Here, Angel Garcia explains why Thurman and Porter shouldn't fight each other. Notably, he states, "why would you fight each other when you can fight a [Rod] Salka." It goes to the root of the PBC philosophy.
Printable View
Here, Angel Garcia explains why Thurman and Porter shouldn't fight each other. Notably, he states, "why would you fight each other when you can fight a [Rod] Salka." It goes to the root of the PBC philosophy.
Its business fella.
We all want the best to fight the best but at the same time theres nothing wrong in a but of milking from time to time.
Khan would beat porter and thurman.
Obviously he's a moron, find his comments weird though, as Garcia until recently didn't actually shy away from tough fights, and has actually looked worse since. Fighting Khan and Matthyse were exactly the kind of fight his dad is saying guys shouldn't take, no? Would Garcia have been in a position to make money off the Salka types without those wins? Porter also hasn't made a habit of feeding on bums, he's been inactive now but from when he came on the scene he fought Alexander, BRook and Broner within a couple of years. It's Thurman who really stands out to me, what the hell is this guy doing?
To be honest, I see THurman vs Porter as just a pretty nice fight, nothing special and if they are making it out to be that it really does give you a state of affairs.
Man that's embarrassing. The reason 'why no Salka' is that people actually remember Salkas name??? Salka is a good boxer and did well to come back but truth is he was a dead man walking, he never belonged there. Not only with CW bs but simple level! Garcia is the poster boy for trying to marinade a talent too long. From sensational upset to mastering a boogie man in best win vs Matthysse to now robberies and taking half steps to crash a stacked division. Thurman v Porter is a fine fight and what we need more of regardless if promotion is PBC, MIA, or QVC. He references Oscar to compare what Garcia is doing ;D. I mean his son is fighting a guy Thurman just beat, and his last win was Paulie who Porter obliterated a year ago! Angel should fight Guerreros dad. One huge Pop off.
As annoying as it is for fans, can you really blame the fighters for accepting big money for "easy" fights? Thank Al Haymon.
I like Porter-Thurman but the fact it's seen as some massive fight (they're not even the best in the division) just shows what this PBC have been serving up.
Nothing I hate more in boxing than "wait until they get bigger." Funk that! If it's a good match it's a good match. Make it.
This is Haymons attempt to get someone in place to be the single heir apparent, 1 month before Pac retires after the Bradley fight. Arum's greed already tarnished Bradley in that role by making this rubber match, rather than having Bradley carve out a new niche under atlas's tutelage and blowing out a young lion (rather than blwon out rios,which arum has again tried to pass off as such--like he did with the comebacking pacquiao.) Bradley stands in no mans land with the rubber match (As many on here have already said-- if he loses to pac its no shock... if he wins vs pac-- then pac was shopworn). Bradley's really just a placeholder right now... a single bargaining chip to keep arums foot in the door while Arum doubles down on Crawford) Crawford graduates to welter and bradley's done by that time or Arum Cashes him out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
So The winner or Porter/ Thurman, becomes the new young peoples champ with a future. The loser becomes number two. Pile some bodies on, like Garcia, Guerrero, etc. and flood the market with top tier and good enough fighters and now Arum only has a single dog in this fight with Bradley till Crawford cant make 140 anymore. But till then you have to go through Haymon to get anywhere in the division unless the monopoly claims/suit can kick the door open for you. Right now its on the Sanctioning bodies to even it out as Haymons trying to leverage salaries against titles. I think we'll see a few fighters relinquish a title for more cash this year.
I do not think Khan could beat Thurman.Quote:
Originally Posted by imp
Everyone ready to blame PBC, tell me just what Brook has done? He's a talent too. Is it the PBCs fault Brook has an awful CV? Stop trying to blame one entity when everyone is doing it FFS. You can't see the Forrest for the trees.
That's a good point of course and I don't exclude Brook at all, especially these days, but he did show a pair and establish himself beating Porter in America. I don't believe any of these guys are scared of each other, think it's just the fact that Porter-Thurman is being treated like some mega fight instead of just a good logical one paints a picture. Brook-Khan is no different really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson
As much as it causes me an aneurism PBC has Porter v Thurman right. I can't on one hand fault a Salka easy money set up...we're fans not a fighters accountant...and then go meh on this go between two top ten guys. Look Haymon puts out some absolute gar-baage cards where its all about moving only one guy, one rung at a time...set ups. But he's done what we knew he was doing. Signing a few retreads and end of the liners along with top talent. Keeps it in house as all have and cycles through the rotation ever so sloooowly making some good fights. Save up the meh and complaints ;D. It looks like part of this wbc tournament will be Berto vs Peterson. Now that is the Haymon scrap yard.
If PBC keeps on making fights like Garcia-Salka they're not going to get anywhere. Boxing has had decades of guys winning a belt and making somewhat of a name for themselves and then having half a dozen Salka-like fights or more before they fight anybody dangerous. That's mainly why it's in the position it's in. PBC is not going to reverse boxing's slide by more of the same.
It is on free network and they are winning fans that would not normally watch. It is a good business model.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
@Master, don't contradict kirk, he is always right.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterIt is on free network and they are winning fans that would not normally watch. It is a good business model.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
No he is not. I am.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus@Master, don't contradict kirk, he is always right.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterIt is on free network and they are winning fans that would not normally watch. It is a good business model.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
It's not a good business model at all, it's currently a massive loss-making enterprise. It's based on hope that more and more fans keep watching PBC as time goes by and eventually PBC becomes something that TV companies will pay money to show. Currently Haymon's backers are paying the TV companies to show the shows and paying the fighters HBO money.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterIt is on free network and they are winning fans that would not normally watch. It is a good business model.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
They're investing tens of millions of dollars in the hope that PBC becomes a lot more popular than it is. If it doesn't they lose their dough. And the calibre of fights they're showing isn't even impressing existing fans, never mind attracting new fans in the numbers needed to make PBC financially viable.
It may not even come down to whether the product is any good. Haymon is facing a couple of potentially game-ending lawsuits but his biggest problem may be that the hedge fund putting up all the money having been making big losses over the past year. Losses at hedge funds are often followed by management firings and hirings and the new guys may not see PBC as worth the investment. It's only about 1% of the fund that they're investing with Haymon but when you've made big losses that 1% suddenly becomes a lot of money.
That 1% is a tax right off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingIt's not a good business model at all, it's currently a massive loss-making enterprise. It's based on hope that more and more fans keep watching PBC as time goes by and eventually PBC becomes something that TV companies will pay money to show. Currently Haymon's backers are paying the TV companies to show the shows and paying the fighters HBO money.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterIt is on free network and they are winning fans that would not normally watch. It is a good business model.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
They're investing tens of millions of dollars in the hope that PBC becomes a lot more popular than it is. If it doesn't they lose their dough. And the calibre of fights they're showing isn't even impressing existing fans, never mind attracting new fans in the numbers needed to make PBC financially viable.
It may not even come down to whether the product is any good. Haymon is facing a couple of potentially game-ending lawsuits but his biggest problem may be that the hedge fund putting up all the money having been making big losses over the past year. Losses at hedge funds are often followed by management firings and hirings and the new guys may not see PBC as worth the investment. It's only about 1% of the fund that they're investing with Haymon but when you've made big losses that 1% suddenly becomes a lot of money.
Go to an undefeated PBC/Haymon IBF champions backyard, whoop him, then go back to England with his belt to headline his own shows, whilst getting shamelessly ducked by his biggest rival, who is a PBC/Haymon fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson
Everyone does it. No doubt about it. Most people, however, deny it. Garcia outright admits it, which makes it all the more intriguing. PBC has most of the fighters in the premiere divisions, stages more shows, and is on television more so the Salka-esque fights happens more often with the PBC. Consequently, the effect of the Salka-esque fights is cumulatively larger. If you look at the PBC landscape at 147-154, this is maybe the first time that they've put two of their best, and arguably A-sides, in with each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson
PBC needs to win new boxing fans and get it exposure for it to be characterized as a success. There are many problems with their strategy. First, they are ignoring the hardcore boxing fan by staging so many "Salka-esque" fights. Second, they aren't going to win new fans by staging Salka-esque fights. Third, by paying boxers so much for facing Salka-esque opponents, they request a ridiculous amount of money to face a challenge, and it distorts the market. As Garcia said, why face a tough guy, when you can get paid well to face Salka.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterIt is on free network and they are winning fans that would not normally watch. It is a good business model.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
They don't pay tax anyway. And it's not a write off, it's a loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterThat 1% is a tax right off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingIt's not a good business model at all, it's currently a massive loss-making enterprise. It's based on hope that more and more fans keep watching PBC as time goes by and eventually PBC becomes something that TV companies will pay money to show. Currently Haymon's backers are paying the TV companies to show the shows and paying the fighters HBO money.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterIt is on free network and they are winning fans that would not normally watch. It is a good business model.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
They're investing tens of millions of dollars in the hope that PBC becomes a lot more popular than it is. If it doesn't they lose their dough. And the calibre of fights they're showing isn't even impressing existing fans, never mind attracting new fans in the numbers needed to make PBC financially viable.
It may not even come down to whether the product is any good. Haymon is facing a couple of potentially game-ending lawsuits but his biggest problem may be that the hedge fund putting up all the money having been making big losses over the past year. Losses at hedge funds are often followed by management firings and hirings and the new guys may not see PBC as worth the investment. It's only about 1% of the fund that they're investing with Haymon but when you've made big losses that 1% suddenly becomes a lot of money.