Max K.

PittPanther · 01-10-2004, 01:07 AM

Is the worse analyst in the sport today. How is this guy still working? I've come to the conclusion that he must have some angle that he is blackmailing some big time exec with.

Anyway----

Jermain Taylor is one tough mothertrucker. I'd love to see him step up in the 160 division.

wildhawke11 · 01-10-2004, 01:31 AM

Panther
I agree, in fact i feel many of the new boxing fans do not understand the fight game because they listen to guys broadcasting who in my opinion should never be there in the first place.
Have you noticed that sometimes in a close fight, at times the commentator is talking as if only one fighter is in the ring.
Now this of course gives a newcomer watching boxing the wrong impression of how the fight is really going.

I often wonder if someone is being bunged if you get my meaning

wildhawke11 · 01-10-2004, 01:42 AM

I will tell you another thing my friend the best refs dont always get the job, its again who you know and if you play the game.
I think i told you this One ref on his way to the ring i know for a fact was told to favour a certain fighter.

How do i know he told me himself, he refused but he did not get hardly any work after that.
It was a pretty big fight to, i might add. One guy was the world champion in fact.

As i said you dont play by there rules and you wont get work its as simple as that.

Rasmuth · 01-10-2004, 02:16 AM

Personally...I like Max K. Lets face it...his job is to have an opinion and we all know...if you have an opinion...many will disagree.

But that being said...He's an enthusiastic promoter of the sport and he obviously truly loves the sport...just like we all do. He's got a good gig and he's not ripping us or the sport off. He loves boxing and that can only be good.

The casual observer of the sport is negatively influenced in a much greater degree by people like Don King...Bob Arum...post-jail Mike Tyson...etc who make a mockery of the sport. Todays news alledging fight-fixing just continues to drag down what once was the greatest spectator sport.

In light of that...I'll take Max K. anyday.

Cap · 01-10-2004, 12:08 PM

Have to agree with Rasmuth. Sometimes I disagree with Kellerman, but he does exude enthusiasm for the sport. Up here in Canada, it doesn't get mentioned unless a boxer commits a felony.

Cap

hamed · 01-10-2004, 12:37 PM

I agree with Rasmuth & Cap, Max loves boxing & I enjoy listening to him! He knows boxing & for such a young guy, he knows about old time fighters, in addition to all the current fighters. Hopefully he'll be around for a long time so we can all say we remember him talking boxing when he was a young guy.

PittPanther · 01-10-2004, 01:03 PM

I just don't find him very knowledgeable at all. . .sorry, don't see it.

Here's an example: During last night's broadcast and coverage of the Arum investigation, he said something to the effect that the De La Hoya vs. Mosely II could never have been fixed, and that watching the fight shows that neither guy was thinking about taking a round off, taking a dive etc. Does he really think that fans are that sheltered? I'm not saying the fight was fixed, although at the time I was very vocal about the fact that I thought it was a bad decision. Boxing is the easiest sport to fix; think about it, you could pay off a fighter, a ref, or perhaps the judges. Max's comment was onesided in my opinion and lacked the depth that I look for "insiders" to have.

I agree with some arguements that Max K has made in the past. Whitaker did beat De La Hoya. He's right. But he was so confident about his call of the De La Hoya/Mosely II fight that he went on to say that boxing fans watching the PPV at home would have no idea as to really what was going on, and that the masses were more influenced by Foreman's words afterwards that had, according to him, more of an impact on what the fans watched with their own two eyes than the 100 or so more punches that De La Hoya landed over Mosely. I found it insulting to most fight fans at best. Take it a step further, and once again playing Devil's advocate, what if the fight proves to be a fix? Max. K loses his credibility, hence the backpedaling last night after the news surfaced.

And please, I also don't buy into the argument that Arum would never do something like that. . .De La Hoya win or lose in that fight is still the cash cow, it really didn't matter to his promotor if he won. What will Mosely get for fighting Wright? Pennies on the dollar to what he got for fighting De La Hoya. That's the truth. De La Hoya will still command a bigger pay day.

As far as fight fixing goes---it's been around forever, sorry if I don't share the negative perception that boxing will be doomed because another fight was possibly fixed.

Boxing is not squeaky-clean, never has been. And it's the holier than thou attitude of Max that I find to be rather disturbing. I still remember the negative marks he made about Big George after George questioned the validity of that decision. You guys like him because of his enthusiasm, ok I understand that, but I just don't find him to be a student or historian of the science.

One last note:

Think about all the fights that were "fishy" in some way or another in the past. The list just grows.

BrocktonBlockBuster · 01-10-2004, 02:37 PM

I like Max,he shows emotion. Although he may not always be correct. Larry Merchent is the worst in my opinion. He comes off as a grump. I once bought a pay-per view for $40 dollars and the whole time Larry complained. This is boring,these guys stink,these guys are horrible! WTF-I pay for a show and this is what I get! Very,very,unprofessional! Imagine buying Title Bout and then listening to the Trunzo's tell you how bad it is! I don't know how Jim Trumpy,George Foreman and HBO can deal with this guy.

hamed · 01-10-2004, 05:05 PM

I think what Max meant in his statements on Oscar's fight was that it made more sense for Oscar to win that fight (if there was a fix) because then a 3rd fight would be a natural. With both guys being 1-1 against each other a 3rd fight could have been -The "Let's settle this once & for all Brawl". Now, Shane's up 2-0 as pros & he beat Oscar once when they were kids too. Why would anyone want to fix that fight & have Shane win? I think Oscar won - as most people seem to think. Styles make fight so there's little reason to fight again now - except maybe for money. Even if Oscar wins a 3rd bout, Shane can still say he's up 2 or 3 to 1.

cubedrum · 01-10-2004, 05:07 PM

Actually boxing is the hardest sport to fix. The reason for this is that sports books are a tight community. If a bettor makes a large bet, every sports book in Vegas is informed, making it difficult to place a large bet anywhere else. Without the ability to make large bets in several sports books there wouldn't be any way to recoup what would have to be a 6 or 7 figure payoff in a major fight. The refs and judges could still have the fighter they're favoring knocked out. It's just not profitable as fixing team sports potentially is. It's simple to to handicap a team by having a few players not play their best, but in a 1 on 1 situation, everyone would have to be in on it or it wouldn't work. Otherwise it's just too risky. Also boxing is more closely watched for such activity than any other sport, due to it's long storied history of chicanery. There are more treasury agents in Vegas than anywhere outside of Washington DC. This information came from my cousin Craig who was a blackjack dealer in Vegas in the 80s.

Cube

PittPanther · 01-10-2004, 05:42 PM

Sorry bud---I'm sure your cousin told you that, but I don't think that boxing is harder to fix than football.

It's not as profitable as fixing a team sport? Are you serious? You bet on odds when you bet a fight, so if I take an underdog its going to pay out much more than taking New England and giving 6 in today's game.

Unless you parlay it, it's pretty much straight up, since to compensate you get points.

Cap · 01-10-2004, 06:27 PM

Let's face it. Kellerman makes his living off boxing. Anything that might further hurt the sport's already tarnished image is something to be avoided, ignored, brushed aside. Max loves boxing and does a good job of promoting it. Maybe he's not the most knowledgeable fan, but he makes a great shill nonetheless.

Did Arum fix the Mosley/De la Hoya fight? If he could've he would've. Would either Shane or Oscar go along? I honestly don't think so. That leaves the ref or the judges. I watched the fight, and I came away thinking it could have gone either way. It was a pretty good scrap, and that's usually all you can ask for.

Cap

cubedrum · 01-10-2004, 06:34 PM

A team like a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. It would cost a cheat a lot less to pay off an offensive lineman who makes 250k a year than to pay a fighter who stands to make millions if his record is perfect. Also you can mention all the odds you want, if no one will take your bet you don't profit at all. Let's take the upcoming fight between Tszyu and Mitchell. To profit, you would have to bet on 3-1 underdog Mitchell. To pay off Tszyu would cost a lot, and for you to make that much, you would have to bet something like 500,000 to a million on Mitchell to win. Any attempt at a bet like that would get you scrutinized and investigated even before the opening bell, after certainly delaying your attempt to bet. Of course this all could be done with lesser fights and fighters, for less money, maybe slipping by the casinos impressive measures to keep their money, but we're talking about the biggest fight of the year. Oscar just coasts late and he's paid for it over and over. He should have gone for the KO like against Vargas. You can fix fights, but not big, competitive fights like DelaHoya- Mosley. I imagine it would be easier to fix college football for the same reasons.

Cube

PittPanther · 01-10-2004, 06:56 PM

Come on now

cubedrum · 01-10-2004, 07:08 PM

He he. If you're betting you are at the mercy of the sports books. If they stand to lose a lot of money, you're just not going to be able to place a bet. Bookies stand a chance of ripping you off, plus if a big time bookie found out you fixed a fight, you would be dead, seriously injured or at the very least blacklisted at sports books. Your argument is based on "think about it". Mine is based on facts and the experiences of actual people.

Cube

PittPanther · 01-10-2004, 07:11 PM

Numerous black jack dealers at Vegas?

Seriously, come on

cubedrum · 01-10-2004, 10:31 PM

He. Just 1.

PittPanther · 01-10-2004, 10:46 PM

Right, and that makes him, as well as you, an "insider" who knows every secret about the the underworld of boxing?

Let me get this straight now, I don't want to be incorrect. So because you have this cousin that works or worked in Vegas as a blackjack dealer your position is based in fact?

Now, let me state your position clearly, big fights can't be fixed because they aren't profitable. Correct? You aren't that naive, are you?

Then you go on to point out that it wouldn't be cost effective to pay a fighter to take a dive? Correct?

What makes you think they would pay off a fighter?

cubedrum · 01-11-2004, 12:40 AM

Actually the insider part is that he worked at a casino WHERE THERE IS A SPORTS BOOK. Being aware of how casinos do things is all the knowledge I'm claiming. I'm not saying it couldn't be profitable at all, but people like that are all about profit and it's an uphill battle to profit from fixing big fight boxing. And if the fighters weren't involved? No cheat would spend money and risk federal indictment to bribe a judge or a referee only to have his stiff underdog get KO'd. Perhaps I am basing my argument on very little. You are basing yours on nothing besides "if you think about it."

Still enjoy talking to you though Pitt

Cube

PittPanther · 01-11-2004, 07:10 AM

My position is very simple: Big fights are fixed and it can be very profitable to do so. I would say that is based more on fact than you would like to admit. It's a little more than "if you think about it."

It's more like "if you look at boxing's history it sure has happened before."

01-10-2004, 01:07 AM	#1 (permalink)
PittPanther All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 1,174	Max K. Is the worse analyst in the sport today. How is this guy still working? I've come to the conclusion that he must have some angle that he is blackmailing some big time exec with. Anyway---- Jermain Taylor is one tough mothertrucker. I'd love to see him step up in the 160 division. __________________ Commitment Teamwork Pride Hail to Pitt!

01-10-2004, 02:16 AM	#4 (permalink)
Rasmuth All Star Starter Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Upstate Western NY Posts: 1,214	Personally...I like Max K. Lets face it...his job is to have an opinion and we all know...if you have an opinion...many will disagree. But that being said...He's an enthusiastic promoter of the sport and he obviously truly loves the sport...just like we all do. He's got a good gig and he's not ripping us or the sport off. He loves boxing and that can only be good. The casual observer of the sport is negatively influenced in a much greater degree by people like Don King...Bob Arum...post-jail Mike Tyson...etc who make a mockery of the sport. Todays news alledging fight-fixing just continues to drag down what once was the greatest spectator sport. In light of that...I'll take Max K. anyday. __________________ http://indiemusicworks.com/forum/artists/members/50/ http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page...?bandID=250426

01-10-2004, 12:08 PM	#5 (permalink)
Cap Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Large Province in God's Country Posts: 4,004	Have to agree with Rasmuth. Sometimes I disagree with Kellerman, but he does exude enthusiasm for the sport. Up here in Canada, it doesn't get mentioned unless a boxer commits a felony. Cap __________________ "...There were Giants in Those Days.."

01-10-2004, 01:03 PM	#7 (permalink)
PittPanther All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 1,174	I just don't find him very knowledgeable at all. . .sorry, don't see it. Here's an example: During last night's broadcast and coverage of the Arum investigation, he said something to the effect that the De La Hoya vs. Mosely II could never have been fixed, and that watching the fight shows that neither guy was thinking about taking a round off, taking a dive etc. Does he really think that fans are that sheltered? I'm not saying the fight was fixed, although at the time I was very vocal about the fact that I thought it was a bad decision. Boxing is the easiest sport to fix; think about it, you could pay off a fighter, a ref, or perhaps the judges. Max's comment was onesided in my opinion and lacked the depth that I look for "insiders" to have. I agree with some arguements that Max K has made in the past. Whitaker did beat De La Hoya. He's right. But he was so confident about his call of the De La Hoya/Mosely II fight that he went on to say that boxing fans watching the PPV at home would have no idea as to really what was going on, and that the masses were more influenced by Foreman's words afterwards that had, according to him, more of an impact on what the fans watched with their own two eyes than the 100 or so more punches that De La Hoya landed over Mosely. I found it insulting to most fight fans at best. Take it a step further, and once again playing Devil's advocate, what if the fight proves to be a fix? Max. K loses his credibility, hence the backpedaling last night after the news surfaced. And please, I also don't buy into the argument that Arum would never do something like that. . .De La Hoya win or lose in that fight is still the cash cow, it really didn't matter to his promotor if he won. What will Mosely get for fighting Wright? Pennies on the dollar to what he got for fighting De La Hoya. That's the truth. De La Hoya will still command a bigger pay day. As far as fight fixing goes---it's been around forever, sorry if I don't share the negative perception that boxing will be doomed because another fight was possibly fixed. Boxing is not squeaky-clean, never has been. And it's the holier than thou attitude of Max that I find to be rather disturbing. I still remember the negative marks he made about Big George after George questioned the validity of that decision. You guys like him because of his enthusiasm, ok I understand that, but I just don't find him to be a student or historian of the science. One last note: Think about all the fights that were "fishy" in some way or another in the past. The list just grows. __________________ Commitment Teamwork Pride Hail to Pitt! Last edited by PittPanther : 01-10-2004 at 01:22 PM.

01-10-2004, 05:07 PM	#10 (permalink)
cubedrum All Star Reserve Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 877	Actually boxing is the hardest sport to fix. The reason for this is that sports books are a tight community. If a bettor makes a large bet, every sports book in Vegas is informed, making it difficult to place a large bet anywhere else. Without the ability to make large bets in several sports books there wouldn't be any way to recoup what would have to be a 6 or 7 figure payoff in a major fight. The refs and judges could still have the fighter they're favoring knocked out. It's just not profitable as fixing team sports potentially is. It's simple to to handicap a team by having a few players not play their best, but in a 1 on 1 situation, everyone would have to be in on it or it wouldn't work. Otherwise it's just too risky. Also boxing is more closely watched for such activity than any other sport, due to it's long storied history of chicanery. There are more treasury agents in Vegas than anywhere outside of Washington DC. This information came from my cousin Craig who was a blackjack dealer in Vegas in the 80s. Cube __________________ "If you build a man a fire, he stays warm for one day. If you set a man on fire, he stays warm for the rest of his life" - Edgar Frog

01-10-2004, 01:31 AM	#2 (permalink)
wildhawke11 All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: united kingdom Posts: 1,834	Panther I agree, in fact i feel many of the new boxing fans do not understand the fight game because they listen to guys broadcasting who in my opinion should never be there in the first place. Have you noticed that sometimes in a close fight, at times the commentator is talking as if only one fighter is in the ring. Now this of course gives a newcomer watching boxing the wrong impression of how the fight is really going. I often wonder if someone is being bunged if you get my meaning

01-10-2004, 01:42 AM	#3 (permalink)
wildhawke11 All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: united kingdom Posts: 1,834	I will tell you another thing my friend the best refs dont always get the job, its again who you know and if you play the game. I think i told you this One ref on his way to the ring i know for a fact was told to favour a certain fighter. How do i know he told me himself, he refused but he did not get hardly any work after that. It was a pretty big fight to, i might add. One guy was the world champion in fact. As i said you dont play by there rules and you wont get work its as simple as that.

01-10-2004, 12:37 PM	#6 (permalink)
hamed Hall Of Famer Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,073	I agree with Rasmuth & Cap, Max loves boxing & I enjoy listening to him! He knows boxing & for such a young guy, he knows about old time fighters, in addition to all the current fighters. Hopefully he'll be around for a long time so we can all say we remember him talking boxing when he was a young guy.

01-10-2004, 02:37 PM	#8 (permalink)
BrocktonBlockBuster Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 280	I like Max,he shows emotion. Although he may not always be correct. Larry Merchent is the worst in my opinion. He comes off as a grump. I once bought a pay-per view for $40 dollars and the whole time Larry complained. This is boring,these guys stink,these guys are horrible! WTF-I pay for a show and this is what I get! Very,very,unprofessional! Imagine buying Title Bout and then listening to the Trunzo's tell you how bad it is! I don't know how Jim Trumpy,George Foreman and HBO can deal with this guy.

01-10-2004, 05:05 PM	#9 (permalink)
hamed Hall Of Famer Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,073	I think what Max meant in his statements on Oscar's fight was that it made more sense for Oscar to win that fight (if there was a fix) because then a 3rd fight would be a natural. With both guys being 1-1 against each other a 3rd fight could have been -The "Let's settle this once & for all Brawl". Now, Shane's up 2-0 as pros & he beat Oscar once when they were kids too. Why would anyone want to fix that fight & have Shane win? I think Oscar won - as most people seem to think. Styles make fight so there's little reason to fight again now - except maybe for money. Even if Oscar wins a 3rd bout, Shane can still say he's up 2 or 3 to 1.

01-10-2004, 05:42 PM	#11 (permalink)
PittPanther All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 1,174	Sorry bud---I'm sure your cousin told you that, but I don't think that boxing is harder to fix than football. It's not as profitable as fixing a team sport? Are you serious? You bet on odds when you bet a fight, so if I take an underdog its going to pay out much more than taking New England and giving 6 in today's game. Unless you parlay it, it's pretty much straight up, since to compensate you get points. __________________ Commitment Teamwork Pride Hail to Pitt! Last edited by PittPanther : 01-10-2004 at 06:01 PM.

01-10-2004, 06:27 PM	#12 (permalink)
Cap Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Large Province in God's Country Posts: 4,004	Let's face it. Kellerman makes his living off boxing. Anything that might further hurt the sport's already tarnished image is something to be avoided, ignored, brushed aside. Max loves boxing and does a good job of promoting it. Maybe he's not the most knowledgeable fan, but he makes a great shill nonetheless. Did Arum fix the Mosley/De la Hoya fight? If he could've he would've. Would either Shane or Oscar go along? I honestly don't think so. That leaves the ref or the judges. I watched the fight, and I came away thinking it could have gone either way. It was a pretty good scrap, and that's usually all you can ask for. Cap __________________ "...There were Giants in Those Days.."

01-10-2004, 06:34 PM	#13 (permalink)
cubedrum All Star Reserve Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 877	A team like a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. It would cost a cheat a lot less to pay off an offensive lineman who makes 250k a year than to pay a fighter who stands to make millions if his record is perfect. Also you can mention all the odds you want, if no one will take your bet you don't profit at all. Let's take the upcoming fight between Tszyu and Mitchell. To profit, you would have to bet on 3-1 underdog Mitchell. To pay off Tszyu would cost a lot, and for you to make that much, you would have to bet something like 500,000 to a million on Mitchell to win. Any attempt at a bet like that would get you scrutinized and investigated even before the opening bell, after certainly delaying your attempt to bet. Of course this all could be done with lesser fights and fighters, for less money, maybe slipping by the casinos impressive measures to keep their money, but we're talking about the biggest fight of the year. Oscar just coasts late and he's paid for it over and over. He should have gone for the KO like against Vargas. You can fix fights, but not big, competitive fights like DelaHoya- Mosley. I imagine it would be easier to fix college football for the same reasons. Cube __________________ "If you build a man a fire, he stays warm for one day. If you set a man on fire, he stays warm for the rest of his life" - Edgar Frog

01-10-2004, 06:56 PM	#14 (permalink)
PittPanther All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 1,174	Come on now __________________ Commitment Teamwork Pride Hail to Pitt!

01-10-2004, 07:08 PM	#15 (permalink)
cubedrum All Star Reserve Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 877	He he. If you're betting you are at the mercy of the sports books. If they stand to lose a lot of money, you're just not going to be able to place a bet. Bookies stand a chance of ripping you off, plus if a big time bookie found out you fixed a fight, you would be dead, seriously injured or at the very least blacklisted at sports books. Your argument is based on "think about it". Mine is based on facts and the experiences of actual people. Cube __________________ "If you build a man a fire, he stays warm for one day. If you set a man on fire, he stays warm for the rest of his life" - Edgar Frog

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-10-2004, 07:11 PM	#16 (permalink)
PittPanther All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 1,174	Numerous black jack dealers at Vegas? Seriously, come on __________________ Commitment Teamwork Pride Hail to Pitt!

01-10-2004, 10:31 PM	#17 (permalink)
cubedrum All Star Reserve Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 877	He. Just 1. __________________ "If you build a man a fire, he stays warm for one day. If you set a man on fire, he stays warm for the rest of his life" - Edgar Frog

01-10-2004, 10:46 PM	#18 (permalink)
PittPanther All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 1,174	Right, and that makes him, as well as you, an "insider" who knows every secret about the the underworld of boxing? Let me get this straight now, I don't want to be incorrect. So because you have this cousin that works or worked in Vegas as a blackjack dealer your position is based in fact? Now, let me state your position clearly, big fights can't be fixed because they aren't profitable. Correct? You aren't that naive, are you? Then you go on to point out that it wouldn't be cost effective to pay a fighter to take a dive? Correct? What makes you think they would pay off a fighter? __________________ Commitment Teamwork Pride Hail to Pitt! Last edited by PittPanther : 01-10-2004 at 10:51 PM.

01-11-2004, 12:40 AM	#19 (permalink)
cubedrum All Star Reserve Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 877	Actually the insider part is that he worked at a casino WHERE THERE IS A SPORTS BOOK. Being aware of how casinos do things is all the knowledge I'm claiming. I'm not saying it couldn't be profitable at all, but people like that are all about profit and it's an uphill battle to profit from fixing big fight boxing. And if the fighters weren't involved? No cheat would spend money and risk federal indictment to bribe a judge or a referee only to have his stiff underdog get KO'd. Perhaps I am basing my argument on very little. You are basing yours on nothing besides "if you think about it." Still enjoy talking to you though Pitt Cube __________________ "If you build a man a fire, he stays warm for one day. If you set a man on fire, he stays warm for the rest of his life" - Edgar Frog

01-11-2004, 07:10 AM	#20 (permalink)
PittPanther All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 1,174	My position is very simple: Big fights are fixed and it can be very profitable to do so. I would say that is based more on fact than you would like to admit. It's a little more than "if you think about it." It's more like "if you look at boxing's history it sure has happened before." __________________ Commitment Teamwork Pride Hail to Pitt!