Dec 5 2008, 05:03 AM
The recent success of Golden Boy Promotions business associations with Bernard Hopkins. The controversy over Carl King as Don's Stepson both managing and promoting fighters, Referee Laurence Cole of Texas serving because his father Dick Cole is a longtime member with the Texas Boxing Commission, all represent conflict of interest in boxing.
How do all of you feel about this? Does it leave a bad taste in your mouth? I am always concerned about this because it creates the possibility of a Pandora's box being opened if there is any controversy on a card where an official or principle serves as a competing role. Boxing needs to maintain a sense of fairness, respect, and impartiality. Even when things are at their very best to be on the level. It does not look good for a fighter to be fighting and promoting at the same time. Any controversy on the card and the first thing examined is the promoter, fighter, relationship.
I have always thought that Hopkins and Delahoya were a little too chummy after their fight. I am not even going to evaluate whether or not their was anything "going on" in that match. That's one of those 50/50 splits and I have heard good arguments on all sides. However, I think that in the future boxing commissions and sanctioning bodies, if they really want to set a positive precedent for the sport, they should mandate:
"NO BOXER CAN ACTIVELY FIGHT IN THE RING AND PROMOTE AT THE SAME TIME." A promoter should promote exclusively. A fighter should fight exclusively. I really don't care how much of a meal ticket Delahoya is, or Roy Jones was. You only promote a fight if you are not actually fighting inside the squared circle.....period. When a boxer retires, if he wants to promote, that's fine. But not during their careers. It just does not look kosher, even under the best of circumstances.
I think commission inspectors should watch very, very carefully any fightw here the fighter is also the promoter of the match for any signs of wrong doing. If we get a walz out of Delahoya-Pacquiao and Oscar for some reason carries Manny when he obviously has him hurt during the fight, and obviously carries him. and it goes 12-rounds, I think that there should be an investigation. I personally believe that Hopkins-Delahoya post-fight business associations should also be investigated. Let independant personell know that if any boxer, referee, or promoter tries to establish a conflict of interest, which interferes with a match in any way, that there should be serious consequences to pay for such actions.
Boxing needs to be as fair and impartial as possible. Do you see anything good coming out for boxing in which a fighter also serves as a promoter of his own matches? I honestly believe that this could create more problems than it solves.
Dec 5 2008, 08:36 AM
I have mixed opinions because the reality is "life isn't always" fair but I don't want to be that succinct but. With exception to playing offensive/defensive line in american football, I think boxing is easily the "toughest" sport that takes the most out of your body there is. If you've ever read books of boxers of the past or know boxers of the same time frame, it's a very UNFORGIVING sports. Extremely.
My point there is I have no problem when boxers have pooled up enough resources to manage thing themselves and I encourage it. True some of think don't know ANYthing about effective promotion (see "Calzaghe" and "Jones") but maybe this is a learning curve that needs to occur. David Haye for example doesn't seem to be doing a bad job with his company for example..
I know what you're saying Jack amongst the "fairness" of it and I'll get to that in a second. But what I'm saying is that too often in plenty of other industries also for lack of a better word, its always the "talent" thats gotten fucked so perhaps this is a way to ensure they're atleast properly compensated since their time span in the limelight limited. Heck who are we fooling here. Most professional boxers have a full time job for crying out loud.
That said, the infusion of money whether thats from the promoter or in most cases the TV NETWORK (smirk, that the promoter uses instead of their own money many times but I digress)shouldn't matter since these events are "sanctioned" by supposedly non biased commissions right?? But we know that reality says otherwise.
You're never going to stop associations unfortunately because thats the nature of the beast. But there does indeed have to be more accountability from the commissions side IMO. Whether thats judges who are too chummy with the fighter prior to the fight (see Ray Leonard having dined the judges of the Hagler fight prior to the fight) or if there are any suspicions whatsoever of ref bias prior the ref needs to be scraped immediately.
Dec 5 2008, 09:00 AM
I don't really put much stock in the Hopkins/DLH shit. I think people are reaching there, especially if you know the history with those two. It's really no different than what Winky and Trinidad did. The REAL conflicts of interest with Golden Boy would seem to be the marquee guys fighting each other, and, just as interesting, the process of deciding who gets to fight whom and for what. For example, how could Golden Boy, acting as a good faith promoter for Shane Mosley, try and get him the most lucrative bout (assume it's Mayweather, for purposes of discussion), when Oscar is trying to procure the same bout for himself. To me, THAT seems like a GLARING conflict of interest, by pure definition of the term.
I think the Carl King thing seems kind of shady, especially when you consider one of the most controversial ref's of all time, "Dirty Dick" Steele, was a ref and seemingly always calling it for DK fighters.
What is real interesting to me, and it's not so much a conflict of interest THEN as it would seem now, is this resurfacing of Shane Mosley's testimony, especially as it pertains to his second fight with DLH, and the fact that subsequent to that, he became a partner of DLH's in GBP. I mean, if I was DLH, I'd be pretty heated finding all this out after the fact, but again, it's sort of tangential to the thread topic.
Interesting thread topic, Jack.
Dec 5 2008, 09:59 AM
I agree with what Meth said. The more fighters signing to the same promotional company, usually the easier it is to make big fights.
But when the owners of the company are the fighters THEMSELVES, that is a huge conflict of interest, and not necessarily good for the non-CEO fighters OR boxing, as evidenced by the strange catch-weight fights we've had, none of which have really produced the goods excitement-wise.
Mean Mister Mustard
Dec 5 2008, 10:58 AM
Boxing, because of its lack of regulations and oversight by a National comission, is wide open for corruption and attracts a great deal of crooks. It is interesting that one of the greatest promoters of all time is a murderer. A lot of shady decisions are just that, SHADY DECISIONS but often time us fans will turn a blind eye or be outraged for a while and then forget. I mean imagine if fans would have inavded the Vegas comission or the sanctioning body who promoted (if there was one) the Cassamayor-Santa Cruz robbery. They might not have overturned the decision but you bet your ass they would think twice about doing it. Instead we will always get these type of robberies.
Remember back in the day when King and the WBC were best pals and all the WBC ref's, judges gave King's fighters the benefit of the doubt? At this point I don't know if anyone has a relationship with the Alphabet guys quite like King did but I can say that at the moment, the promotional company that people seem to be hating on is GBP. GBP aren't really promoting, they rely on HBO and Vegas to do all the work.
Dec 5 2008, 12:20 PM
There is a definately a conflict of interest when you eliminate the seperate roles of fighter and promoter and introduce the combination promoter\fighter who fights exclusively on the events they promote. This opens the doors extremely wide for corruption, fight fixing, unethical practices and more importantly TOTAL CONTROL of both the event from an outside and inside perspective.
This can only exist as stated previously, when there is no governing body that oversees the activities and practices occurring within boxing. The total lack of boxing commission control is allowing the fighter\promoter to gain total control of both the event and the events outcome by having a business entity participate. This is better known as fight fixing, when a promoter is in the unique position to place wagers on the outcome of the fight and ensure the a winning position by being the actual fighter in the event. This goes way beyond the original design of boxing as a competitive sport. And it should not be allowed.
Using the fight between DLH and Pacquio as an example -- DLH being an intregral part of GBP is in a unique position to throw the fight in either direction to gain a financial advantgage in future events. He is both able to take a dive, to gain exclusive promotional rights to a future event between Hatton vs Pacquio. And he can win the fight gaining exclusive promotional rights to a future event which he will be again be the fighter\promoter. This is a totally unfair advantgage -- where the fighter can influence and have complete control of the outcome of a fight and still retain the upper-hand financially.
Without oversight and commission control, boxing, being the most corrupt sport in the world, is just taking that practice of corruption to the next logical step and level. Where there is no control what-so-ever. And if a fighter has the financial means, he can both dictate the outcome of events he participates in and dictate which direction boxing as a sport takes.
Sadly, it is taking a another turn for the worst.
Dec 5 2008, 06:55 PM
Not that this specifically relates to boxing (totally) but it definitely speaks of the conflict of interest that exist within the environment. Outside of HBO, seems Golden Boy Ent have found themselves another "partner" in AEG which bought a small share of Golden Boy. AEG runs the Staple Center where a statue (utter sigh) was erected of the Golden Fraud.
Bill Plaschke uttered everything I could say about this. Before Kareem or even Pat Riley, Oscar. Unreal. I love the detail he says how barely 100 people showed up and none of them were from East LA,lolhttp://www.latimes.com/sports/printedition...144,full.column
AEG denies their involvement or the timing of this,lol..
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here