the equivalent of a living rrsp. Its more mediocrity being shoved down our throats.
Re: GBP=Golden Boy Protectionism?
Quote:
Its more mediocrity being shoved down our throats.
There's worse things to be shoved down one's throat! :D
Re: GBP=Golden Boy Protectionism?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Swanson
The whole sport is this way now. Look at Golovkin, his team says they will go to 168 for Chavez when the excuse for all his weak opponents was clearing out 160 the excuse to stay away from Ward was clearing out 160 but Chavez is worth moving up Chavez?!
I don't say this to call out GGG, I say it to show that everything everyone of these a-holes say is bullshit. They have a business plan, everything that fits into that plan is good and everything else is bullshit.
People like the drama of "he's scared" "he's ducking" but this isn't the opera, it isn't nearly as dramatic as all that. It's cold calculated business and that cold calculated business takes more from the fans and gives less back all the time.
Its starting to take its toll this modern day scab fest. The game is confused. All the top guys looking for reasons why not to fight. The old lets make 4 belts instead of one or the line will get to long is laughable. Wish I hadn't lived through so many eras. After 45 plus years of following the sport its indifference to itself is about one step from sending me packing for awhile and shutting it off completely. Again I wish I was born in the 80's,having not witnessed other times in this sport. Stupid cause and effect lol.
Re: GBP=Golden Boy Protectionism?
Steve Kim on MaxBoxing made a good point with regard to Al Haymon: he's great for his fighters, not great for boxing fans.
Look at Kid Chocolate. He fought a tough fight against Rosado in October 2013. Now's he fighting an older junior middleweight when he has Curtis Stevens and Macklin calling him out.
With respect to Broner, I agree with Finito, he took a tough loss, and they should spend some time rebuilding him. Khan is too dangerous an opponent right now. As for Khan, he deserves better than Collazo if he was in the running for Mayweather and Broner. In terms of money, Collazo doesn't bring the same level to the table as other guys in their stable do.
And Stevenson? Signs with Haymon and now it appears is moving away from facing Kovalev.
It's not just Haymon though. Look at Canelo. Lara is the logical fight for him next. He beat Angulo, who Canelo is fighting now. Canelo-Angulo makes sense (maybe not on PPV though), but Lara should be next. Yet, Shaeffer is already talking about matching Lara with the Molina/Charlo winner.
That's why we need to embrace it in a way when someone goes for greatness when they don't have to. Like Loma taking on Salido in his second (or 7th) pro fight or Cotto fighting Martinez.
Re: GBP=Golden Boy Protectionism?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
It's not just Haymon though
True it most certainly isn't. Its systemic. The business of boxing is now what its about not the boxing. Its like a black hole or close to it with less and less light escaping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
That's why we need to embrace it in a way when someone goes for greatness when they don't have to. Like Loma taking on Salido in his second (or 7th) pro fight or Cotto fighting Martinez.
Nail on the head right there.
