Hey Oscar, Is Haymon a Help Or A Hindrance To The Thaw?

BY Michael Woods ON September 02, 2014
PDFPrintE-mail

al-haymon

Al Haymon, help or hindrance?

Fighters will tell you he's the definition of a solid manager, using his considerable expertise and skills in securing them premium money for their efforts.

Many fans will tell you he's the bane of the game, the single-most reason for the too-often underwhelming pairings we've seen on Showtime too often this year. Likes his guys in soft, likes his guys to retain belts, actually hinders development of some because they don't seek out the stiffest challenges, and too often has them on the sidelines, and doesn't give a tinker's damn about what the fans want.

Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle? Or maybe it isn't…

It feels like the sport is deciding how much power the Wizard of Oz-ish figure should hold, and we do still wonder if that case filed by Main Events' Kathy Duva which named Haymon as a counterproductive figure stemming from the aborted Sergey Kovalev-Adonis Stevenson deal will result in any blow to the Haymon power base, which makes him, arguably, the most powerful man in the sport. Or maybe that's past tense, or somewhere in the middle.

I asked Oscar De La Hoya today, point blank, is Al Haymon part of the brick wall that needs to be torn down so various promotional and televisionary parties can all be working off the same page…or is he not a malefactor at all? "He's a manager, has no impact whatsoever, it's up to the promoter to make fights happen," he said.

Um, OK, I thought to myself as I chewed on that statement, but if Haymon advises one of his guys not go for a deal that Oscar is putting together, then he would indeed be having a heavy impact upon the state of the game, and, I think, we could tag him as a stubborn brick that didn't want to fall, or be re-positioned.

De La Hoya gave a hint of Haymon's impact not being felt in the same degree it has been when he said that a few weeks ago the promoter and Hopkins got together, and decided to work on making Hopkins-Kovalev.

Oscar said that Haymon volunteered to "help," and that Hopkins said he didn't need "help."

Interesting possible shift in dynamic of power, right? Me, I think Haymon has proven himself to be not easily shoved off his throne, and people tell me he's the single smartest person they have ever dealt with, so you can't bet against his will or his brain…

Your thoughts, Forum Faithful?

Feel free to follow me on Twitter, where I sometimes also rant about politics and against vampire squid types.

WATCH RELATED VIDEOS ON BOXINGCHANNEL.TV

Comment on this article

deepwater2 says:

Oscar is being polite while he gets his house in order. Hopkins telling tsAH not to help him is only something That The Alien can pull off. I think he has fun telling off the powers that be.

I wonder which vampire squids your talking about? So many squids to choose from these days.

amayseng says:

Is that what Al Haymon looks like?


Yikes, no wonder he stays in the shadows

brownsugar says:

This is Al Hayman in the flesh... The most recent pic I've seen to date..

You can't steer you fighters in the best interest of the public or the fighter suffers.

Steer the fighters to make the moves that are in their best interests and the fans suffer.

The trick is finding the best balance between the two.

The Shadow says:

LOL yes, that's what he looks like. He's a tall, skinny, lanky fella who looks conspicuously ordinary.

Instead of wearing the dapper two-piece/three-piece suits, his suits look like the type that you get from Walmart, you know, the ones you go cop because you have a job interview at a temp agency.

He used to go around the media room completely unnoticed, probably mistaken for some obscure veteran reporter from Oregon who covers boxing once or twice a year.

That said, dude got a little bit of street swagga to him! Don't be fooled. And he fits right in with everyone. Whether it's the young street kid or the mightiest executive, he's been said to speak their language.

But yeah, that's him.

Here he is with Eddie Murphy and his dad:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]124[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]125[/ATTACH]

Here Alan is in one of his more dapper moments. I guess he thought to himself he couldn't look too fly or he wouldn't go under the radar:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]123[/ATTACH]

Radam G says:

WOW! Be aware of optical illusions.

The last time that I saw tsAH CLOSE UP all of his teeth were straight. We met grin to grin. I was sneaking outta the room of one of his Hip Hop lady clients. He was one mad he byyyytcccch. Y'all know me! I'm down with O-P-P!

Nice work, TSS! Holla!

The Shadow says:

This is Al Hayman in the flesh... The most recent pic I've seen to date..

You can't steer you fighters in the best interest of the public or the fighter suffers.

Steer the fighters to make the moves that are in their best interests and the fans suffer.

The trick is finding the best balance between the two.


The thing is this: Al Haymon's job description doesn't include the fans. His sole responsibility lies with the fighter. It is every manager's job to get his fighters the most money for the least risk.

That's what every manager does. Frank Espinoza, Cameron Dunkin (who absolutely REFUSES to match his guys), Gary Hyde, Shelly Finkel...

In fact, Finkel is the one who got Mike Tyson tons of money for fighting stiffs over and over and over after he came back from his suspension.

One guy who operates much like Haymon in the managerial capacity -- but probably even to a greater extent -- is Miguel Cotto's advisor Gaby Peñagaricano.

He is the type of dude that will do absolutely everything to make sure his client has everything he wants and doesn't give a rat's a$$ about the opposition.

(If Gaby had more fighters, oh gosh, fans would definitely not like him. But Cotto loves him.)

He's the reason Cotto almost fell out completely with Arum. Had it not been for Todd DuBoef that relationship would've been GONE, mainly due to Arum's vindictive nature. This guy holds grudges like no other. Just ask.

Anyway, it's the manager's job to ask for the most for his client. Just like an agent is supposed to get the most for his football player or basketball player.

No one expects LeBron James to go play with the Lakers for $5m per year just because fans would like to see them play together.

It's ridiculous, about 10 years or so ago the Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Arum got mad because they let 2nd round draft pick power forward Carlos Boozer -- who had put up spectacular numbers -- out of his rookie contract ($700K/year) so they could lock him for six years.

So they offered him about $41m deal over six years, a very low offer considering his production, but much, much better than his terrible rookie contract. After hearing he was available, Utah Jazz stormed in with an offer of $68m, $27m more.

Cavs had the option to match but elected not to because they were cheap. Instead they slandered him (sounds familiar?) and said he didn't care about "the fans," how it was a slap in the face to "the fans."

What was he to do? Turn down the money?

No one blames Allan Houston for taking that ridiculous $100m deal with the Knicks. They blamed James Dolan who they then named the "Einstein of Incompetence."

Which is the more fair allocation of blame. The representative is going to ask for the moon and Uranus. It's up to the owner/employer to put his foot down.

At the end of the day, the onus lies on the promoter and the networks.

Fans may not like seeing Garcia-Salka but that is exactly the kind of fight that proves how much ahead of the competition he really is.

(Regarding Garcia, I don't see the big problem; he's had one of the toughest stretches, including the tough, tough fight with Herrera. He got one tune-up. Froch just fought Yusaf Mack in between his list of killers, too.)

brownsugar says:

The thing is this: Al Haymon's job description doesn't include the fans. His sole responsibility lies with the fighter. It is every manager's job to get his fighters the most money for the least risk.

That's what every manager does. Frank Espinoza, Cameron Dunkin (who absolutely REFUSES to match his guys), Gary Hyde, Shelly Finkel...

In fact, Finkel is the one who got Mike Tyson tons of money for fighting stiffs over and over and over after he came back from his suspension.

One guy who operates much like Haymon in the managerial capacity -- but probably even to a greater extent -- is Miguel Cotto's advisor Gaby Peñagaricano.

He is the type of dude that will do absolutely everything to make sure his client has everything he wants and doesn't give a rat's a$$ about the opposition.

(If Gaby had more fighters, oh gosh, fans would definitely not like him. But Cotto loves him.)

He's the reason Cotto almost fell out completely with Arum. Had it not been for Todd DuBoef that relationship would've been GONE, mainly due to Arum's vindictive nature. This guy holds grudges like no other. Just ask.

Anyway, it's the manager's job to ask for the most for his client. Just like an agent is supposed to get the most for his football player or basketball player.

No one expects LeBron James to go play with the Lakers for $5m per year just because fans would like to see them play together.

It's ridiculous, about 10 years or so ago the Cleveland Cavaliers owner Gordon Arum got mad because they let 2nd round draft pick power forward Carlos Boozer -- who had put up spectacular numbers -- out of his rookie contract ($700K/year) so they could lock him for six years.

So they offered him about $41m deal over six years, a very low offer considering his production, but much, much better than his terrible rookie contract. After hearing he was available, Utah Jazz stormed in with an offer of $68m, $27m more.

Cavs had the option to match but elected not to because they were cheap. Instead they slandered him (sounds familiar?) and said he didn't care about "the fans," how it was a slap in the face to "the fans."

What was he to do? Turn down the money?

No one blames Allan Houston for taking that ridiculous $100m deal with the Knicks. They blamed James Dolan who they then named the "Einstein of Incompetence."

Which is the more fair allocation of blame. The representative is going to ask for the moon and Uranus. It's up to the owner/employer to put his foot down.

At the end of the day, the onus lies on the promoter and the networks.

Fans may not like seeing Garcia-Salka but that is exactly the kind of fight that proves how much ahead of the competition Haymon really is as a manager.

(Regarding Garcia, I don't see the big problem; he's had one of the toughest stretches, including the tough, tough fight with Herrera. He got one tune-up. Froch just fought Yusaf Mack in between his list of killers, too.)


Valid point....not popular but valid.

stormcentre says:

The thing is this: Al Haymon's job description doesn't include the fans. His sole responsibility lies with the fighter. It is every manager's job to get his fighters the most money for the least risk.

That's what every manager does. Frank Espinoza, Cameron Dunkin (who absolutely REFUSES to match his guys), Gary Hyde, Shelly Finkel...

In fact, Finkel is the one who got Mike Tyson tons of money for fighting stiffs over and over and over after he came back from his suspension.

One guy who operates much like Haymon in the managerial capacity -- but probably even to a greater extent -- is Miguel Cotto's advisor Gaby Peñagaricano.

He is the type of dude that will do absolutely everything to make sure his client has everything he wants and doesn't give a rat's a$$ about the opposition.

(If Gaby had more fighters, oh gosh, fans would definitely not like him. But Cotto loves him.)

He's the reason Cotto almost fell out completely with Arum. Had it not been for Todd DuBoef that relationship would've been GONE, mainly due to Arum's vindictive nature. This guy holds grudges like no other. Just ask.

Anyway, it's the manager's job to ask for the most for his client. Just like an agent is supposed to get the most for his football player or basketball player.

No one expects LeBron James to go play with the Lakers for $5m per year just because fans would like to see them play together.

It's ridiculous, about 10 years or so ago the Cleveland Cavaliers owner Gordon Arum got mad because they let 2nd round draft pick power forward Carlos Boozer -- who had put up spectacular numbers -- out of his rookie contract ($700K/year) so they could lock him for six years.

So they offered him about $41m deal over six years, a very low offer considering his production, but much, much better than his terrible rookie contract. After hearing he was available, Utah Jazz stormed in with an offer of $68m, $27m more.

Cavs had the option to match but elected not to because they were cheap. Instead they slandered him (sounds familiar?) and said he didn't care about "the fans," how it was a slap in the face to "the fans."

What was he to do? Turn down the money?

No one blames Allan Houston for taking that ridiculous $100m deal with the Knicks. They blamed James Dolan who they then named the "Einstein of Incompetence."

Which is the more fair allocation of blame. The representative is going to ask for the moon and Uranus. It's up to the owner/employer to put his foot down.

At the end of the day, the onus lies on the promoter and the networks.

Fans may not like seeing Garcia-Salka but that is exactly the kind of fight that proves how much ahead of the competition Haymon really is as a manager.

(Regarding Garcia, I don't see the big problem; he's had one of the toughest stretches, including the tough, tough fight with Herrera. He got one tune-up. Froch just fought Yusaf Mack in between his list of killers, too.)


Yep . . . good point and good post.

You've been putting it down real good lately.

oubobcat says:

The thing is this: Al Haymon's job description doesn't include the fans. His sole responsibility lies with the fighter. It is every manager's job to get his fighters the most money for the least risk.

That's what every manager does. Frank Espinoza, Cameron Dunkin (who absolutely REFUSES to match his guys), Gary Hyde, Shelly Finkel...

In fact, Finkel is the one who got Mike Tyson tons of money for fighting stiffs over and over and over after he came back from his suspension.

One guy who operates much like Haymon in the managerial capacity -- but probably even to a greater extent -- is Miguel Cotto's advisor Gaby Peñagaricano.

He is the type of dude that will do absolutely everything to make sure his client has everything he wants and doesn't give a rat's a$$ about the opposition.

(If Gaby had more fighters, oh gosh, fans would definitely not like him. But Cotto loves him.)

He's the reason Cotto almost fell out completely with Arum. Had it not been for Todd DuBoef that relationship would've been GONE, mainly due to Arum's vindictive nature. This guy holds grudges like no other. Just ask.

Anyway, it's the manager's job to ask for the most for his client. Just like an agent is supposed to get the most for his football player or basketball player.

No one expects LeBron James to go play with the Lakers for $5m per year just because fans would like to see them play together.

It's ridiculous, about 10 years or so ago the Cleveland Cavaliers owner Gordon Arum got mad because they let 2nd round draft pick power forward Carlos Boozer -- who had put up spectacular numbers -- out of his rookie contract ($700K/year) so they could lock him for six years.

So they offered him about $41m deal over six years, a very low offer considering his production, but much, much better than his terrible rookie contract. After hearing he was available, Utah Jazz stormed in with an offer of $68m, $27m more.

Cavs had the option to match but elected not to because they were cheap. Instead they slandered him (sounds familiar?) and said he didn't care about "the fans," how it was a slap in the face to "the fans."

What was he to do? Turn down the money?

No one blames Allan Houston for taking that ridiculous $100m deal with the Knicks. They blamed James Dolan who they then named the "Einstein of Incompetence."

Which is the more fair allocation of blame. The representative is going to ask for the moon and Uranus. It's up to the owner/employer to put his foot down.

At the end of the day, the onus lies on the promoter and the networks.

Fans may not like seeing Garcia-Salka but that is exactly the kind of fight that proves how much ahead of the competition Haymon really is as a manager.

(Regarding Garcia, I don't see the big problem; he's had one of the toughest stretches, including the tough, tough fight with Herrera. He got one tune-up. Froch just fought Yusaf Mack in between his list of killers, too.)


Being from Cleveland, I remember that Cavs situation well 10 years ago.

Here's what happened...

Boozer came to the Cavs when drafted and asked for a guaranteed deal for a 2nd round pick. The Cavs thought they had something in him despite him never having played a game and obliged giving him a three year guaranteed deal with the last year being a team option.

Boozer then out plays his contract for two years.

The Cavs are going to pick up the option for the third and then lock Boozer up after that. Boozer comes back to them with his agent and says if you let me out of that deal I promise I will resign with you. The max at that time the Cavs can offer per the NBA rules because of their salary cap situation was 6 years, 40 or so million.

By not picking up the option, the Cavs give up their "bird" rights and cannot go over the cap to resign Boozer which they planned to do the following year (offer him more money than anyone else despite the cap situation).

All this is explained to Boozer and his agent and the Cavs refuse the offer. Boozer and agent beg Cavs to reconsider and make firm promise that despite the fact if they hit free agency they can get bigger offers will instantly sign with Cavs.

Cavs let Boozer out, draw paperwork up and Boozer then goes back on his word and signs for more money elsewhere. The Cavs could not by NBA rules match the offer as they were capped out. They looked at trade scenarios but that meant trading away players they didn't want to.

To this day, Boozer is still very disliked in Cleveland and by Cavs fans. Some things are harder to forgive and forget than others...

I'll give my take on Haymon in a moment.

oubobcat says:

I am taking a wait and see approach on Haymon...

First, yes I am upset as anyone about Garcia-Salka and other showcase cards put on this year by Haymon. But there is also responsibility on Showtime to say "no" to purchasing those fights which they easily could have done and the promoter to also say we are not going to promote such events.

But Haymon is a smart man as noted in the article and committed to this sport. He may be able to make some positive changes for the fans such as giving the fans more options and avenues to view the sport than ever before. He is signing a lot of fighters and well those fighters need work. They are all expecting opportunities from signing with Haymon. And opportunities doesn't mean fighting buried deep on a card at 6:00 just as the gates open and a couple die hards trickle into the arena.

There is change coming to the sport being led by Haymon and certainly this will mean more opportunities for fans in the states to watch boxing. For someone like me who has been pushing for more televised boxing coverage, whether on tv or streamed online, this could be a windfall.

Thus, though there is some bad for the fans I am still taking a wait and see approach on what Haymon is doing before making my final judgments on him.

The Shadow says:

Being from Cleveland, I remember that Cavs situation well 10 years ago.

Here's what happened...

Boozer came to the Cavs when drafted and asked for a guaranteed deal for a 2nd round pick. The Cavs thought they had something in him despite him never having played a game and obliged giving him a three year guaranteed deal with the last year being a team option.

Boozer then out plays his contract for two years.

The Cavs are going to pick up the option for the third and then lock Boozer up after that. Boozer comes back to them with his agent and says if you let me out of that deal I promise I will resign with you. The max at that time the Cavs can offer per the NBA rules because of their salary cap situation was 6 years, 40 or so million.

By not picking up the option, the Cavs give up their "bird" rights and cannot go over the cap to resign Boozer which they planned to do the following year (offer him more money than anyone else despite the cap situation).

All this is explained to Boozer and his agent and the Cavs refuse the offer. Boozer and agent beg Cavs to reconsider and make firm promise that despite the fact if they hit free agency they can get bigger offers will instantly sign with Cavs.

Cavs let Boozer out, draw paperwork up and Boozer then goes back on his word and signs for more money elsewhere. The Cavs could not by NBA rules match the offer as they were capped out. They looked at trade scenarios but that meant trading away players they didn't want to.

To this day, Boozer is still very disliked in Cleveland and by Cavs fans. Some things are harder to forgive and forget than others...

I'll give my take on Haymon in a moment.


Yeah, that is the detailed version; I said cheap for sake of brevity. Now, they could've explored sign-and-trade. They chose not to. They didn't want him bad enough. Without getting into detail, they could've kept him if they really, really wanted to.

And according to reports, they were trying to lock him up for six years at that underpaid rate, not three.

Even if the Cavs' version is true and they got hoodwinked, it is still totally illegal. You can't make those kind of side deals in the NBA.

So even if it were the case that Boozer went back on his word (which Boozer denied), the Cavs were breaking the NBA rules by even doing this.

There's bit of a double standard at worst. And a pattern, as we saw a few years later with their scathing letter to LeBron.

These organizations break promises all the time, have the power to uproot someone's family and trade them away at a whim.

They've been known to trade someone across the country (which means taking children out of school, finding new places to live, new friends, starting a whole new life) over minor infractions such as taking an ill-advised three-point shot.

No matter version of the story is true, at the end of the day, the point still remains.

With an athlete's incredibly short shelf life -- especially relative to an owner's -- was Boozer supposed to say no to another guaranteed $27m? Especially for "the fans?"

In the NBA, "the fans" are the owner's responsibilities just like it's the promoters in boxing because the fans are who pay the money. The owner/promoter in turn then pays the athlete/performer.

And in the case of Pacquiao-Mosley, Garcia-Salka, Peterson-Salka, the promoters failed.

Just like the Cavs failed with Boozer.

The Shadow says:

Well, backlash aside, I guess they really didn't fail because those examples all generated high viewership. Go figure.

And yes, regarding your second post, I think wait-and-see is the best approach, I think. Let's see how this plays out. Still a lot of loose ends out there.

oubobcat says:

Yeah, that is the detailed version; I said cheap for sake of brevity. Now, they could've explored sign-and-trade. They chose not to. They didn't want him bad enough. Without getting into detail, they could've kept him if they really, really wanted to.

And according to reports, they were trying to lock him up for six years at that underpaid rate, not three.

Even if the Cavs' version is true and they got hoodwinked, it is still totally illegal. You can't make those kind of side deals in the NBA.

So even if it were the case that Boozer went back on his word (which Boozer denied), the Cavs were breaking the NBA rules by even doing this.

There's bit of a double standard at worst. And a pattern, as we saw a few years later with their scathing letter to LeBron.

These organizations break promises all the time, have the power to uproot someone's family and trade them away at a whim.

They've been known to trade someone across the country (which means taking children out of school, finding new places to live, new friends, starting a whole new life) over minor infractions such as taking an ill-advised three-point shot.

No matter version of the story is true, at the end of the day, the point still remains.

With an athlete's incredibly short shelf life -- especially relative to an owner's -- was Boozer supposed to say no to another guaranteed $27m? Especially for "the fans?"

In the NBA, "the fans" are the owner's responsibilities just like it's the promoters in boxing because the fans are who pay the money. The owner/promoter in turn then pays the athlete/performer.

And in the case of Pacquiao-Mosley, Garcia-Salka, Peterson-Salka, the promoters failed.

Just like the Cavs failed with Boozer.


Because Boozer was under contract with the Cavs though, the Cavs and Boozer were permitted to engage in contract talks at any time. So hammering out a deal on the side was totally legitimate. As a matter of fact, the Cavs sent a letter to fans acknowledging they did this and if illegal the NBA would have come down very hard on them.

Incidentally too, the agent Boozer worked with was soon out of a job after this. Owners wouldn't trust him and no new players would sign with him. Even Boozer dumped him not long after.

All that said, the Cavs were totally stupid to trust someone in such a situation with so much money at stake. They had to realize there would be major temptation on Boozer's part to walk. There was a lot of anger amongst the fans here not only directed at Boozer but at the stupidly of management of the team. And not coincidentally, in less than a year all involved in this were no longer with the organization.

The Shadow says:

Because Boozer was under contract with the Cavs though, the Cavs and Boozer were permitted to engage in contract talks at any time. So hammering out a deal on the side was totally legitimate. As a matter of fact, the Cavs sent a letter to fans acknowledging they did this and if illegal the NBA would have come down very hard on them.

Incidentally too, the agent Boozer worked with was soon out of a job after this. Owners wouldn't trust him and no new players would sign with him. Even Boozer dumped him not long after.

All that said, the Cavs were totally stupid to trust someone in such a situation with so much money at stake. They had to realize there would be major temptation on Boozer's part to walk. There was a lot of anger amongst the fans here not only directed at Boozer but at the stupidly of management of the team. And not coincidentally, in less than a year all involved in this were no longer with the organization.


No, they dumped Boozer! I think the agency was called SFX or something like that, he was represented by Rob Pelinka.

They distanced themselves from Boozer in the wake of the ordeal. Pelinka's had plenty of clients including guys entering the league this year.

But you're right -- with so much money at stake, you can't be making rookie mistakes like that. These guys make and break promises all the time.

Boozer's in professional basketball to make money so he can buy some coats and blankets to take home to Alaska.

Not to please some people he never met in a city he's not even from.

Latest Articles

canelosignsdealwithhbo
attentionnebraskatuesdaysterencecrawfordraybeltranpresseropentopublic
sartonklaunchingapparelline
howbigwouldalibetodayheddwarfmayweather
golovkinandrubiohave30dayweighin
duvacountingdowntokovalevhopkinssizesupsatcard
qchukyqfloresfightsfriday
corleyonlyformerchampiontofightindcweekendofchampions
knockdownsgaloresalidobeatskokietgyminmexicorumble
georgegroveswinscomebackfight

Latest Videos on BoxingChannel.tv

Facebook
Twitter
fight results
Subscribe to thesweetscience.com
Live Boxing Coverage
IBOFP

Who Should Floyd Mayweather fight next:

6.2%
2.1%
78.4%
5.2%
8.2%
Loading...