The changes we've seen over the years - the rise of the promoter

Good afternoon chaps,

As promised, I'm writing an article on something thats rather close to my heart in that once upon a time, I had the ability to make the jump from just being a crude amateur into actually making something of myself and trying my hand in the pro game. Never made any waves at amateur, lost a few, won more but still people mentioned my style was much more attributed to the pro game. I had a choice at one stage after a great night at a tournament in Blackburn - I could either carry on my usual day job and fight amateur, or quit my job - get a bank loan for expenses for the first year and try my hand. After much deliberation and research, speaking to people who'd tried and failed I opted against it, and I'm rather happy as I don't feel in todays environment I'd be good enough or carry enough clout to get further than a few journeyman wins.

That aside, my point is that how much have promoters changed the game today and the environment for young/aspiring boxers? We see these olympians coming through now such as Luke Campbell, Ogogo, Degale, Khan and it often makes me worry that when they come into the pro game with all this fanfare, all this hype and security - does it really build their career properly?

The early days of a pro fighters career typically has been fighting in unheralded venues for peanuts, barely enough to cover their trainers expenses - shifting tickets themselves, staying in accommodation that makes the Travel Inn look like the Ritz - fighting boxers so hard, so tough that they learned as they were going along, in-ring education as it were. Today we have promoters going from gym to gym in areas solely for the purpose of finding "the next big thing" far too early. I have no issue with a promoter getting involved later in a fighters career, after say 15 - 20 fights when the boxer has had the necessary experience, but is taking them away from that really doing them any good?

Case in point could be James Degale - he has been promoted from the get go because of his gold medal. He's seen his career slow dramatically because of promotion issues he's faced because of his character. It rankles people because he talks as if he's proven himself. With so few fights and with so little to suggest he'll make huge waves, promoters can't find him fights and venues that they would if he were say 20+ fights in and had that backbone built by having to build himself. Look at Canelo Alvarez. He's already amassed a huge amount of fights and now he's a darling of the Mexican people. He's a good boxer, but he's done things the hard way. Look at Martinez, unheralded in the beginning and now in the twilight of his career he's making waves. Froch - 10 years ago you wouldn't have heard of him yet he was fighting and winning, making his way up the ladder without all the hype to go with it.

My question is this, are promoters getting involved too early? Are they taking away the edge of the boxers who've had to work incredibly hard to make it?

Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but they're few and far between.

I dont really think its of much benefit benefit for the likes of DeGale or Khan to spend a few years under the radar fighting nobodies. I dont really think theres anything wrong with hyping up a good prospect and getting the public interested. If you can get a good financial deal, a good promoter, good exposure and benefits of better training and sparring then I think thats preferaable to doing the circuit at the bottom. If anything, DeGales career has been stalling because his promotion is half assed and he is fighting in rinky dink venues against unheradled opposition when a better promoter could be doing alot more for him.

Thing is, if he'd have done the circuit as many before him, he'd be coming in with a lot more background to the fanfare - he'd also have learned the skills necessary to put on a good show, to negotiate well for the right money, the right venues, the right people. I think early promotion has ruined him to this point.

Good piece.

I think that things have changed so much and not just in boxing but sport in general. When Man Utd for example are discussed it's always about Man Utd as a brand - attacking football, Theatre of Dreams and so on. I think boxing is the same, that the need to create a brand now is more important than the fighter development or more important than it used to be. Whether this is good or bad is hard to know.

For example boxers name all have their own trademark of their name, Khan has the odd looking AK thing and all that. It also depends on what you consider more important. So if fighting until you're 35 and winning lots more credible than retiring undefeated at 26 with a few million in the bank and a world title or two to your name. If a promotor wants this from his fighter then it could be argued that this is a far more credible route for a boxer to go down. I think even we as fans would have to stop and think what would we prefer if we were fighting.

Agents should be paid a salary and have to be qualified. Too many conflicts of interest occur when being paid a percentage of the own fighters income.

As I said yesterday in an ideal world we would all like to see young pros learning their trade on undercards out of the glare of excessive scrutiny or attention but sometimes a fighters fanbase, profile or amateur achievements render this unrealistic. My own personal view is the cream will always rise.

Few amateurs have gone pro to quite the same fanfare as Sugar Ray Leonard did. He was earnings purses in his first few fights that seasoned pros could only dream of and had TV behind him from day one. Think we would struggle to argue it had too great an impact on his career. Why, because he had a good team behind him, Dundee doing a masterful job of matching him and most importantly he had talent to burn. Genuinely believe if you’re good enough you’ll get there.

I think the circuit is overrated in terms of how boxers are developed. Its generally just beating up overmatched journeymen. DeGale fighting guys like Groves and Wilcczewski as well as getting good sparring is far more beneficial in my view.

Wilder was a Olympic medalist and a good prospect. I cant say his years of fighting nobodies on the circuit is really doing him any favours.

I think Khan going to the wildcard gym and getting the kind of triaining and sparring there is much better than going around small halls fighting outmatched opponents.

In general I think if you have a top amateur star or prospect they can usually afford to be fast tracked and it makes sense to build them into a star rather than trying to keep them out of the public interest. Every fighter is different so not every prospect will succeed but I think getting a good promoter behind you early is generally a good thing for a pros career rather than fighting for peanuts, making no money for years and risking injury and not having the funds to pay for top training etc.

the problem I have is that the promotor should be the guy whose only job is to sell the fight to the paying public/tv companies, organise sponsors etc and they should have absolutely no say whatsoever in who a fighter is pitted against. Surely that should be a joint decision made by managers and trainers.

Honestly don't know when it came to pass that promotors started wearing two hats but I can't say it's to the benefit of the sport any more than a fighter who is also a promotor.

I think this a great question.

I'm a big believer in paying your dues and fighting in the small halls and being able to develop at the right pace away from the media glare. I think oscar De la Hoya said it is a lot harder to get up at 4am to go running when you sleep in silk pyjamas - and it's so true.

I think too much too soon will only blunt a young fighters hunger.

Thanks for the responses lads - I agree with "if you're good enough you'll get there" I'm not talking about padding a fighters records with easy wins, more to do with actually matching your fighter hard against the hard opposition early on, in environments that build their character and style much better than being paraded infront of the media. Wilder has beaten nothing of note, but imagine if he'd have been put against 5 or 10 really tough guys that were unheralded themselves, hungry and in the same situation who's next fight may be their last.

We'd think a lot more of him.

Don’t think the easy nature of matchmaking or profile of stars JM think it is more an issue with fans and TV companies because the minute a prospect picks up a loss or has one flat performance forums such as this are awash with terms like hype job, exposed overrated and countless other terms to dismiss them. Given this is it any wonder promoters are so keen to protect the almighty 0.

Have said it before but a couple of losses along the way as a prospect should be dismissed as meaningless as long as they come in tough matches and are things the prospects learn from them. Remember Haye losing to Thompson and did him no harm, most accepted it was a tough fight for someone still relatively green and Haye appears to have learned a lot about pacing a fight and improving his stamina so it was probably the best thing that could have happened.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Thanks for the responses lads - I agree with "if you're good enough you'll get there" I'm not talking about padding a fighters records with easy wins, more to do with actually matching your fighter hard against the hard opposition early on, in environments that build their character and style much better than being paraded infront of the media. Wilder has beaten nothing of note, but imagine if he'd have been put against 5 or 10 really tough guys that were unheralded themselves, hungry and in the same situation who's next fight may be their last.

We'd think a lot more of him.

I think if you are going to a match a fighter tough, you may aswell do it with good exposure and compensation. I dont think matching a fighter tough has to be done in small halls out of the spot light. I dont see the point of matching Groves v DeGale for example if you are going to earn no money for it and get no exposure. Was Froch v Taylor shown on some sideshow channel really beneficial at all to Froch for example? Surely its better to have it like the Bute fight where people can see it.

This seems to be an issue more with ho fighters are matched then. I would prefer to see a top prospect get in with a good promoter who can then get him a good trainer, access to good sparring and some good fights and exposure. Its difficult to strike a balance beteen matching a prospect too tough and too easy. Most promoters come down on the side of too easy but at the same time boing fans are fickle. They cry for prospects to matched tougher but are quick to write them off then if they dont in good style.

I don't think you can really compare Froch v Taylor, a world title fight, to a youngster learning his trade.

The last thing boxing needs is novices topping bills against garbage men. Whilst that's a necessary part of development to build confidence and ringcraft etc, no one minds someone getting bowled over so long as its tucked away on an undercard somewhere.

Whether fighters are matched easy or hard is a different question. Some fighters, particularly youngsters who are 20 or 21 possibly didn't have much amateur career and need to be fed some journeymen for them to get used to the pro game. Other guys are ready to step up almost immediately after very accomplished amateur careers.

I'm not sure how much it would benefit some people but I do think Khan is a big example of someone who would have been better off learning his trade away from the spotlight and not headlining when he was still a novice. Being labelled as chinny from the very early stages of his career has led to him trying to be way too macho and getting in a tear up, this might have slipped under the radar a bit if he wasn't a household name. Also if all his early fights weren't televised and having everything he does put under a microscope he might have tried to learn some inside fighting against Area and National level guys instead of always trying to impress with the hand speed and flashy combinations just blowing guys out as at world level he's found that doesn't always work and inside fighting is a massive problem for him as he never needed to do it until now.

There was a point made in the OP about Froch climbing the ladder the hard way. My response was that I dont think the way Froch did it, only just really now getting the plaudits and money for a tough career, is actually all that beneficial to the sport or the fighter. A prime case of this is the Taylor fight which went largely unseen and unheralded.

Theres no one size fits all strategy for developing boxers as each individual is different. But if you have a very talented prospect, I dont see why he cant be developed with exposure and fast tracked beyond having to do the years at the bottom fighting for next to nothing, when he could be earning better money and getting people interested in his career. You can be matched tough in the public eye, nothing wrong with that. The likes of Groves and DeGale have generally been pretty well matched in terms of developing. I dont think DeGales career is neccessary stalling, but the hes just not getting the same exposure now. This isnt a good thing in my view. Better to be in Groves position and getting decent fights shown live and on good cards with a big promoter behind you.

I dont agree regards Khan. He has had a decent amateur career and numerous trainers now - one a HoF trainer. The same mistakes keep happening. He either cant or wont learn in my view. I think the quality training and sparring he got in wildcard gym served him much better than spending a few extra years fighting domestically.