It’s Thursday and, as tradition dictates, we air out my bulging, musty, musky sack for the entire boxing world to half-hate/half-enjoy. This week, we have comments/questions regarding Anthony Joshua’s bout with Jarrell Miller, the Thurman-Broner nonsense, and why I’m so hard on DAZN.
AJ vs. Big Baby
Magno.
Rumor has it that Anthony Joshua is about to sign on against Jarrell Miller in NYC’s MSG [Note: Since this email was sent, it’s been confirmed that Joshua-Miller will take place on June 1 in Madison Square Garden]. If that happens, I think AJ wins pretty easy, but I also think that Joshua will take a huge hit in the area of public relations. Nobody’s burning to see Miller-Joshua and this will be the third or fourth fight in a row where AJ doesn’t fight someone the boxing world demands he should fight. To me, this looks more and more like what you call a cash grab for AJ. What do you think about the fight and about how this makes Joshua look?
-- John Creek
John.
If we’re exploding in positivity, Jarrell Miller is probably fourth on the list of heavyweights we’d like to see against Joshua (behind Deontay Wilder, Tyson Fury, and Dillian Whyte). If we’re bogged down in real world logic, he’d probably be fifth, sixth, or even seventh on that contenders list. Either way, that doesn’t look good for a guy who is raking in dough and basking in hype as the anointed “next big thing.” As I’ve written before, I don’t even care about who’s at fault for Team Joshua not being able to make bouts with Wilder, Fury, and now Whyte. The fact of the matter is that Joshua—with all the money and power-- is the one looking bad for the fights not happening. And he looks worse and worse as time passes and the truly big fights fail to materialize.
Fighting Miller in New York is little more than a publicity ploy to dash the “he’s a UK champ” talk coming in the wake of those big fights falling through. Sure, plenty of people will fall for the “he’s coming to America” angle and it’ll buy his team another six months or so. But, if the winner of Wilder-Fury 2 is not standing across the ring from Joshua later this year, “AJ” will be torn to shreds by the court of public opinion—and his legacy (and salability outside the UK) will be affected.
As for the fight, itself? Joshua beats Miller fairly easily, probably via dull UD.
Thurman vs. Broner?
Mags. What’s this I hear about Thurman vs. Broner later this year? Where do I start about how awful this is? Please tell me this is just a bad rumor or some sort of joke.
-- Shawn T.
Nobody would be THAT cynical, not even in boxing. Thurman-Broner ain’t happening any time soon and Thurman has actually flat-out said that.
But let’s not pretend that Broner’s career is over, either.
Broner can still generate more publicity than all but a handful of active fighters and, as long as he can do that, he’ll find plenty of high-profile main stage appearances. I’d expect him to be shoved on to some undercard later this year, matched against a second tier player. And if he wins (or maybe even if he doesn’t)— he’ll be in line for a bigger fight next year. I hate to be the bearer of bad news for a lot of you, but Broner’s ability to piss you off and pull you online to disparage him on social media is a bankable asset.
Why So Hard on DAZN?
Mr. Magno. I notice that you’ve been critical of DAZN and its boxing efforts and I was wondering why that is. To me as a boxing fan, they are providing an affordable service that delivers good value for the price. I’m more than happy to pay the small subscription price for the boxing content they deliver. I realize that they are just starting with their efforts here in the US and they may have some kinks to work out, but I don’t quite understand your overwhelming negativity when it comes to their efforts. Am I missing something? Good service at a good price should be a good thing, right?
-- John J.
John. I don’t have anything personal against DAZN or their efforts. But, at this point, they are dealing more in delivering mediocre fights in bulk to the public—like those warehouses that sell boxes of 25 cent lighters to flea markets and dollar stores. Yeah, there have been some good fights and they can boast of having the two biggest active stars—Anthony Joshua and Saul Alvarez—fighting under their banner, but I honestly haven’t seen a whole lot that would make me want to jump online with my credit card, eager to join up.
I also have some serious doubts as to whether their Netflix-like business model could work in boxing. Hell, it’s still up in the air if the Netflix-like business model will work for the debt-heavy Netflix. If, as reported, Canelo makes $30 million per fight, twice a year, and let’s say his opponent makes $3-5 million—that means DAZN will need 550,000 subscribers paying for the full twelve months, just to cover the two Canelo fights. I honestly don’t see how this works without increasing the price substantially or going to a PPV model for the “big” fights.
But, forgetting the economics behind this effort, my concerns are mostly about yet another business entity further divvying up talent to put behind exclusive paywalls. I’m against anything that will make it harder for the big fights to get made and any company, like DAZN, which pops up and claims high-end fighters as their exclusive content, is, in my opinion, bad for the sport because it creates more obstacles to making certain fights. DAZN just happens to be the latest, so they catch more flak from me than the others. But the boxing business model, as a whole, is crap.
Got a question (or hate mail) for Magno’s Bulging Mail Sack? The best of the best gets included in the weekly mailbag segment right here at FightHype. Send your stuff here: paulmagno@theboxingtribune.com.