[daprofessor]

EXCELLENT TOPIC!!!! While this may be blasphemous to say (on this forum), but MMA's, specifically UFC's current model isn't a bad one. The only problem w/ that, is ONE promotion company can be just as disastrous as the current "free for all" model boxing currently has. Personally, I would like to see boxing model the 4 major sports (at least in the U.S.) and form a conglomerate. It's under ONE brand, to include unified rules in all STATES. Meaning, you can do "x, y, z" in Mississippi, but can only do "x & y" in California. Cut that bullshit out. The "conglomerate" schedules the fights, based on a transparent criteria (not some crazy by-law they conjured up during lunch) and the negotiations can be conducted by the fighters' manager and/or agent (obviously, w/ input from the fighter).

With this power, the conglomerate would take a "piece" off the top of the revenue for, not limited to:

Operational expenses
Fighter medical
Fighter pension
Incidentals

The fighter and his manager/agent, would work out training camp expenses (travel, food, lodging, etc.).

This clearly will NOT happen, but it's one way to minimize the power of the "promoter".

all mma/ufc did was attempt to reinvent the wheel. nothing that they do is new or foreign to boxing. the one promoter thing would be very bad for the fighters.

[Jack 1000]

EXCELLENT TOPIC!!!! While this may be blasphemous to say (on this forum), but MMA's, specifically UFC's current model isn't a bad one. The only problem w/ that, is ONE promotion company can be just as disastrous as the current "free for all" model boxing currently has. Personally, I would like to see boxing model the 4 major sports (at least in the U.S.) and form a conglomerate. It's under ONE brand, to include unified rules in all STATES. Meaning, you can do "x, y, z" in Mississippi, but can only do "x & y" in California. Cut that bullshit out. The "conglomerate" schedules the fights, based on a transparent criteria (not some crazy by-law they conjured up during lunch) and the negotiations can be conducted by the fighters' manager and/or agent (obviously, w/ input from the fighter).

+5! Yes! 5 stars! It is that good of an idea.

Even the Uniform Rules of the ABC (Association of Boxing Commissions) are not universally respected. You can't have Texas, the WBC, for example flip-flopping on the use of 4th and 8th round open scoring because the WBC requests it. Whether "public" or "private" it's a violation of the Unified Rules. It should matter how influential a promoter or sanctioning body is, or who the fighters are. No open scoring. Open scoring violates ABC bi-laws, so stop trying to fuck with ABC bi-laws Texas and the WBC by bringing it into fights when state commissions should have the free right to reject it at anytime. That's just one example.

California sometimes using unified rules and sometimes using their own state rules. Remember the bullshit with Paul Williams-Kermit Cintron? Rules have to be uniform and universally applied by a regional and respected governing body for boxing. You can't have XYZ allowed everyone, but Texas and California only allow X and Z.

And make sure that HBO/Showtime or whatever PPV outlet has communicated with the commission the rules and regulations that will be used during the fight! Many times they assume Unified Rules are in effect when they are not! And make sure the FIGHTERS know the rules and their corners! For example, Marco Rubio was never informed, or claimed that no one said that Texas approved private open scoring after the 4th and 8th round for the corners only in his fight with Chavez Jr. He assumed (correctly) that open scoring is prohibited in USA jurisdictions. (And in the UK as well.)

Chavez not having to take a post-fight drug test. The WBC and Texas each blaming the other for this violation.

Jack

[daprofessor]

+5! Yes! 5 stars! It is that good of an idea.

Even the Uniform Rules of the ABC (Association of Boxing Commissions) are not universally respected. You can't have Texas, the WBC, for example flip-flopping on the use of 4th and 8th round open scoring because the WBC requests it. Whether "public" or "private" it's a violation of the Unified Rules. It should matter how influential a promoter or sanctioning body is, or who the fighters are. No open scoring. Open scoring violates ABC bi-laws, so stop trying to fuck with ABC bi-laws Texas and the WBC by bringing it into fights when state commissions should have the free right to reject it at anytime. That's just one example.

California sometimes using unified rules and sometimes using their own state rules. Remember the bullshit with Paul Williams-Kermit Cintron? Rules have to be uniform and universally applied by a regional and respected governing body for boxing. You can't have XYZ allowed everyone, but Texas and California only allow X and Z.

And make sure that HBO/Showtime or whatever PPV outlet has communicated with the commission the rules and regulations that will be used during the fight! Many times they assume Unified Rules are in effect when they are not! And make sure the FIGHTERS know the rules and their corners! For example, Marco Rubio was never informed, or claimed that no one said that Texas approved private open scoring after the 4th and 8th round for the corners only in his fight with Chavez Jr. He assumed (correctly) that open scoring is prohibited in USA jurisdictions. (And in the UK as well.)Chavez not having to take a post-fight drug test. The WBC and Texas each blaming the other for this violation.

Jack

excellent point!!! kirkland/molina is another example!!!

[Jack 1000]

+5! Yes! 5 stars! It is that good of an idea.

Even the Uniform Rules of the ABC (Association of Boxing Commissions) are not universally respected. You can't have Texas, the WBC, for example flip-flopping on the use of 4th and 8th round open scoring because the WBC requests it. Whether "public" or "private" it's a violation of the Unified Rules. It shouldn't matter how influential a promoter or sanctioning body is, or who the fighters are. No open scoring. Open scoring violates ABC bi-laws, so stop trying to fuck with ABC bi-laws Texas and the WBC by bringing it into fights when state commissions should have the free right to reject it at anytime. That's just one example.

California sometimes using unified rules and sometimes using their own state rules. Remember the bullshit with Paul Williams-Kermit Cintron? Rules have to be uniform and universally applied by a regional and respected governing body for boxing. You can't have XYZ allowed everyone, but Texas and California only allow X and Z.

And make sure that HBO/Showtime or whatever PPV outlet has communicated with the commission the rules and regulations that will be used during the fight! Many times they assume Unified Rules are in effect when they are not! And make sure the FIGHTERS know the rules and their corners! For example, Marco Rubio was never informed, or claimed that no one said that Texas approved private open scoring after the 4th and 8th round for the corners only in his fight with Chavez Jr. He assumed (correctly) that open scoring is prohibited in USA jurisdictions. (And in the UK as well.)

Chavez not having to take a post-fight drug test. The WBC and Texas each blaming the other for this violation.

Jack

Correction-Above post should say "It SHOULDN'T matter how influential a promoter or sanctioning body is." (Not should.) It has been corrected.

Jack

[bnoles4life]

all mma/ufc did was attempt to reinvent the wheel. nothing that they do is new or foreign to boxing. the one promoter thing would be very bad for the fighters.

True story and thus why I said the "one promotor" would be jus' as disastrous as multiple promotors. However, where they do differ (read: are better than boxing) is in many of their match-ups make sense. Moreover, their mandatories are actually exercised. Rankings actually matter in MMA/UFC. In boxing, the champ may fight the #6 ranked fighter in his division....wtf is the #1 ranked fighter in the division doing? Washing his hair? Doing taxes? Don't get me wrong, everything that glitters isn't gold, but dayum...enough already.


Lastly, their version of Floyd vs. Manny (Silva/Sonnen) has already happened and the rematch is set for this summer. IMO, this should shame the hell outta boxing.

[Cshel86]

Where there's contenders, competition, and money involved...there will ALWAYS be a high chance of monopoly. The questions is, whose going to be #1 and at what cost? There will always be a promoter, fighter, manager, family member, co-worker, etc., that will either be covertly or overtly aggressive in their intentions to be #1.

Of course you have the overtly aggressive promoters like Arum, who make it painfully obvious that they're "out to win" and have no shame in doing so. He's controlling, manipulative, and shows disdain when he's figured out by the public.

Then you have guys like GBP and DiBella Promotions who are covertly aggressive promoters who are "out to win", but they come off as "wanting to give the fans what they want" just to win the approval of the public, but I'm sure they'd do the same as Arum if they were in his position.

[Hotsauce]

i remember sugar ray leonard saying u never hear the word contender in boxing anymore

This post has been edited by Hotsauce: May 23 2012, 09:55 AM

[Franchize]

Just a suggestion. The first thing that needs to happen, for the sport in general is the need for some type of uniformity. A unifomed governing body could:
1. Eliminate some of these alphabet belts thus not allowing promoters to market their undeserving fighters as "world champions"
2. Install a universally adopted code of ethics, rules and penalties. This consequently disallows promoters to wash stuff under the table when their fighters get caught
3 .Have a set of judges that are voted in by said governing body
4. Determine and enforce mandatories
5. Establish penalties for unfair practices by promoters
6. Develop workshops for fighters, much like the NFL rookie symposium, that fighters attend to become more business savvy and more aware of the financial aspect of the fight game .

I think until boxers become more business savvy, there wil always be someone there to take advantage of them, whether it's a promoter or not.

This post has been edited by Franchize: May 23 2012, 10:12 AM

[daprofessor]

True story and thus why I said the "one promotor" would be jus' as disastrous as multiple promotors. However, where they do differ (read: are better than boxing) is in many of their match-ups make sense. Moreover, their mandatories are actually exercised. Rankings actually matter in MMA/UFC. In boxing, the champ may fight the #6 ranked fighter in his division....wtf is the #1 ranked fighter in the division doing? Washing his hair? Doing taxes? Don't get me wrong, everything that glitters isn't gold, but dayum...enough already.


Lastly, their version of Floyd vs. Manny (Silva/Sonnen) has already happened and the rematch is set for this summer. IMO, this should shame the hell outta boxing.

mma/ufc turnover is much higher than in boxing. it takes several years to develop talent in boxing. boxers don't usually get to the olympics or the professional world championship level with minimal experience. what ppl do not realize is there are large amounts of money spent to get the fighters to the highest levels. so in most cases the ppl who spent that money are looking to get a return on their investment. that's where/why we get match ups that are put on hold...or don't happen when they're supposed to. the issues with boxing (all of its sanctioning/governing bodies...the mandatories and how they even get to be in that position....the networks and how they steer their guys to the "top" so rapidly....the boxing media...who often gets used as a tool to steer everyones opinion on everything) is ten fold. mma/ufc is one organization that is very small in comparison to boxing and doesn't have to deal with the complexities because it is so new and small in comparison.

i know who silva is...never heard of sonnen. what happened to silva vs gsp being the floyd vs pac of mma?

This post has been edited by daprofessor: May 23 2012, 03:57 PM

[daprofessor]

Just a suggestion. The first thing that needs to happen, for the sport in general is the need for some type of uniformity. A unifomed governing body could:
1. Eliminate some of these alphabet belts thus not allowing promoters to market their undeserving fighters as "world champions"
2. Install a universally adopted code of ethics, rules and penalties. This consequently disallows promoters to wash stuff under the table when their fighters get caught
3 .Have a set of judges that are voted in by said governing body
4. Determine and enforce mandatories
5. Establish penalties for unfair practices by promoters
6. Develop workshops for fighters, much like the NFL rookie symposium, that fighters attend to become more business savvy and more aware of the financial aspect of the fight game .

I think until boxers become more business savvy, there wil always be someone there to take advantage of them, whether it's a promoter or not.

the minute a fighter/promoter/manager feels that the new system doesn't benefit them or discriminates against them...there will be someone branching off to do their own thing...and we'll be right back where we started. boxing is a world wide sport. our world isn't governed by one entity....i seriously doubt boxing will ever be governed by one entity either.

This post has been edited by daprofessor: May 23 2012, 04:02 PM