RingSide Report

World News, Social Issues, Politics, Entertainment and Sports

Prizefighting and the Other Side of the Coin – The Boxing Business!

CoinBy Andrew “Drew The Picture” Hames

Angel Garcia, the hard-nosed, outspoken trainer and father of former junior welterweight champion and current welterweight Danny Garcia, drew up some controversy following recent statements he made to a reporter when asked his opinion on the proposed March 12 matchup between rising welterweight stars Keith Thurman and Shawn Porter, opining that it was ill-advised for two elite, unbeaten fighters to meet this early in their careers, stating that “Someone’s going home with an O”. Paraphrasing, he’d then go on to say “Why fight him when you can fight a Salka?”, in reference to his unbeaten son’s dominant KO a year ago over fairly unheralded and undersized Rod Salka. This led to immediate questions about his justification for ignoring a riskier opponent in hopes of pairing his son with perceived safer opposition in his prime, especially with so many talented fighters at and around his weight class that he could prove he was the best against.

Garcia responded by saying “Because he don’t need that right now”, later referencing how Mayweather-Pacquiao profited tenfold from waiting so long to officially make the fight, and stating that at this point, “It ain’t about the glory, it’s about the money”. Obviously in a boxing world currently undergoing anger management from the announcements of underwhelming fight cards, this drew up considerable animosity, and created the perception that perhaps his son was being protected from elite, unbeaten fighters for a reason, while currently scheduled to face former two-division champion Robert Guerrero this Saturday.

While I do personally have some criticisms for Garcia’s comments, they may not be the common outrage Garcia’s statements have ensued. For instance, aside from the fact that Shawn Porter isn’t unbeaten to “Go home with an O” in the first place, and that it probably wasn’t best for his son’s PR at the moment to address such an opinion, on the core issues, I think he’s absolutely RIGHT…

As fight fans, we all should desire to see great bouts each Saturday, featuring the best fighting nothing but the best, as if these fighters’ careers were our own interchangeable action figures or baseball cards that we can match up or swap at our own free will for the sake of our entertainment and memories. From a fighter or trainer’s standpoint, your first priority is making a living, and only then can it be seconded by making a legacy. History has 0 fighters who’ve ever been 124-1-2, 49-0, 89-0, etc, having nothing but elite fighters and champions occupying those resumes. That’s why no fighter has beaten anywhere near 100 world champions to match that number of fights, or even anywhere near 49 champions for that matter. There’s a reason Leonard-Hearns, Tyson-Holyfield, Leonard-Hagler, Patterson-Liston, Mayweather-Pacquiao and so many other mega-bouts took so long to materialize. Unfortunately, it’s the same reason so many bouts never actually come to fruition, and are left for fans to merely point fingers over for the next few hundred years. And I don’t think it’s the fault of the fighters or trainers most of the time either. It’s the promoters, networks and the boxing media….

Anyone who owned a savings bond worth a thousand dollars today would have to be deathly desperate or an absolute fool to cash it in this moment knowing ahead of time that this same savings bond would be worth a million dollars tomorrow. I believe this is the same exact dilemma that promoters and networks are essentially aided and burdened by when public demand builds for a matchup between fighters they’ve heavily invested into marketing in hopes of building them up for lucrative and hopefully historic fights in the future. Therefore, boxing media must be deployed to maintain anticipation for the fight, as both fighters are to continue being showcased against different and preferably lesser opposition in the meantime in order to grow the boxing public’s appetite for the fight into a hunger that’s insatiable. Because of the sponsors, promoters and networks financial expectations for putting together the events, many fighters and their camps are often pressured into cashing their mere “thousand-dollar savings bonds” today by receiving moderately low offers to divide between their camps, and being ridiculed by popular boxing media and networks alike for “ducking” when they refuse the offers, a concept the media plays upon both to vilify certain fighters for bouts not happening, and excuse other select fighters for under the guise of being the “Most avoided fighter” in the sport, a recurring tradition on marketing practices. Meanwhile, the dedicated fans who follow the articles ultimately follow the arguments “by faith, not by sight”, and never question who stands to ultimately lose the most if the fights happen prematurely in the first place…

We are not at an age of the sport where losses do not affect a fighter’s legacy and financial opportunities, especially since fighters are now being advertised by cable networks and public broadcast alike. Essentially, this issue has taking precedence since the sport first started being televised. A fighter’s losses and bad performances are no longer as easily left to obscurity as they are in the televised era of boxing, where they can be readily reviewed. And since networks offer fighters deals that most often are contingent upon the fighters continuing to win, and have the veto power to both approve and reject certain opponents, I’d say they’re more responsible for who these fighters end up facing after the diversionary buildups, and we’re getting upset with poor old Angel Garcia here when he’s just playing his part in the system and forthcoming enough to state the obvious.

A legacy doesn’t do a fighter a great amount of justice if he’s still unable to provide for himself and his family, and in a sport that has always been said to be 90 percent business and only 10 percent boxing, I believe the significance of the sport’s business aspects cannot be undermined. Fighters generally lose in sparring sessions more often than the public knows, and I personally doubt any fighter is legitimately afraid of another. However, in any business, the reward for your labor is ideally supposed to warrant the risk and demand of it, and it’s hard to ask a fighter to choose “Pride fighting” over prizefighting when he realizes the politics surrounding each offer against top tier opposition.

None of us would voluntarily take on more hours and responsibilities at work for lesser pay, and we’re not making our livings getting punched in the face. It may not always be a fear of losing so much as a realistic acknowledgement of the fact that someone is indeed bound to lose in a mega-fight (barring a draw of course), and one needs to be properly compensated for the risk he’s taking. Not to mention the fact that a fighter could very well take the unwarranted risk, rightfully win the fight, and still be sent to the back of the line of he happens to get robbed on the scorecards against a heavier marketed opponent who’s unlikely to grant him a rematch after surviving such a scare. These are factors that fighters must consider beyond mere machismo. That’s essentially why fighters and trainers like Angel Garcia feel forced to hold big fights hostage and only look to secure their legacies after first securing their bank books. I understand our frustration from not seeing every great fight we want to see, and when we want to see it. I just believe we’re directing that anger in the wrong direction.

Signing off until next time….

[si-contact-form form=’2′]

Leave a Reply