Comments Thread For: What is Al Haymon Planning?

[Kagami Taiga]

Haymon has the boxing industry running scared. It's their own fault. How long did they think the status quo was gonna work?

[BOXEO _]

Oscar de la Hoya has Al Haymon by the balls, Haymon's nothing without GBP.

[NOI]

it was only a matter of time before some powerful, wealthy entertainment mogul such as Haymon figured out that Boxing has been in a downward spiraling state of disarray for decades

It's rife for the pickings and ready to be taken

Arum could've done it, King could've done it, but it looks like Haymon will be the one to do it

This could only be bad for Boxing, get ready for more Garcia/Salka matchups to create "Stars" rather than epic fights. I ****ing hate this hip-hop transition Boxing is going through, ****ing haaaaaaaaaate it

I love it. Much like Anakin from star wars Haymon is bringing balance to boxing one way or another. And frankly those great years of boxing we had, have been pretty much thanks to Al Haymon.
I really like the slow evolution boxing has made over the years thanks to Al and Richard. In the past few years i seen promotions like no other with Mayweather Canelo being the best promotion yet. I have gotten to watch Boxing in movie theaters multiple times.
Most importantly and a fact that people don't seem to get is, that we have seen more good fights with GBP and Al Haymon then we have so called "missed" with the so call "Cold Wars". We got great fight like Floyd-Canelo, Broner-Maidana, Maidana-Karass, Berto-Ortiz Porter-Alexander and we had smaller little detailed fights that should have happened like Malignani vs Juda in NYC. I mean hell Al Haymon made me watch Bhop which i swore i would never do again after that travesty of a rematch with Roy Jones.

So in the short term while Al and Richard make their adjustment of not having GBP as there main promoter and not wanting to put to much money into the company and risking there fighters under that banner, i will deal with the string of crappy fights we will see until they drop the bombs on us.

[LouIE G]

Whos gonna get the ******est post of the day award????

[DoktorSleepless]

Multiple sources say that NBC has agreed in principle to a plan pursuant to which Haymon***8217;s company (or a stand-in) would buy $20,000,000 worth of time on NBC and televise at least twenty fights cards during a one-year period. Most of the fights would be on the NBC Sports channel, but at least three would be on NBC.

This actually sounds pretty good.

IThis article is in serious need of editing from an ethical standpoint and it's not even funny. There's a lot of great reporting in here, but holy crap. The most ironic statement in this whole article is this sentence:

To Bishop***8217;s dismay, his article was substantially toned down before publication at the instruction of his editor.

Responsible editors cut down things for a reason, especially a publication like The Times. If Bishop didn't have the sources to back up some of the claims, which Hauser clearly doesn't here, then certain parts of the article need to be scaled back --- not only for legality, but also ethically.

How do you know Hauser doesn't have the sources to back up his claims? And which things aren't ethical specifically?

[hectari]

I just read that Al Haymon is half ***ish so his IQ must be pretty high.

Arum sees him as a threat, both came from Harvard too.

[thuggery]

This actually sounds pretty good.

Not if it's the Danny Garcia's vs the Rod Salsa's of the world.

[warp1432]

This may fall on deaf ears, but here are all the areas where I think are clearly unnecessary, ranging from being overdramatic to borderline unethical on Hauser's part. Again, this is a bomb-worthy piece that's dragged down a lot by, based on Hauser's past articles, bias.

Brewster ended his career as a human punching bag for the likes of Gbenga Okoukon and Robert Helenius. He is now vision-impaired and, possibly, legally blind in one eye.

First off, talk about burying the lead. The most newsworthy stuff is dragged down to the middle of the article so Hauser can first establish that Haymon has a shady past with getting clients. The story, which has been reported before, might be worth telling, but there are two major problems with it:

1. It's setup to seem more like a hit piece at the beginning.
2. The part I quoted above is completely unnecessary. Brewster's troubles with his sight can't be attributed to Haymon. Most of that damage was caused by fighting too long and a vicious fight. You could argue that Haymon shouldn't have advised him to take those fights, but there are many cases where this happens to boxers. Including it just adds to the drama of making seem Haymon like a godfather-type figure who has no regard for his clients.

This article doesn't even mention Haymon's beginning in boxing years earlier when he started working with Vernon Forrest. Why is Brewster's case mentioned specifically? Again, it's to setup Haymon in a light that doesn't portray the whole setting of his background. (For the record: I think Haymon is a pretty shady guy too. I'm not a Haymon defender by any means).

Haymon has a lot of people***8217;s testicles in his pocket. Greg Bishop found that out in 2011, when he began researching a profile on Haymon for the New York Times . Dozens of people whom Bishop called either declined comment or failed to return his telephone calls. An attorney for Haymon sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Times. To Bishop***8217;s dismay, his article was substantially toned down before publication at the instruction of his editor.

This part in italics is what really gets me. Maybe the Haymon cease-and-desist letter to the Times is what scared the editor. Or maybe, like this piece, Bishop had pieces of info that weren't exactly reliable. Editors at publications like The Times work closely with their writers to understand and work on the articles published. Hauser makes it seem like Haymon pressure edited that article, but there could also have been valid reasons why the editor thought pieces needed to be "toned" down.

When Hauser gets into the bulk of his work after this, a lot of the reporting is great. I don't mind "sources" as long as they're reliable. Hauser has enough journalism experience to where I trust him on this and a lot of new information is being shed to light. Good job. It's after this where things get a little murky again, starting with this:

But there***8217;s a time-honored axiom in law enforcement: ***8220;Follow the money.***8221;

If someone were to track what happened to the total license fees paid for each of the televised shows that Al Haymon***8217;s fighters have been involved with, things might get interesting. For example, shifting license fees from one fight to another is sometimes improper; particularly when it has the effect of disadvantaging a particular fighter, manager, or promoter without that person***8217;s knowledge. Here, one might note that, under federal law, certain revenue streams paid to promoters must be accurately disclosed to fighters.

This is a very heavy allegation that, honestly, I can't believe wasn't cut from this article. What proof does Hauser have in that money was shifted? He doesn't have anyone on record telling him that or even as a source. It's pure speculation that creates the perception that Haymon is doing something entirely illegal, but authorities just haven't checked into it.

That is journalism botched. It's going into unethical lines. It's one thing to suggest something through multiple sources or have certain instances, but frankly there's nothing here that Hauser presents.

To clarify it even further for those still reading, Hauser does something similar somewhat earlier with "Is Haymon breaking the Ali Act?" Why this, IMO, is fair game for the article is because Hauser has that lawsuit to back it up. English and Main Events have accused Haymon of that in a lawsuit and while it will be up to them to prove it in a court of law, Hauser can speculate using the lawsuit (and since this reads more like a commentary in parts than just reporting).

This was a good article, but some of it is crap.

[ShoulderRoll]

This actually sounds pretty good.

I was thinking the same thing. Pay NBC an upfront fee then try to profit from all the advertising. It's not a bad idea, plus it would get boxing back on network TV three times a year.

The thing I'm a little wary of is the online subscription thing. We live in the internet age and it seems like the time is ripe for that (even Bob Arum wants to try selling PPVs on handheld devices in China) but it hasn't worked out well for the WWE so far.

[Syf]

First off, talk about burying the lead. The most newsworthy stuff is dragged down to the middle of the article so Hauser can first establish that Haymon has a shady past with getting clients. The story, which has been reported before, might be worth telling, but there are two major problems with it:

1. It's setup to seem more like a hit piece at the beginning.
2. The part I quoted above is completely unnecessary. Brewster's troubles with his sight can't be attributed to Haymon. Most of that damage was caused by fighting too long and a vicious fight. You could argue that Haymon shouldn't have advised him to take those fights, but there are many cases where this happens to boxers. Including it just adds to the drama of making seem Haymon like a godfather-type figure who has no regard for his clients.

This article doesn't even mention Haymon's beginning in boxing years earlier when he started working with Vernon Forrest. Why is Brewster's case mentioned specifically? Again, it's to setup Haymon in a light that doesn't portray the whole setting of his background. (For the record: I think Haymon is a pretty shady guy too. I'm not a Haymon defender by any means).



This part in italics is what really gets me. Maybe the Haymon cease-and-desist letter to the Times is what scared the editor. Or maybe, like this piece, Bishop had pieces of info that weren't exactly reliable. Editors at publications like The Times work closely with their writers to understand and work on the articles published. Hauser makes it seem like Haymon pressure edited that article, but there could also have been valid reasons why the editor thought pieces needed to be "toned" down.

When Hauser gets into the bulk of his work after this, a lot of the reporting is great. I don't mind "sources" as long as they're reliable. Hauser has enough journalism experience to where I trust him on this and a lot of new information is being shed to light. Good job. It's after this where things get a little murky again, starting with this:



This is a very heavy allegation that, honestly, I can't believe wasn't cut from this article. What proof does Hauser have in that money was shifted? He doesn't have anyone on record telling him that or even as a source. It's pure speculation that creates the perception that Haymon is doing something entirely illegal, but authorities just haven't checked into it.

That is journalism botched. It's going into unethical lines. It's one thing to suggest something through multiple sources or have certain instances, but frankly there's nothing here that Hauser presents.

To clarify it even further for those still reading, Hauser does something similar somewhat earlier with "Is Haymon breaking the Ali Act?" Why this, IMO, is fair game for the article is because Hauser has that lawsuit to back it up. English and Main Events have accused Haymon of that in a lawsuit and while it will be up to them to prove it in a court of law, Hauser can speculate using the lawsuit (and since this reads more like a commentary in parts than just reporting).

This was a good article, but some of it is crap.

He makes it clear he is speculating in several areas. Theorizing and postulating... There is very little to go on With Haymon.. He operates behind the scenes. I, for one, appreciate the author's efforts in shedding a bit of light on the situation.