Boxing Forums



User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 36

Thread: An Open Letter to Richard Schaefer: From: Nate Campbell

Share/Bookmark

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Charlottetown, Canada
    Posts
    2,292
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    2615
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: An Open Letter to Richard Schaefer: From: Nate Campbell

    It looks like GBP is trying to control Boxing. They are attempting to discredit the alphabet soup and making Oscar's belt the only one that matters.

    I would not have an issue with that, but with them basically owning that belt, it will force any fighter who wants a crack at it, to join their team.

    The fears of many are starting to show some truth here. Oscar wants to become Dana White and control it all.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    12,748
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1344
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: An Open Letter to Richard Schaefer: From: Nate Campbell

    Wow. He really did take it to him, you pretty much have to agree with everything he says. I thought Golden Boy would be good for boxing when it first came about, since then I've got to say I think completely the opposite.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    The Fighting City of Philadelphia
    Posts
    2,469
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1582
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: An Open Letter to Richard Schaefer: From: Nate Campbell

    Quote Originally Posted by p4pking View Post
    Wow. He really did take it to him, you pretty much have to agree with everything he says. I thought Golden Boy would be good for boxing when it first came about, since then I've got to say I think completely the opposite.
    Regardless of what The Ring Champions do: there are two constants
    1) the belt does not get stripped and can only change hands involuntarily in the Ring

    2) There is no sanctioning fee corruption, because there are no sanctioning fees.

    No matter who wins the Ring titles, because of these two constants, it will always be a more legitimate Belt then the alphabet titles.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Charlottetown, Canada
    Posts
    2,292
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    2615
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: An Open Letter to Richard Schaefer: From: Nate Campbell

    Quote Originally Posted by lance Uppercut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by p4pking View Post
    Wow. He really did take it to him, you pretty much have to agree with everything he says. I thought Golden Boy would be good for boxing when it first came about, since then I've got to say I think completely the opposite.
    Regardless of what The Ring Champions do: there are two constants
    1) the belt does not get stripped and can only change hands involuntarily in the Ring

    2) There is no sanctioning fee corruption, because there are no sanctioning fees.

    No matter who wins the Ring titles, because of these two constants, it will always be a more legitimate Belt then the alphabet titles.
    What you are missing though, is that in the very near future, there will be fighters without promotional ties to Golden Boy, who might never even get a crack at the belt, as they are not under Golden Boy's umbrella. GBP has already tried to exclude Nate from a shot at Manny by trying to set up a fight with JMM in November instead of "soon". That is what Nate is lashing out about.
    Last edited by Deanrw; 05-06-2008 at 08:03 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    12,748
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1344
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: An Open Letter to Richard Schaefer: From: Nate Campbell

    Quote Originally Posted by Deanrw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lance Uppercut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by p4pking View Post
    Wow. He really did take it to him, you pretty much have to agree with everything he says. I thought Golden Boy would be good for boxing when it first came about, since then I've got to say I think completely the opposite.
    Regardless of what The Ring Champions do: there are two constants
    1) the belt does not get stripped and can only change hands involuntarily in the Ring

    2) There is no sanctioning fee corruption, because there are no sanctioning fees.

    No matter who wins the Ring titles, because of these two constants, it will always be a more legitimate Belt then the alphabet titles.
    What you are missing though, is that in the very near future, there will be fighters without promotional ties to Golden Boy, who might never even get a crack at the belt, as they are not under Golden Boy's umbrella. GBP has already tried to exclude Nate from a shot at Manny by trying to set up a fight with JMM in November instead of "soon". That is what Nate is lashing out about.
    Exactly. It could potentially be no different than another sanctioning body in the near future, at least bit by bit as GBP fighters acquire the belts, or as GBP acquires ring champions And although the belt's can't be stripped, I don't believe they have ever had mandatory ring challengers, so DLH can sort of plot the way his champions are going to with defending the belts. Were already seeing him jerk people around to set up the matchups he want's, and there's no possibility of any sanctioning body or other promoters in the way. At least with sanctioning bodies and promoters they have bargaining power and a process on each side, with DLH both promoting and owning the title's his fighters hold is worrisome for the sport imo. I think it's very likely that the ring belts could quickly lose prestige as GBP becomes more involved with them. I mean you could liken this to Don King buying out Jose Suliman and becoming president of the WBC or something. Were already seeing huge conflicts happen at lightweight, and I do believe Casamyor is the only ring champ GBP has in it's stable...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New England, USA
    Posts
    3,986
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1175
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: An Open Letter to Richard Schaefer: From: Nate Campbell

    I like this guy, he makes some good points. He must love being the man in the division with all the GB fighters ranked below him.
    Psalm 144: Blessed be the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    9,794
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1425
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: An Open Letter to Richard Schaefer: From: Nate Campbell

    Boy there sure is a lot of Golden Boy Promotions paranoia goin round here huh?

    Campbell is a pimp. Gotta agree with him though.
    "You knocked him down...now how bout you try knockin me down ?"

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    None of your buisness.
    Posts
    7,691
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1792
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: An Open Letter to Richard Schaefer: From: Nate Campbell

    This is what I've been saying about GBP, and why I now dislike ODLH. Everyone knows Nate Campbell should be getting his choice of opponents holding 3 titles, but he is left scrounging for a fight. That shit aint right.....

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beyond the wall
    Posts
    17,202
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    4435
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: An Open Letter to Richard Schaefer: From: Nate Campbell

    I am officially a Nate Campbell fan now!!

  10. #10
    XaduBoxer Guest

    Default Re: An Open Letter to Richard Schaefer: From: Nate Campbell

    Quote Originally Posted by p4pking View Post
    Wow. He really did take it to him, you pretty much have to agree with everything he says. I thought Golden Boy would be good for boxing when it first came about, since then I've got to say I think completely the opposite.

    GBP good for boxing?

    1. GBP has not develop their own talent. Their prospects were falling down one by one. They rely on their old guards (Oscar, Hopkins, Mosley, Barrera) for some top promotions.

    2. GBP is pirating top boxers from other stables. For example when they offered PAC a suitcase full of money just to sign up for them (good PAC realized it's not the best thing for him after signing the contract).

    3. GBP is a proven top promoter? Say the Oscar-PBF fight. Yes it broke the all time record for PPV buys but what did the fans got? The fans felt robbed of their hard earned $60 after watching a boring main event in a lackluster fight card (remember "Stinko de Mayo"). Now GBP is planning a rematch, Oscar-PBF 2. I'll pity the next million casual boxing fans that they want to rob again. Oscar already got his crack on PBF and he came up short. Why don't he give this chance to another boxer like Cotto? (PBF-Cotto match up is what fans are craving for). Ohh I understand Cotto is not a GBP boxer. Then why not give this chance to Mosley? Specially if Mosley beats Judah. Mosley is already old and has given a lot to boxing. Mosley should be rewarded with a crack on PBF since fans think that he's one of the boxers who can give Floyd a tough fight. Maybe Oscar can get another crack on PBF after 1 or 2 boxers will have their first crack on Floyd.

    4. GBP trying to monopolize boxing. Just like the scenario Nate mentioned in his letter. GBP planning to control fights at lightweight division.


    I feel GBP is not really doing it all for the good for boxing. GBP is more concern with the money from boxing.

    .
    Last edited by XaduBoxer; 05-06-2008 at 11:09 PM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    This Lunatic Asylum
    Posts
    23,278
    Mentioned
    428 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    3133
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: An Open Letter to Richard Schaefer: From: Nate Campbell

    Campbell is promoted by Don King, right?
    3-Time SADDO PREDICTION COMP CHAMPION.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beyond the wall
    Posts
    17,202
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    4435
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: An Open Letter to Richard Schaefer: From: Nate Campbell

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenster View Post
    Campbell is promoted by Don King, right?
    Doesn't make his points any less valid, gotta love the "fight me now leave the marketing behind" thing.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    6,176
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    2321
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: An Open Letter to Richard Schaefer: From: Nate Campbell

    I'm a big Campbell fan have been for ages but in attacking the Ring belt he's wrong. He can say whatever he wants about GBP but the facts are the Ring champion still has to win the fights. I don't really mind what fighter the champion is fighting but the winner will be recognized champion & thats a fact.

    IMO the best fighters usually what to test themselves against the best.

    I agree that November is to long & a Marquez fight should be made sooner. The fight I'd really prefer to see is Casamayor/ Campbell so maybe once Joel is done with Diaz it can be made.

    If Nate is so worried about Santa Cruz why doesn't he offer him a fight? It might not make much money but would put him in good stead for a Casamayor remtch
    The Best There Is, The Best There Was, The Best There Ever Will Be

  14. #14
    XaduBoxer Guest

    Default Re: An Open Letter to Richard Schaefer: From: Nate Campbell

    If GBP is serious in offering a fight for Nate, they should offer either JMM, Casamayor or Juan Diaz (or Barrera?) for a July fight... Santa Cruz is not included coz he at least should have a rematch with Casamayor first... Katsidis? Naah, Kats will be considered to fight Nate only if he will be allowed to wear his helmet while boxing with Nate...

    .

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    The Fighting City of Philadelphia
    Posts
    2,469
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1582
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: An Open Letter to Richard Schaefer: From: Nate Campbell

    Quote Originally Posted by Deanrw View Post
    It looks like GBP is trying to control Boxing. They are attempting to discredit the alphabet soup and making Oscar's belt the only one that matters.
    I dont think that will take any effort.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Richard Schaefer: Possible Marquez-Barrera Rematch
    By :::PSL::: in forum Boxing Talk
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-26-2008, 08:20 AM
  2. Nate Campbell as Bhop
    By Julius Rain in forum Boxing Talk
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-11-2008, 03:03 AM
  3. Nate Campbell
    By OumaFan in forum Boxing Talk
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-11-2007, 11:44 AM
  4. Nate Campbell back July 6.
    By El Gamo in forum Boxing Talk
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-03-2007, 08:05 PM
  5. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-08-2007, 07:07 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




Boxing | Boxing Photos | Boxing News | Boxing Forum | Boxing Rankings

Copyright © 2000 - 2025 Saddo Boxing - Boxing