Boxings Future

[TysonFan82]

I wanted to start a thread to discuss what everyone feels would be the best solution for boxings title problems. Bottom line is that this sport has to many damn champs. Its definately clear that we need to figure out something. If you ask me I believe that each country needs to have a Boxing commissioner. The commissioners then meet to form the World Boxing Commission.

The Commission then is able to vote on rankings, who gets the mandatories etc. I think that each country should begin by having a tournament of its top fighters. The winner of each tournament then enters into the world tournament. The winner is then champ of the world. The commision would then be able to govern boxing. It would also give fighters from Europe a better shot at getting notice. The Commission would be in charge of licensing and setting purses and stuff. Purses would be set by your world ranking. Like for instance: Champions: 10,000,000, #1 contender 5,000,000, #2 1,000,000 etc something to that effect. They would also start a pension for fighters requiring a % of the purses and fight fees go into the fighers pensions.

I think that something similar to this would be what boxing needs to become mainstream again. A champion would be a champion and everyone would be able to know who the real champ is. These are just some thoughts I have on this subject. I'd like to know everyone elses ideas.

[Mudster]

Good in theory, which means it has no chance in hell of ever happening. The problem is that in today's fight scene, money talks. Your typical part time boxing fan couldn't care less about the foreign fighters that are tops in their countries. They would rather see Butterbean come out and fight Larry Holmes than a European title fight like the Hoffman-Krasniqi fight that just took place. The promoters know this and will keep milking the biggest names, whether they deserve a shot or not.

[crusadecat]

Boxing's problems are so numerous to list all of them and viable solutions are few. Any plan that people develop will have its detractors, but yes they should do something. National Boxing commision is a step in the right direction as long as politics stay out of it of course. Recognizable champs, none of this super champion, inter continentals' champion crap. One champion at one weight class and thats it. Ring Magazine's policy may not be perfect but it is the best one out there and should be supported by boxing fans. More fights on television network and cable. Pay per view may be lining the pockets of a few people but they are killing the golden goose with it. More collegiate and local gyms teaching boxing. We may not get the neighborhood gyms back but with it being on tv and in venues more often , this could bring back a fanbase and participant base. As a boxing fan don't you feel like you have to defend the sport more than you get a chance to cheer, its so frustrating. uggh.

[meade95]

I Really don't buy the "sky is falling" notion that many suggest when it comes to boxing - The bottom line is boxers are making more money than ever......and that money to some extent is traveling downward....where even club fighters are making more than they have in the past...

I also don't have such a concern with too many champions....(perhaps the sactioning fees are too much at times......but that is where the fighters have to make their own decisions).......I don't mind the differing divisions.....I think it adds spice to the overall...

I think where boxing does have its problems is in marketing.....but not so much in marketing itself.......but just that it is a sport in some ways that is brutal......and with that it will automatically have a "turn off" factor to a large segment of the developed world (and thus an invisble cap as to how large its viewer ship will get) -

Because of wealth....you are also seeing less and less potential very athletic boxers.....entering boxing to begin with....they are choosing other sports instead (this is probably hurting the overall quality of boxers)...But only to some degree.....


And lastly....While Tysonfan makes some good suggestions...and this is a good thread.....I simply don't agree with Gov't commissions....(what is more corrupt than Gov't itself........heck anything Gov't gets involved with is more screwed up and cost more money then if we just left it alone to begin with....) - More power in Gov't is not the answer.....(Unless Tysonfan.....you just meant private commission not ones run by Gov't).

[jofre]

Ring Magazine is attempting to do the right thing. But, unfortunately it doesn’t have universal backing. It would be nice if we fans could put pressure on the most influential boxing journalists and broadcasters from our locale to create one world wide rating system administered by a panel of boxing experts chosen by their peers. The ranking system would assume a status similar to the legendary Ring Magazine’s International World Ratings. These ratings would be "the international ranking system" and would replace all other independent rating systems. Recognition of this new system by every boxing publication and broadcast medium would – I hope – force the top rated fighters to face each other in order to gain worldwide fan acceptance as lineal world champion. The elimination of all references to the alphabet titles by all boxing publications and broadcast media would neuter them. They would die a slow death by omission. Under this scenario, if a fighter truly wanted worldwide recognition as champion of his weight class he would be forced to fight the lineal champion. Moreover, neither fighter would have to pay a sanctioning fee for a title that should belong to the paying customer – the boxing public. For instance, the WBC charges 3 percent of a fighter’s purse. Why would fighters making multi-million dollar purses want to give the alphabet bandits such exorbitant amounts of money? For example, Oscar De La Hoya’s sanctioning fee to the WBC for the Felix Trinidad fight was $600,000. This is ludicrous!

I would envision each fighter engaged in a championship fight being charged a small fixed fee to cover the cost of both a championship belt patterned after the traditional championship belts of the past, and a press conference publicizing the awarding of The Lineal World Championship Belt. The award ceremony would be held in the city, state or country the champion resides and presented by a writer or broadcaster from the fighter’s locale.

[ThirdPartyView]

Only probably is... I don't think Vitali is the true champion, at all. Hell, he is yet to even defend his belt (I know he is this Saturday), much less being a top champion. Chris Byrd & John Ruiz have more claim to being the lineal champion (and they aren't IMO, either) than Vitali does. Of course, the popular guy of the three is Vitali, and ergo he is the 'true' champion in most people's eyes. I don't see a ranking system that would be universally recognized that would have Vitali not as champion...

[djday45]

Im gonna start posting the chapters of an e-book called Operation Cleanup by Charles Jay as iit is particuarly relevant to this thread.


WHAT

by Charles Jay

Everytime you turn around, you see another scandalous incident in boxing that cries out for reform. Almost all observers agree that some form of additional regulation is needed, but few people have come to the table with ideas that are both effective and practical.

It is no one's fault in particular; legislators have political agendas in mind, and they don't have any real experience in boxing. The people they have been listening to either have agendas, or only second-hand knowledge of the boxing industry. Once again, it is not their fault - one commandment that is always used among people in the boxing business is "Don't educate writers".

The press would normally be in an ideal position to expose some of the real problems and suggest real-world remedies, but unfortunately few people in the press have had any first-hand exposure to the inner-workings of the boxing industry. And to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure how many of them even care about looking into it.

What puts me in a unique situation is that I have had the fortune (whether that fortune is good or not is open to debate) of working on a day-to-day basis in the industry for over 15 years, functioning in almost every capacity, including that of a promoter, matchmaker, manager, trainer, corner man, publicist, casino consultant, TV commentator, administrator, even ratings chairman for an ersatz ratings organization. I have done most of it, seen most of it. And studied ALL of it. Hey, I was no angel. I did some of the things we'll be talking about. But the way I see it, that gives me an even BETTER perspective from which to look at this.

What we're about to embark upon is something that is completely unique in terms of boxing "journalism". OPERATION CLEANUP - A BLUEPRINT FOR BOXING REFORM will be by far the most cogent and far-reaching discussion that has ever been published on the subject of boxing reform in the United States.

The report will consist of up to 40 installments, published over the course of the next 10-11 weeks, which will reveal some of the inner workings of boxing that have never been discussed before in public; reform issues that are necessary, yet have never been considered; and alternative solutions for solving problems that seem to have eluded both regulators and legislators, for reasons only they can explain.

It will more or less be the first time fans, and the vast majority of the boxing media, will be exposed to the nuts and bolts of what the boxing industry is all about. As such, it will offer a unique "insider" peek into what goes on, and goes wrong, in this business.

There are probably a hundred people who could elaborate on these issues with equal or greater depth. The only problem is, they're not writers - they're engaged in the business. So they're obviously not predisposed to want to come forward. Obviously, some of our material is culled by way of "deep background", where sources wish to remain anonymous have imparted their own knowledge and experiences to us.

Some of the material you're about to read in the coming weeks was part of the substance of a report I compiled a little less than a year ago at the request of Tim Lueckenhoff, president of the ABC, which was intended to be forwarded to interested parties who were readying amendments to the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, and putting forward a bill for a national commission. Whether it ever got to its intended destination is something I'm not altogether sure about, even to this day.

Some installments will be "sexier" than others; some will be more or less anecdotal in nature, with an overriding lesson to be learned. Sometimes there will be more than one in a day. Some will be part of smaller special reports WITHIN our larger special report. But all of it will have an ultimate objective - to make you THINK.

Inasmuch as I consider the subject matter to be of a serious nature (indeed, in some cases the very well-being of fighters could be at stake), I hope it would be, in turn, seriously considered by those who have to ultimately enact law. Unfortunately, I doubt that it will. Regardless, I think it's important that the public, the media, the industry, and legislators, both on the state and national level, know the truth as to what really needs to be done, because I doubt you'll get much out of government agencies. I'm also concerned with another thing - I don't want the efforts of people who have spoken up with sincerity about boxing reform to be flushed down the toilet with a half-hearted effort.

Toward that end, each installment in the "Operation Cleanup" series will not only be posted right here on the Fight Page, but will also be sent directly to our entire mailing list of industry personnel, our media list, comprised of people both in and out of boxing, every athletic commission in North America (ABC members or associates), and to other people who may have a particular interest in future boxing legislation.

What we're going to be writing on these pages is going to piss off a lot of people - this includes those in the boxing industry who have heretofore gotten a free pass to run roughshod through the business as if it were their own private playground; those would-be "czars" of boxing who have represented themselves as something they're really not; those people I would characterize as "phony reformers", who talk all day about cleaning up boxing, as far as it meets their personal agenda, then flee like lemmings when that agenda is finally met; those regulators who will no doubt be embarrassed when their own gross inefficiency has been exposed; those members of the "working press" who have, somewhere along the line, deposited themselves in the back pocket of some promoter, and are perfectly happy with an atmosphere that lets them get away with it; and those people in Washington who have no real intention of exploring the salient issues, but would rather use the facade of "boxing reform" as an instrument by which to gain some cheap publicity for themselves, stooping so low as to trot out national icons to participate unwittingly in their charade.

Yeah, they'll be pissed alright.

But I don't particularly care how they feel.

Do YOU?

Didn't think so.

What that in mind, I hope you read, enjoy, and speak up, if you care as much as I do.

The bell rings tomorrow.

[djday45]

FIRST THING TO UNDERSTAND:

by Charles Jay

For the past seven years or so, representatives of the federal government, most notably Senator John McCain of Arizona, have sold people on the fact that they are concerned enough about the sport of professional boxing to investigate its ills and enact legislation that is designed to "clean up" the sport.

Some positives, I suppose, have resulted from this - the Professional Boxer Safety Act of 1996 set up certain Federal guidelines by which promoters, commissions, sanctioning organizations, etc. must comply with.

Then the Ali Act, spearheaded by McCain, served to amend the existing Federal law and add more guidelines, including those that relate to "coercive" (i.e., option) contracts.

A wonderful start for legislation aimed at bringing some order to a sport that is fundamentally chaotic, right?

Well, as the people at Hertz are famous for saying - not exactly.

That's because even if a law had been put together that "covered all the bases", it is useless because it is not enforced, certainly not by most of the regulators across the country who have the responsibility to "police" boxing in their individual jurisdictions. There is no effective direction given to them by the national trade organization (the Association of Boxing Commissions), and of course, there is really no apparatus of enforcement set forth by any of the politicians involved with constructing the Ali Act, who must have been too busy posing for pictures and issuing press releases to consider the most important point about ANY bill that is passed into law - IT'S NOT THE QUALITY OF THE LAW THAT MATTERS, IT'S THE QUALITY OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CHARGED TO ENFORCE IT.

This coming week, the United States government's sideshow continues. On Wednesday, May 22, the Senate Committee on Science, Commerce and Transportation's subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce, and Tourism will once again bring forward several more boxing-related people to offer five-minute statements about all the horrible ills of the sport - statements that will be benign for the most part - and once again, they're likely to miss the mark entirely (with the possible exception of one panelist, which we'll discuss later).

And once again, we'll have legislation that, as a result, misses the mark as well.

The most fundamental thing you must understand about all of this, right from the outset, is that, quite simply, THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T REALLY CARE.

Don't get me wrong - I'm sure the people in Congress would love for things to fall perfectly into place for them, so they can record their "slam dunk", take the credit, and send everybody home. Boxing reform, however, is a complex issue that going to take a lot more work than has been done, and I'm not quite sure anyone in Washington is inclined to put forth that effort.

When push comes to shove, they don't really care about the welfare of boxers, or that of the industry. I mean, when you look at the big picture, why would they, when this very committee, chaired by Senator Byron Dorgan, has bigger items on its plate, like investigating the massive scandal at Enron?

Reforming boxing, by any measure, certainly takes a back seat to accounting reform, in terms of the public interest.

Let me tell you what the government DOES care about, vis-a-vis the boxing issue:

* A photo opportunity with someone like Muhammad Ali, who is being brought in just for that purpose.

* The opportunity for a few senators to tell people they were amateur boxers.

* An opportunity to score cheap points against an "opponent" that is defenseless. Unlike virtually any other issue Congress could possibly debate, whether it be health care reform, foreign policy, school vouchers, even campaign finance reform, there really isn't another side to the boxing issue. Oh sure, you could have the "state vs. Federal" argument, but essentially, there's no convincing argument AGAINST regulation, is there? I mean, how could the "institution" of boxing actually stand up, with a straight face, and contend that it is better NOT to be regulated? In that way, boxing reform and regulation is a SAFE issue for the politicians to hitch their wagon to.

* An opportunity to pander to McCain, with very little political cost. Let's put things squarely in perspective here. Boxing flies too low to show up on the national radar. To the VAST majority of people, it doesn't mean anything at all. It follows that it doesn't mean that much to most legislators. Therefore, there's no loss in political ground, regardless of party affiliation, to make any and all concessions to McCain with regard to what is generally considered to be one of his "pet" issues. Then, when someone else's pet issue arises down the line, McCain and those he can influence might constitute the difference in a committee or floor vote. It's nothing more than a "quid pro quo". Politics as usual.

Use your head for a moment. If the government really cared............

- You'd have heard some truth by now, not the endless parade of misinformation or non-information spewed by guest panelists that have been brought before the committee for little more than their "name value".

- You'd have already seen legislation that would have addressed the needs of the rank-and-file fighter, not just that which concerns the high-visibility star, and in turn, creates the most publicity for a politician's special interest.

- You wouldn't have a problem in a state like Kentucky, which doesn't require ambulances or portable oxygen equipment to be at ringside.

- Indeed, you'd have seen Kentucky commissioner Jack Kerns dragged before the committee, and made to answer questions as to how he could possibly have allowed for the circumstances that are primarily responsible for former heavyweight champion Greg Page being in a wheelchair today.

- The committee would be quizzing Russell Peltz about just how, in his dual role as ESPN network representative and independent promoter, could he NOT be contributing to the restraint of trade in the boxing industry.

- You would see a public forum in which anyone who had something worthwhile to say about this issue could step up and present a case, instead of restricting free speech to a select group of people through whom they feel they can control the flow of information that is put forward.

- You'd have already seen something substantive in the way of effective, airtight legislation to deal with the nationwide implementation of boxing regulation. I don't think it's too much to ask; after all, the Congress has been at it in one way or another for over 35 years (during this process, we'll actually examine a bill which was deliberated way back in 1965).

Frankly - and I'm not being arrogant about this - if the government really cared about any of this, someone would have contacted ME by now, at least as a cursory measure. After all, no one has devoted more time to the out-of-mainstream issues of boxing reform as TotalAction has, and, truth be told, there has never been a better demonstration for the need for national regulation than our series, "Horse Manure Isn't The Only Thing That Stinks in Kentucky", which exposed the deplorable and illegal behavior of the Kentucky State Athletic Commission in unnecessarily endangering the life of former heavyweight champion Page.

When I say I figured "someone" would have contacted me, I mean perhaps someone like Kenneth Nahigian, the minority counsel for the Senate Committee on Science, Commerce, and Transportation as it concerns the subject of boxing regulation and regulation. Nahigian, who works with McCain, is supposed to put some legal "teeth" into the Ali Act, so it can actually wind up accomplishing what it purportedly sets out to do.

Instead, in my one and only contact with Nahigian, which I initiated, and in which I offered to put forth any ideas in whichever way I could (including a lot of the stuff you'll see over the course of this special report), the message he communicated to me, in so many words, yet in no uncertain terms, was that not only is he completely uninterested in availing himself and his committee of any constructive, progressive, or imaginative methods of affecting boxing reform, but that he is even less interested in fielding any kind of feedback from interested parties who have not been hand-picked from his limited list of "sources", which, for all I know, could be manipulated by some outside influence.

I have talked with some boxing commissioners in this country who have met with the same kind of indifference out of his office.

Why would the committee be interested in stonewalling input from "outside" sources? Well, in my case in particular, part of it may be that I don't fall into his hidden "agenda". I'm not going to get up there and say what HE wants me to say, and I'm not going to be "pushing any buttons" for him.

According to insiders, Nahigian's overriding interest in this process is centered around one principal objective - to, at the behest of McCain, push through Pennsylvania administrator and former ABC president Greg Sirb as the head of a proposed Federal boxing commission; in effect, making Sirb the national boxing "czar".

We'll measure the pros and cons of that soon enough.

Meanwhile, although Nahigian would prefer not to hear from YOU - at the government e-mail address he utilizes on a taxpayer-subsidized mail system, on taxpayer-subsidized time, while he collects a taxpayer-subsidized salary pushing legislation and agendas that he hopes taxpayers will subsidize as well - that doesn't necessarily mean he wouldn't change his mind, especially if he is confronted with coherent, thoughtful correspondence that demonstrates YOU care about fighter safety, regulatory control, consumer protection, and fair boxing business practices a lot more than HE apparently does.

We pretty much know where Nahigian, and people like him, stand. I would much rather know where YOU stand.

By all means, if you think what we're putting forth has any value at all, feel free to respond intelligently to any of our OPERATION CLEANUP stories, and we'd be absolutely delighted not only to pass along Mr. Nahigian's public e-mail address to you, so you can forward your comments, but to re-post your relevant feedback in a prominent way on THE FIGHT PAGE, just in case Nahigian or his colleagues choose to ignore it.

It's the least we can do.

And believe me, the least we WILL do.

Mark my words - they'll be listening soon enough.

[djday45]

A MESSAGE FOR THOSE WHO THINK "EIGHT IS ENOUGH"

by Charles Jay

Sometimes I think it's important to establish what should NOT be part of a boxing reform package. One of the things I hear from people that just makes me ill is that the sport of boxing should go back to eight weight divisions, as if that were the natural order of things. "Boxing was really great when you had just eight world champions," is what you hear from certain boxing observers, speaking like a pharmacist with just the right prescription.

Hey - I'm the first one to admit that we may have gone a little overboard. I mean, it's hard to argue that having four separate weight divisions within ten pounds (as it is between, say, the junior flyweight and bantamweight divisions) isn't somewhat superfluous. And I don't think I'm alone when I question the necessity of the "mini-flyweight" or "minimumweight" division (105 pounds).

But even so, I'm not sure that any "reform advocate" who uses a "back-to-eight" philosophy as part of his argument really knows what the hell he is talking about.

Nonetheless, there are members of boxing media who advocate this position. Do they really understand the history of this sport? Do they think some of the "junior" weight classes, for example, were added only recently, or solely for the purposes of television? Or that they're strictly the product of some governing body's attempt to squeeze out some gratuitous sanctioning fees?

I don't want anyone to think I'm singling out Dan Rafael of the USA Today, who puts out a version of world rankings every month, in a format that only recognizes eight divisions. That's really more a reflection of a limit in space than it is an overriding philosophy about the state of the game. In point of fact, I find it rather remarkable that his newspaper devotes as much space as it does to covering any ratings at all, considering boxing's general popularity vis-a-vis other sports.

No, this is directed at those who feel that a move back to eight weight divisions could possibly serve as a remedy to boxing's ills, in any way, shape, or form. Four major reasons why I think any ratings system or "authority" with eight divisions can't - and won't - work:

1) THEY SIMPLY DON'T HAVE ANY BASIS IN REALITY. If they can't change the way world championships are pursued, what's the use? If the world's governing bodies are not going to abolish their junior divisions, it's not likely any apparatus that does not recognize them will have any relevance. Junior lightweights don't have to fight lightweights, for example, to move up the ladder in their chosen profession, and they simply DON'T fight them, as a general rule. Period.

2) IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO ATTAIN RATINGS ACCURACY. How can you possibly attempt to rate DeMarcus Corley among the world's welterweights, or Winky Wright among middleweights, and do so with any authority at all? There is no frame of reference, and simply no criteria established for determining where their place should be, since they obviously fight at their natural weight, which is lighter, and have not had to venture into the divisions in which one would attempt to rank them. To attempt to place Joel Casamayor or Jesus Chavez in a top ten of lightweights, for example, would be based not on results or accomplishments, but chiefly on speculation, and that, in and of itself, weakens the ratings process.

3) THERE IS A NEED FOR THE JUNIOR DIVISIONS. Can you imagine a 149-pounder competing against a 160-pounder in this day and age, even in a matchup of world-class fighters? There are some commissions who wouldn't even approve a fight like that, based on the weight difference, and I can't say I would blame them. But that's what you'd wind up with in an so-called "improved", streamlined system. Sure, I know all-time greats like Emile Griffith and Henry Armstrong have given up weight and beaten bigger men for world titles, but they are an exception to the rule, to say the least.

4) THE JUNIOR DIVISIONS ARE TOO FIRMLY ESTABLISHED TO IGNORE. Although some may try to create the impression that the junior divisions are something new and manufactured for television, they only need to refer to a record book to trace back the history of some of the weight classes. For example, the junior middleweight division has been around since 1962; the junior welters since 1923. The first junior featherweight title fight was held in 1922, and the junior lightweight division first appeared way back in 1921, with Johnny Dundee as champion! Not only was there no television then, but radio was not even fully developed! Other fighters who have held junior division titles before 1990 include the likes of Barney Ross, Tony Canzoneri, Nicolino Loche, Antonio Cervantes, Wilfred Benitez, Nino Benvenuti, Kid Chocolate, Aaron Pryor, Thomas Hearns, Sandy Saddler, Flash Elorde, Alfredo Escalera, Alexis Arguello, Hector Camacho, Wilfredo Gomez, Roberto Duran, and Sugar Ray Leonard. But I guess their titles meant nothing in the course of boxing history, right?

Again, if you're talking about an atmosphere that for nearly 80 years has existed with more than the so-called "original" eight divisions, then any contention that chopping out junior lightweights, junior welterweights, and junior middleweights, among others, somehow represents a return to normalcy would have to be considered "revisionist history", would it not?

I'm going to take things even a step further. I feel, rather than being something that is considered completely unnecessary and artificial, that the super middleweight (168-pound) division should have been established in boxing a long time ago. I just don't know how we could craft an argument for boxer safety if we tacitly approve, for example, that theoretically, fighters who weigh 161 or 162 pounds could, or should, possibly step into the ring against 175-pound champions on a regular basis, unless that fighter's skills are so overwhelming (Sugar Ray Robinson?) that he could compensate for it enough to be competitive.

Likewise, can you possibly argue that with athletes in general, and heavyweights in particular, being much bigger these days, the cruiserweight division isn't warranted? It has long since been plausible that a fighter who can't reasonably get his weight below, say, 185 pounds, can compete with the best in a division where the top contenders generally weigh between 225-270.

In this particular case, it is not a step back that serves to improve boxing, but rather a step forward.

[djday45]

PELTZ SQUEEZES FROM BOTH ENDS IN DUAL ROLE

by Charles Jay

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

-- Abraham Lincoln

On the promotional front, I'm not sure there's a more important issue for regulators than assuring that there is as fair and equitable a business atmosphere out there as possible.

Anyone who follows boxing knows that the television networks wield an awful lot of power, and that's it's not an easy thing to make a living in this business.

One thing you can be certain of - it's difficult enough for a promoter to gain a foothold in the boxing industry without having to get the seal of approval from one of his (or her) own competitors for the right to do so.

Should networks, or their representatives, be allowed to compete for talent with the vendors who would solicit them? Does that not present a conflict of interest that is, at best, alarming?

Yet that is the situation we are faced with here.

J. Russell Peltz, a long-time promoter from Philadelphia, was brought aboard at the outset of ESPN2's "Friday Night Fights" series as a "boxing coordinator". According to Bob Yalen, ESPN's director of brand management, "When we took on the Bill Cayton library (which incidentally, is the subject of a current lawsuit between Cayton and Peltz), my duties at ESPN were expanded to include a number of other sports categories, and they thought it might be helpful to bring in a consultant to lighten my load. So we brought in Russell."

Peltz, together with Yalen, had the responsibility for fielding proposals from various promoters who sought to sell fight cards to the network.

While Peltz did not have sole responsibility for this, he had more than his share of it, and the way the position evolved, he and Yalen each had their own group of promoters they did business with on behalf of ESPN. In an earlier interview with us, Yalen said, a promoter "could call Russell or myself, depending on who he normally deal with, and we'll weed it out and see who's got the best show for the date." Peltz told one reporter, when trying to explain why Sugar Ray Leonard Boxing was allowed to use Keith McKnight as an opponent for Joe Mesi on one of its April shows, "Bob has his guys, and I have my guys."

To those of us in the business who were expecting that Peltz might step out of his role of promoter, at least for the time being, when he took the ESPN job, we were somewhat surprised. Not only did Peltz NOT recuse himself from promoting, he actually, as part of his deal, received up to seven TV dates per year of the 45 available on ESPN!

Those dates alone, plus anything else he could put together by his own devices, would afford Peltz a healthy schedule by which to keep any of his signed fighters busy.

Most people in boxing acknowledged that there was an inherent conflict of interest just by virtue of Peltz' dual role, but it was generally concluded that his own credibility in boxing would overcome any suspicions, and that he wouldn't jeopardize a good reputation in the business by abusing his position. And after all, at least the package of promotional dates he garnered as part of his contract was a fact that was known up front.

But circumstances have changed - considerably.

And we're left wondering whether the old adage should be amended - whether it doesn't take absolute power to corrupt absolutely, but if indeed, partial power is enough.

Perhaps it was just wishful thinking to believe that the conflict that everyone thought was just a possibility would never come to fruition, and have a far-reaching effect.

But results have demonstrated that the fears of some observers may have justified.

One illustrative example involved a promoter/matchmaker named Rick Glaser, whose fighter, Billy Irwin, had been used on Peltz' shows at the Blue Horizon, and televised on ESPN2. Glaser had a promotional contract with the Canadian lightweight, and through his efforts, got Irwin rated the #1 contender by the IBF.

According to Glaser, Peltz was under the impression that he would be included as part of the promotional deal with Irwin, by virtue of the fact that he had put him into action on his own shows and featured him on the network.

Toward that end, Peltz sent a short memorandum to Glaser on December 27, 1999, in which Peltz sought a 50% piece of Glaser's promotional interests. Glaser turned Peltz down, reasoning that "I don't make deals like that. There was nothing to gain."

Indeed, because Irwin was the mandatory challenger for IBF lightweight champion Paul Spadafora, Glaser didn't need the help or influence of ANY promoter to secure a championship opportunity for his man. But Peltz knew exactly what he was doing.

Glaser eventually endeavored to promote a show of his own on ESPN2, featuring Irwin in the main event. He was turned down flat - first by Peltz, then by Yalen. He was given a number of different reasons - that he was inexperienced and unlicensed as a promoter, that Irwin was not enough of a name to be in the main event, that he would not "go in tough enough", because Glaser would be protecting Irwin's mandatory status. In an interview with Yalen shortly after our initial story broke, he expressed those same concerns to me as well.

"He (Glaser) isn't a promoter per se," Yalen said. "That's not to say he couldn't become one. We absolutely listened to what he wanted to talk about. Evidently he and Russell couldn't come to terms on a match - about Irwin's opponent, and the method to handle it, that's where the problems were."

To the savvy observer, however, the rationale seemed a bit transparent. For one thing, ESPN has, in fact, used more than one promoter without experience, including Larry McCartney, who is closely affiliated with Dean Chance's International Boxing Association, Bjorn Rebney of Sugar Ray Leonard Boxing, and Jeff Fried, who had previously been the attorney for Mat Tinley and America Presents. Obtaining a license to promote is generally not problematic in most jurisdictions, and it is not unusual for a first-timer to wait until a show is at least in the serious talking stages before applying for the license.

As for Irwin's status - how many #1 contenders did ESPN have an opportunity to show?

Glaser obviously smelled a rat, as did we. He went public with his grievance, revealing that he had been contacted by representatives of the FBI in connection with Peltz' business practices, and investigated filing lawsuits against Peltz and ESPN.

Glaser's claim was that Peltz, in effect, wanted to "freeze him" out of any involvement with Irwin, by creating the situation where Glaser couldn't get any TV fights for him, thus paving the way for Peltz to sign Irwin himself and profit from the eventual fight with Spadafora. In point of fact, that's exactly what wound up happening.

At the time of our original story about the Glaser/Peltz incident, I wrote:

"Peltz, in the process of being a promoter who pro-actively endeavors to invest in and guide careers, is engaged in the business of signing fighters to promotional contracts. As such, he is, in effect, in competition with other promoters in that pursuit - not necessarily the upper echelon promoters like Don King, Bob Arum, and Cedric Kushner, but certainly other mid-level promoters.

Essentially, in his current role with ESPN, Peltz finds himself in a position where he can exercise a certain level of control over whether the status of his competitors becomes stronger or weaker.

That's a conflict of interest. And if Peltz has actively used his position to strengthen himself as a promoter relative to the industry, or weaken others, he's in a possible restraint of trade situation.

It deserves some looking into."

The only part I would change is the last line. It doesn't "deserve some looking into". It deserves immediate action.

Any extraneous circumstances that might have existed should be of no consequence at all. Maybe it would have ultimately made financial sense for Glaser to hand over 50% of his fighter to Peltz. Maybe it would have made moral sense as well, if Peltz had used Irwin on his Blue Horizon fight cards in the hope that he would be involved in the fighter's career. Maybe cooperation with Peltz was absolutely necessary to advancing Irwin's career at that point in time.

Still, it's irrelevant.

Peltz was completely out of line approaching Glaser with such a proposal, so any explanations he may offer for his actions are completely moot.

Of course, he's never offered any explanations to us. Peltz refused to comment to TOTAL ACTION regarding this particular story, other than to tell us at the time of our original story almost two years ago, "Nothing Rick Glaser said was the truth."

Ironically, that, in and of itself, was a lie. I've seen a copy of the 50% agreement Peltz sent along for Glazer's signature. It is timestamped for December 27, 1999 and has Peltz' fax number stamped across the top as well.

What really matters, beyond all else, is that while he is an employee, contractor, or in any way represents the interests of ESPN, Russell Peltz has ABSOLUTELY no business making pitch for ANYONE'S fighters, particularly those he has done business with, either directly or indirectly, while acting in his capacity as a representative of ESPN, regardless of the circumstances.

If the people in the United States Congress are truly concerned about the welfare of the boxing industry, they'll take steps to prevent these kind of situations from persisting.

[djday45]

LET THE SIDESHOW BEGIN - HERE'S TODAY PANEL

by Charles Jay

Today is the day that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, through its Consumer Affairs Sub-Committee, holds a hearing concerning boxing legislation.

In case you're interested, here is a page with the basic info -

http://commerce.senate.gov/~commerce...002517C17.html

The proceedings will also be televised live on C-SPAN3, beginning at 1 PM Eastern time, and will go on for about an hour and a half. You can also listen to the hearing through

http://www.capitolhearings.org/

This basically how it goes: each of the panelists will have a five-minute statement to read - something which has been submitted to the committee in advance. After everyone has read his statement, the panelists will be open for questions from the members of the committee who will be present.

It's all a big show - the objective is to generate enough publicity so that a bill can be directed for a Senate vote, then passed onto the House. The legislation concerns a Federal commission-type structure for boxing, most likely another ineffective bill unless these people get some real input. For the most part, that won't happen today. And if it does, from the guy who may be the biggest truth-teller on today's panel (see below), history has demonstrated that not much in the way of action will be taken very soon.

You can tell most of these players without a scorecard. But just for your enlightenment, I thought I might just run down today's list for you, which I suppose is subject to some change, along with what you might expect - a little editorial comment:

* MUHAMMAD ALI

-- Of course, the appearance of Ali should give you an idea of what the real purpose of this hearing is. Yes, Ali is that rare athlete who transcends his sport, and he'll bring attention to these hearings. And the major piece of legislation that this committee has been concerned with bears his name. But with all due respect to the champ, who will be in the building earlier in the day to testify at another committee's hearing on Parkinson's, has he ever really concerned himself that much with the issues that are at hand? Will he actually speak at the hearing? Or is this just an exploitative way for the Senators to get some cheap publicity out of their hearing today?

* ROY JONES JR

. -- Well, he came last time they had hearings - this time I think he may be a late substitute for somebody else. Jones didn't really have very much in the way of substance to offer last time, and I don't know if that situation will change. But no doubt the Committee would get a lot more if they just took a look behind Jones and chose to sit his "advisor" down for a little "Q&A" session. Brad Jacobs, who is working for Jones now, was notorious in his previous boxing life for the many dirty, conflict-of-interest-infected deals he executed while Director of Boxing Programming for USA Network, kicking off FBI and Grand Jury investigations and eventually (unofficially, of course) leading to the banishment of "Tuesday Night Fights" by the network's new, Barry Diller-led management. I think it's fair to say these episodes will be the subject of stories in subsequent editions of "Operation Cleanup".

* TIM LUECKENHOFF

-- Lueckenhoff is the president of the Association of Boxing Commissions. Tim's overall agenda is the seamless conversion of the ABC into a national commission, replete with powers vested in it by Federal law. Originally I was in favor of this, but I have come to distrust the organization to some degree. My principal reason for this has been well-documented before, and will be documented again in future editions of "Operation Cleanup". Most of the ABC's leadership is suspect at best (I don't necessarily include Tim in there). But for a organization that wants to be a Federally-mandated "watchdog", the ABC needs a watchdog itself. As far as I am concerned, the ABC will never be viable as long as it has people like Jack Kerns serving on its board, and as long as it has a mechanism that allows someone like him to serve. Kerns, in case you haven't read any of our stories before, is perhaps the most dangerous person in the United States from the perspective of fighter safety. Just read "Horse Manure isn't The Only Thing That Stinks in Kentucky" in our Special Reports section. Of course, a few of the ABC board members have ring deaths under their belts over the past couple of years - deaths that may have been avoidable. I wonder if any Senator will have the insight to ask about this? I wonder, I wonder, I wonder.

One of Lueckenhoff's other major concerns is getting an insurance situation straightened out - something that will be the subject of another "Operation Cleanup" piece. It seems that in states without boxing commissions, the Professional Boxer Safety Act requires that a commissioner from another state, approved by the ABC, must travel to that state to supervise. The only problem is, none of the commissioners are covered by the current insurance policy the ABC has in place - oh, except for those who are sitting on the ABC board. That means Jack Kerns can spread his virus to any state in the country without a boxing commission. Interesting.

* EMANUEL STEWARD

-- Steward will probably say whatever the Committee wants him to say. After all, there is a "pre-interview" that is conducted between a staffer and a potential panelist before the invitations are actually extended. Steward, besides being the trainer for Lennox Lewis, also is the national director of the coaching program for USA Boxing, which is the governing entity for amateur boxing in the United States. he also has top amateur prospects, who will presumably be competing for spots on the next Olympic team, living in one of his houses. Since Steward is an official with USA Boxing, it is mandated that he have unique access to top prospects coming out of the amateur program, which by definition gives him an advantage in the process of recruiting them as pros. We have brought up the potential conflict of interest this represents in a previous column and will go steps further as the "Operation Cleanup" series continues. Surely this subject will not be touched upon to any degree by the Senate Committee.

* BERT SUGAR

-- With all due respect to Bert, who has always produced quality books and magazines, I don't know what he's doing on this panel, unless he's arranged to get on a couple of talk shows as a result. I don't know what particular knowledge he may have about the inner workings of the boxing industry that would make him invaluable as an information source. Sure, he's railed about boxing corruption, but it's mostly been of the cliche variety. Everyone knows the "surface" issues - the kind of boxing reform that is needed in America today is the kind where one has to look BENEATH the surface, way past the obvious, to the kind of things that go on that NO ONE who is not connected intimately with the game is aware of. Congress will never learn. Maybe they want to hear a few one-liners.

* LOU DiBELLA

-- If there is a guy who might bring a few curveballs with him today, it's DiBella, especially if the Senators want to engage him in a question-and-answer session. DiBella, the former HBO executive, is the guy on this panel who has the most intimate knowledge of what goes on in the boxing industry on the highest levels. And at the same time, he's anti-establishment to a degree. Yes, he's got a current position in boxing, but he's already indicated to me that if they ask him, he'll tell them the truth. Some of his views on the current roles of manager and promoter in boxing are controversial, and they will serve as subject matter as we continue this series. They certainly deserve discussion, and if the Senators are wide awake they'll no doubt find themselves thinking about things. Maybe some of them should set their alarm clock for 1 PM.

* TEDDY ATLAS

-- Teddy is actually going to be a no-show for these proceedings. That's surprising, since he is constantly screaming about a national commission, and, at least in the opinion of some, wants to be the national boxing "czar" himself. I don't really know if it's because ESPN didn't want him to go, or there was a scheduling conflict, or whether the people with the Committee couldn't "pre-program" what he had to say. But his thoughts are going to show up, perhaps on these pages, perhaps on another boxing page. We'll keep you "posted", as it were.

At any rate, I hope you watch, and I hope you chime in with your thoughts, so that I can get them passed on to Ken Nahigian, the minority counsel for the committee, who doesn't really want to hear what you have to say, but may have to

[bplotkin]

DJDay you are violating that person's copyright by posting whole chapters verbatim.

[ThirdPartyView]

Isn't he Charles Jay?

[djday45]

Originally Posted by bplotkin

DJDay you are violating that person's copyright by posting whole chapters verbatim.

NO I m not the e-book is FREE on his website and he wishes the book to be seen by as many people as possible as he mentions in the first chapter.

rgds
dean

[Bonedwarf]

I shall have to kick back later and read this thread. Wow!