HBO Unhappy With Golden Boy/Affliction

by mmalogic on Sep 13, 2008 7:46 PM EDT Comment 31 comments

Promoted by Michael Rome

I just got off the phone with a friend of mine over at HBO (who will remain anonymous) and they want nothing to do with "bastardizing" (as he put it) their Boxing product.

It seems Golden Boy offered the Arlovski/Barnett fight on the under card of Hopkins/Pavlik... but HBO rejected the idea.

We also discussed the end game:

If Golden Boy is successful what then? You just converted another fan pool for the UFC. The casual UFC fan will not order these mixed boxing/MMA cards who wouldn't already... so the best case scenario for Golden Boy is to convert their boxing fans into MMA fans.

Is Golden Boy taking a risk may bite them in the ass? It seems HBO is not.

If you work the numbers and realize that in order to be successful you would have to convert a good portion of the boxing fans into MMA fans... that opens up alot of variables that can blow up in your face - for example: right now boxing ppv's are hurt by counter programming via other boxing events on other networks...

This would create a situation where counter programming by other MMA events can then have a similar effect.

For HBO It would be like playing chess against 2 players where you only have one set while the other 2 each have their own... how can you conceivably protect your king?

The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.

5 recs | Comment 31 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Very interesting, thanks.

by Eugene Schelfaut on Sep 13, 2008 8:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

“Bastardizing” their boxing product? That’s BS! Boxing is a bastardized combat sport. Allowing only punches just seems like an arbitrary rule. I do think Arlovski/Barnett would make an awesome addition to the card – great strikers who can also make ground fights exciting and really work the crowd. Good match-up for getting new fans.

by themachiavellian on Sep 13, 2008 9:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

“bastardizing” meaning:

A Chinese restaurant introducing persian food for free to all their customers with every order.

Now who is going to benefit more from this?

The Chinese restaurant that has conditioned most of its customers to like Persian food or the persian restaurant that just decided to open across the street that specializes only in Persian food?

by mmalogic on Sep 13, 2008 9:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So if HBO is not interested in “bastardizing” the product why did they want to get UFC to mirror boxing when they were negotiating with them?

by The Bronzeville Bully on Sep 13, 2008 10:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Because it would involve going all in.

If they were to do this, the end result would be adding fans to the UFC, who is their competition. If the UFC was no longer their competition, there would be no risk. Airing this would be like advertising competition. It makes no sense for HBO unless it’s the UFC.

by Michael Rome on Sep 13, 2008 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yep…

Lets take that same metaphor from above but in this instance you are in the real estate business and you own block A.

You have a very successful Chinese restaurant on your block with regular traffic that comes through your block eating at your restaurant as well as loyal customers who come to your block just to eat at that restaurant. Your Restaurant is not only the best in the Chinese food service but is a leader in the food service industry.

A block away which is called Block B there is a Persian restaurant… it is the best in persian food service but also like your Chinese restaurant is a leader in the food service industry…

Now are you going to condition your customers that comes to your Chinese restaurant to like Persian food knowing the best Persian restaurant is a block away… not on your block? The restaurant that is KNOWN to be PERSIAN food?

Will you open your own Persian resteraunt or partner with someone who can on your block knowing full well no other persian resteraunt has been able to stay in business other than The Established Persian Restaurant in this real estate sector?

Or will you entertain the idea of The Best Known Persian Restaurant opening a branch on your block knowing this will bring extra traffic to your block, some may also eat at the Chinese Restaurant and even if some of your Chinese resteraunt customers decide to go over to the Persian resteraunt at least it is on your block increasing its value and it won’t be killing each other with scheduled sales and all you can eat buffets…

And if the deal doesn’t happen your just better off not messing with Persian food.

Comprende`?

by mmalogic on Sep 13, 2008 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Translation:

Food service industry = Combat Sports industry

Block A = HBO

The Best Chinese Restaurant = HBO boxing

The Best Persian Restaurant = UFC

by mmalogic on Sep 13, 2008 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you’re making me hungry and I prefer persian food over greasy chinese.

by flyingknees on Sep 14, 2008 7:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

conceviably / conceivably

Use firefox, holmes

by banter on Sep 13, 2008 10:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I still don’t get why Golden Boy would want to help promote MMA. The fan base are on two different borders.

by steveoc24 on Sep 14, 2008 12:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

GB has money and a desire to maintain their revenue streams,

but sees that Boxing has a questionable future, at least in its current incarnation and scale. Makes all kinds of sense to me.

I don’t think they understand the obstacles in their way, but I do think they’re up to the task if they want to commit themselves. Just don’t go thinking they’re going to compete with the UFC immediately and they’ll be fine.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Sep 14, 2008 12:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is no possible way Affliction can now compete with the UFC after signing with Golden Boy. It’s two completely different sports. Even if Afflcition/Golden Boy does good ratings/buys on their first event, everybody will just say it was because of the main boxing event!

I think Affliction is finished and they know it. They only made it this far because they put their t-shirts on UFC fighters. Now that there “banned” from the UFC and their first show as a “promoter” was not successful, they signed with Golden Boy just to KEEP their “t-shirt” company in business.

Affliction is just a trend and that’s it. Without attaching their name to a successful MMA/Boxing organization, they will no longer be a t-shirt company.

That’s why I think they signed with Golden Boy.

by steveoc24 on Sep 14, 2008 1:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t know if you heard the rumors before Affliction even anounced that they would be signing promoting/fighters, but they were all of GBP/Affliction. Only like a few days or so before the announcement of Fedor did it change to just Affliction. Also the way I remember the rumors going was it was GBP that backed out at the time due to the riskiness of the move. Something has convinced GBP to change their minds since then and I don’t think it’s cause they were scared off by Banned’s numbers.

by natyong on Sep 16, 2008 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think probably allot of the fans who bought Affliction 1 may do some money conserving of their own.

I mean this is PPV, who wants to pay for a show with fewer stars, unless their cutting the PPV price.

As a business person, to me this reaks of failure, to go after an entirely new demographic after only your first show. It’s one thing to build on your success, succesfully tap the MMA demographic, and then try to bring in boxing fans. But when you make this sort of move after 1 show, when you don’t have a fan base of repeat customers to build on in the first place, it looks like pure desperation.

It’s OK to lose money on shows, if you are capturing customers for future events. But to turn around and try and sell those customers some kind of new hybrid product the second time out. Crazy

by Shocbomb on Sep 14, 2008 1:18 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed!

“But when you make this sort of move after 1 show, when you don’t have a fan base of repeat customers to build on in the first place, it looks like pure desperation.”

Couldn’t agree more!! Except that it doesn’t look “like” pure desperation, it “IS” pure desperation. Not to keep Affliction going as a promoter (MMA/Boxing), but just to keep their clothing line.

by steveoc24 on Sep 14, 2008 1:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The people running HBO Sports are the same morons who canceled Inside the NFL, even though there were roughly zero people clamoring for an end to the show. It sure seems like they’re got a bunch of people stuck in about 1982 or so running the ship there.

by andherewego on Sep 14, 2008 3:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I know it's almost totally unrelated,

but HBO’s general programming has gotten progressively worse since the mid-way point of Sopranos. Entourage is funny, but it’s brainless television and it takes literally no risks. Oz, Carnivale, Sopranos and Deadwood were their greatest productions, but they canceled two of those shows mid-way.

I think they’ve got some meddling board exec-types that are mucking up the program. Let the success go to their heads sort of thing.

In short: HBO really kind of sucks now, whereas they were the best thing on cable five years ago.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Sep 15, 2008 2:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

100% correct.

5 years ago, HBO was considered the home for edgy, modern tv. Now they have fallen way behind nets like FX and Showtime. I think the people running HBO are resting on their laurels, while even major network tv passes them by. Personally, I don;t want HBO softening mma, so I’m fine with this.

The Comeback? wtf was that crap. I love Entourage and Curb, but beyond that, HBO is pretty weak.

"The bigger the cushion, the sweeter the pushin'"

by BJJDenver on Sep 15, 2008 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

btw, they have been talking about reviving Deadwood, but not sure where it stands. Just a statement about their current programming.

"The bigger the cushion, the sweeter the pushin'"

by BJJDenver on Sep 15, 2008 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would love for them to bring back Oz, but they killed off everyone. I cancelled HBO when they cancelled Oz. The only other show I was watching was Sopranos and sometimes The Wire.

Just my $.02

"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007

by lovingmma25 on Sep 15, 2008 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oz was definitely their landmark series.

My brother and I would watch that every airing of every episode that we could. I have to admit that I wasn’t completely disheartened when they ended it, though. It had kind of run its course in my view, there just wasn’t much else to do. I mean, they’d already had a riot, a bombing (attempt), an escape or three, faced political pressure on pretty much every aspect of the prison, and shown dozens of brutal murders and rapes of main characters.

Great show, but I didn’t see much point in continuing it. Serials offend me, I prefer story arcs that I can follow diligently, and when they’re done, move on to the next piece of excellent media.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Sep 17, 2008 12:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd heard they were interested in doing a mini-series or pair of TV-movies

for Deadwood, but I hadn’t heard anything about them actually reviving the series. And last I checked, some of their starts are moving on to bigger paydays on the silver screen.

I’m with you entirely on not wanting them to impact MMA. I honestly think that the UFC has made it softer than it should be, but this is at least seemingly necessary in order to gain mainstream acceptance, and to gain entry into many markets which currently disallow MMA events.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Sep 16, 2008 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

starts = stars

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Sep 16, 2008 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Are you suggesting that the UFC could do away with some of the rules? Like Felony Fights?

"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007

by lovingmma25 on Sep 17, 2008 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s what I’m talking about!

No Doctors Just nurses in bikini’s, Fighters are required to be high on something, and have the cardio tank of a sloth.

I think he was meaning such things as knees on ground or at most something like time limits or 10 pt. must scoring system. But hey Felony fights it is. “Ladies and Gentleman were live from and undisclosed Mexican desert canyon bringing your UFC 94 Outlaw. Tonight’s main event Melvin Guliard vs. Charles Bennett…”

by natyong on Sep 17, 2008 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have not personally seen one of these videos, but I have heard about them & read about them.

I was looking for more clarity from misterjonez’ comment.

I do think knees to the head of a downed opponent are okay, but I don’t agree with soccer kicks & stomps.

"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007

by lovingmma25 on Sep 17, 2008 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, mostly I'm talking about knees

to the head of a downed opponent. Personally I think stomps are good to leave out, since I think there’s too much risk of serious injury from them. But knees to the head should absolutely be allowed..it changes the dynamic of a fight to disallow them, and it seems unnatural to me.

Wrestlers would have to set their shots up much better, and BJJ guys would have to work much harder from the bottom in order to avoid side-mount. As it stands right now, many BJJ guys almost want the fight to end up in side-mount, since there are so few ways the guy on top can attack/finish, so they just fall into defend mode and hope the fight gets stood up.

As for soccer kicks, meh. I really don’t think they change the fights that much, so I guess I’m in favor of leaving them out. They look brutal as finishing moves, but it seems they rarely impact the direction of a fight.

And the 10 point must system is a complete waste. There is literally no standardized method for judging fighters from round to round, which leads to some really wacky judging. How can you have a fight go 29-28, 29-28 and 27-30? Sounds ridiculous, but these kinds of things seem to occur in the UFC.

I’m totally in favor of time limits because they drive a much faster paced fight. I really don’t want a replay of Gracie vs. Shamrock SUPERFIGHT. Yuck. As fans, we learned a lot from that fight, but one of the things we all took away from it is that we want fights finished.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Sep 18, 2008 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

When I see soccer kicks and stomps I am not impressed as it doesn’t take much skill to stomp or soccer kick a downed opponent.

"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007

by lovingmma25 on Sep 18, 2008 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I understand your point about those moves not requiring skill,

but really that doesn’t matter to me. I’m interested in seeing the purest forms of combat expressed in as safe a manner as is necessary to protect fighters from critical injury, while maintaining the intensity of the fights and the overall integrity of the various combat styles being integrated.

BJJ really doesn’t get neutered too much in MMA. It applies fairly well, but it’s really just defensive. At the lower levels, a top BJJ guy can use his subs offensively, but at the top level, it’s really more defensive than offensive. The top-mount position does lose some of its luster, but only because these are actual fights, as opposed to BJJ rolling matches. And the obvious defense against a top-mount is to grab the abdomen/hips of the guy on top and suck your head up into his belly, or to give him your back if possible.

Same goes for wrestlers, whose primary goal in wrestling is to put the opponent on his back. This can actually work against a wrestler if he’s careless in establishing this position, as Royce Gracie has proven.

Boxers are so carried away in their own sport with protecting their head that they get taken off their feet by fighting the same way in MMA. Even though their approach is perfect for their own sport, it doesn’t all translate. Their chin, endurance and overall punching power do translate, however.

So to me, the importance of disallowing knees to the head of a downed opponent is that it simply changes the landscape of the fight far too dramatically. As much as I’d like to see a more technical scoring system, similar to the one used in amateur wrestling with points awarded based on feats accomplished during the round, I understand that these are fights first, competitive sport matches second. And to disallow one of the most powerful striking methods when your opponent is at his most vulnerable is simply wasteful. It stunts the evolution of the sport of MMA.

That said, I’d rather watch 20 UFC events per year that don’t allow knees to the head of a downed opponent, compared to 5 UFC events per year where they do allow those strikes. So I’m a pragmatist first, idealist second ;)

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Sep 18, 2008 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good points in reference to the boxers and wrestlers. You have a good point about knees to the head of a downed opponent.

I do remember while watching the Herring/Kongo fight – that I was thinking to myself, if this was Pride the fight would have been over by now.

"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007

by lovingmma25 on Sep 19, 2008 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Herring/Kongo is a great example.

Also, if knees to the head of a downed opponent were allowed, Chuck’s gameplan would be more widely emulated. Sprawl-and-Brawl would be much more effective, because knees to the head are much more powerful, in general, than fists.

Great example of a fight that would have been enhanced and more exciting if knees to the head of a downed opponent were allowed.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Sep 19, 2008 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs