[removed]

Ruiz: “Jake Paul said AJ refs Fury & me next”

 Forget Wembley. Apparently two British heavyweights fighting in Britain in front of a massive British crowd would make entirely too much sense. So naturally, MSG it is—because nothing says British boxing super-fight like an American corporation deciding where the British people should watch it from.

 At this point, Netflix should just appoint the entire fight staff. Jake Paul almost got the referee job. He’s American, he’s not an imagrant, and he understands the Netflix business model: make the biggest possible spectacle and worry about boxing afterward.

Andy Ruiz Jr. got ref job leaving the ring-announcer job to Jake Paul, just to make sure AJ has a nice, relaxing, memorable evening. NYC Moslem Mayor Mamdani and Don (King) Trump take two judging chairs. They obviously agree on everything, so reaching a unanimous decision together should be effortless.

Jarrell “Big Baby” Miller handles timekeeping, assuming someone can get that enormous 1970s afro through the arena door. Industrial-strength epoxy recommended this time

For the third judge, let’s go international and invite Hamas Leader Marwan Barghouti, because apparently the only for some positive geopolitical incident. Even Benji Netanyahu agrees.

And ringside will be Julius Edward Lupowitz, executive coach, whose known, high-end, commercial coaching also covers the highly complicated field of personal emotions. Fortunately, executives like Tyson Fury, Eddie Hearn, AJ and Jake Paul have already mastered their emotions, strategic thinking, psychological warfare and general bullshit—skills painstakingly developed through the science-engineered coaching methodology of Coach Lupowitz:

 AJ: “I’m fighting Tyson Fury in New York while Netflix has turned my Wembley Stadium into a remote viewing location.”

 Coach Lupowitz: “Anthony, let’s reframe that. You’re not fighting in America. You’re participating in a global content experience.”

AJ: “I fucking hate my coach.”

Jules (short for Julius): “But Mike Tyson is getting a % to wear his old Iron Mike mask and harass Robin Givens into remarriage! 

AJ + Fury: “OK, you’re right”.

**** Now we got it: two, rich, lazy, Ukrainian-Battered, British fighters, one American streaming company, one American venue and a judging panel capable of creating 3 diplomatic crises before round one… This isn’t Fury–Joshua. This is Netflix: World Peace — Live from Madison Square Garden.

Reputation management can also be called reputation repair. Management assumes their is or maybe a small problem, it might get bigger or some form of preventive maintenance so there is no problem in the future. By my own definition, reputation, repair is repairing a bad reputation.

How bad matters in there are techniques. The most popular technique talked about amongst well-known RM people is is to, “bury it” amongst either neutral or positive links. That all depends on the level of “bad“. A person or entity marketing, and selling product(s) or service(s) who had no reputation issues with a complaint or a few or some issue. It’s usually easily repairable. Maintenance to prevent something like this from happening is usually also easy.

But the links, website(s), image(s), video(s), etc appearing either searching for your offer or directly searching the name of your company or your personal name, if it’s a personalized business reputation it matters. Greatly.

Example 1: A restaurant most everyone likes, many love, but there was some issue with a few people getting sick. Or an employee with bad attitude. A few patrons made complaints online somewhere. That’s easy to bury, especially with something like Google reviews especially or Yelp. Resolving the issue, then motivating your clients to leave good reviews can resolve it. Especially if they’re inclined to write details about how good the food and service is. There are many other things to be done, positively and honestly to bury a few complaints. Especially if the restaurant is truly credible.

Example 2: A law firm handling divorces who have a neutral or decent reputation. They do what many divorce lawyers do; inflame the problem, inflame those involved to create animosity between the participants. That’s a bad thing however it’s not necessarily unacceptable depending upon many things like the jurisdiction and their relation of them to local authorities. But it is wrong and we know that. One or just a few clients catch some of their efforts to create a bigger and more expensive case then expected. They complain to local authorities, various complaints websites, comment in Facebook, posting facts and documents that display this manipulative behavior. That’s a lot harder to bury or repair. Although it can be done with creative measures. I should know. I was involved in this.

If any issue goes to court, crimes or suits or corrections made or something illegal was done and published on the net. To an otherwise productive or positive organization that does do a good job elsewhere, something like this can really hurt revenue. Not just law firms of course, but in any type of a business or single professionals with reputable names.

Many links that come up before your name when searching it or when searching relevant to your business are soft or easier to bury. Others are more powerful, especially big news, media and government links.

Burying these things may take a very long time and can even be impossible. If they’re strong enough or if there are a larger number of them. This can be done, I know how to do it because I’m doing it right now with myself. It’s working out well because I’m helping a lot of people. I’m not in this business, but I may be.

My personal and business issues are very hard to solve. They’re not 100% resolved, but they will be. Why? How?

Simple. By helping people in similar situations. I’m not a born do-good-er but it is enjoyable, especially as a strategy. It helps me in many ways; not just personally. I’m getting better at it. Legitimately. Honestly. Measurably. I’ve done this for a few others. Decent people with thorns in their sides. Financially very costly thorns. In my case, it’s more than money. It’s just my personal reputation amongst all friends, family, cohorts, associates, who just know me. Correcting the issue by coming clean with it was part of it, but it’s much more than that. Now some entities are requesting my advice. That’s not burying it. It’s changing my behavior.

That story coordinates like a bull’s-eye to guide people who have, usually, much less intense negative links before and around, searches for them.

It’s just a great feeling just being who/what I am, always was, not what media, government displayed. I’m getting correctly recognized, helping others and just sharing publicly at this point.

Reputation management can also be called reputation repair. Management assumes their is or maybe a small problem, it might get bigger or some form of preventive maintenance so there is no problem in the future. By my own definition, reputation, repair is repairing a bad reputation.

How bad matters in there are techniques. The most popular technique talked about amongst well-known RM people is is to, “bury it” amongst either neutral or positive links. That all depends on the level of “bad“. A person or entity marketing, and selling product(s) or service(s) who had no reputation issues with a complaint or a few or some issue. It’s usually easily repairable. Maintenance to prevent something like this from happening is usually also easy.

But the links, website(s), image(s), video(s), etc appearing either searching for your offer or directly searching the name of your company or your personal name, if it’s a personalized business reputation it matters. Greatly.

Example 1: A restaurant most everyone likes, many love, but there was some issue with a few people getting sick. Or an employee with bad attitude. A few patrons made complaints online somewhere. That’s easy to bury, especially with something like Google reviews especially or Yelp. Resolving the issue, then motivating your clients to leave good reviews can resolve it. Especially if they’re inclined to write details about how good the food and service is. There are many other things to be done, positively and honestly to bury a few complaints. Especially if the restaurant is truly credible.

Example 2: A law firm handling divorces who have a neutral or decent reputation. They do what many divorce lawyers do; inflame the problem, inflame those involved to create animosity between the participants. That’s a bad thing however it’s not necessarily unacceptable depending upon many things like the jurisdiction and their relation of them to local authorities. But it is wrong and we know that. One or just a few clients catch some of their efforts to create a bigger and more expensive case then expected. They complain to local authorities, various complaints websites, comment in Facebook, posting facts and documents that display this manipulative behavior. That’s a lot harder to bury or repair. Although it can be done with creative measures. I should know. I was involved in this.

If any issue goes to court, crimes or suits or corrections made or something illegal was done and published on the net. To an otherwise productive or positive organization that does do a good job elsewhere, something like this can really hurt revenue. Not just law firms of course, but in any type of a business or single professionals with reputable names.

Many links that come up before your name when searching it or when searching relevant to your business are soft or easier to bury. Others are more powerful, especially big news, media and government links.

Burying these things may take a very long time and can even be impossible. If they’re strong enough or if there are a larger number of them. This can be done, I know how to do it because I’m doing it right now with myself. It’s working out well because I’m helping a lot of people. I’m not in this business, but I may be.

My personal and business issues are very hard to solve. They’re not 100% resolved, but they will be. Why? How?

Simple. By helping people in similar situations. I’m not a born do-good we but it is enjoyable, especially as a strategy. It helps me in many ways; not just personally. I’m getting better at it. Legitimately. Honestly. Measurably. I’ve done this for a few others. Decent people with thorns in their sides. Financially very costly thorns. In my case, it’s more than money. It’s just my personal reputation amongst all friends, family, cohorts, associates, who just know me. Correcting the issue by coming clean with it was part of it, but it’s much more than that. Now some entities are requesting my advice. That’s not burying it. It’s changing my behavior.

That story coordinates like a bull’s-eye to guide people who have, usually, much less intense negative links before and around, searches for them.

It’s just a great feeling just being who/what I am, always was, not what media, government displayed. I’m getting correctly recognized, helping others and just sharing publicly at this point.

Reputation management can also be called reputation repair. Management assumes their is or maybe a small problem, it might get bigger or some form of preventive maintenance so there is no problem in the future. By my own definition, reputation, repair is repairing a bad reputation.

How bad matters in there are techniques. The most popular technique talked about amongst well-known RM people is is to, “bury it” amongst either neutral or positive links. That all depends on the level of “bad“. A person or entity marketing, and selling product(s) or service(s) who had no reputation issues with a complaint or a few or some issue. It’s usually easily repairable. Maintenance to prevent something like this from happening is usually also easy.

But the links, website(s), image(s), video(s), etc appearing either searching for your offer or directly searching the name of your company or your personal name, if it’s a personalized business reputation it matters. Greatly.

Example 1: A restaurant most everyone likes, many love, but there was some issue with a few people getting sick. Or an employee with bad attitude. A few patrons made complaints online somewhere. That’s easy to bury, especially with something like Google reviews especially or Yelp. Resolving the issue, then motivating your clients to leave good reviews can resolve it. Especially if they’re inclined to write details about how good the food and service is. There are many other things to be done, positively and honestly to bury a few complaints. Especially if the restaurant is truly credible.

Example 2: A law firm handling divorces who have a neutral or decent reputation. They do what many divorce lawyers do; inflame the problem, inflame those involved to create animosity between the participants. That’s a bad thing however it’s not necessarily unacceptable depending upon many things like the jurisdiction and their relation of them to local authorities. But it is wrong and we know that. One or just a few clients catch some of their efforts to create a bigger and more expensive case then expected. They complain to local authorities, various complaints websites, comment in Facebook, posting facts and documents that display this manipulative behavior. That’s a lot harder to bury or repair. Although it can be done with creative measures. I should know. I was involved in this.

If any issue goes to court, crimes or suits or corrections made or something illegal was done and published on the net. To an otherwise productive or positive organization that does do a good job elsewhere, something like this can really hurt revenue. Not just law firms of course, but in any type of a business or single professionals with reputable names.

Many links that come up before your name when searching it or when searching relevant to your business are soft or easier to bury. Others are more powerful, especially big news, media and government links.

Burying these things may take a very long time and can even be impossible. If they’re strong enough or if there are a larger number of them. This can be done, I know how to do it because I’m doing it right now with myself. It’s working out well because I’m helping a lot of people. I’m not in this business, but I may be.

My personal and business issues are very hard to solve. They’re not 100% resolved, but they will be. Why? How?

Simple. By helping people in similar situations. I’m not a born do-good we but it is enjoyable, especially as a strategy. It helps me in many ways; not just personally. I’m getting better at it. Legitimately. Honestly. Measurably. I’ve done this for a few others. Decent people with thorns in their sides. Financially very costly thorns. In my case, it’s more than money. It’s just my personal reputation amongst all friends, family, cohorts, associates, who just know me. Correcting the issue by coming clean with it was part of it, but it’s much more than that. Now some entities are requesting my advice. That’s not burying it. It’s changing my behavior.

That story coordinates like a bull’s-eye to guide people who have, usually, much less intense negative links before and around, searches for them.

It’s just a great feeling just being who/what I am, always was, not what media, government displayed. I’m getting correctly recognized, helping others and just sharing publicly at this point.

Over the past several months I’ve researched executive, business, personal, and reputation management coaching. I’ve looked into many of the better-known certifications, credentials, and diploma programs, spoken with coaches, sat through AI intake systems, taken advantage of free 15–20 minute consultations, and tried to verify referrals and past successes.

Surprisingly, I didn’t find the larger, higher-ranked organizations to be any more convincing than smaller competitors. I even paid for one service, but the results were uncertain. Most of what I found was marketing language about experience and success, with very little that could be independently verified. Testimonials often led nowhere, or I couldn’t reach the people behind them.

One thing I also noticed is that many certification programs appear to be taught by coaches who also sell coaching or reputation management services.

So here’s the question I’d like opinions on:

If someone is truly making an excellent living coaching clients or repairing reputations, why would they spend time creating certifications and selling courses instead of simply coaching?

Is it because teaching is more profitable? Is it about building the profession? Creating another revenue stream? Or am I overlooking something?

I’d especially like to hear from people who have earned coaching certifications, built successful coaching practices, or hired executive or reputation coaches. What has your experience been?

I’ve done a couple of crimes, one went slightly viral because it was relevant to other idiotic crimes like mine. Another one is both a .gov link as well as a few media driven newspaper links.

I’ve had a business for 38 years, but served two years in federal prison for one of these crimes. Both make me look like a real idiot. But I’m fully educated, great schools, have referrals of clients, friends and other professionals, including family, and I even started my own Google review page under my name where three reviews already started in that - five stars.

I started a website less than a year ago, which is absolutely helping as I’ve written on it and posts I’ve made in various media with reasonable links to those that are quite relevant (to my criminal actions) to those subjects in general and who what I actually am. I am known as very creative, fairly successful, but those bad links destroyed my or any trust unless people know me well.

Burying them with over 100 posts irrelevant to these crimes or my issue has helped but hadn’t pushed the bad links far as in pages away…..

The damage on these links is of course intensely incriminating. Yet I have well over 100 images and videos of myself in life before and after (jail) that’s quite vivid and positive with travel, showing that I’m quite normal or respectable. Some unique… So I’ve decided to add the links with the photos with those mug shots that are so disparaging in a section called my credibility on my website.

That page starts off with my true self, education, which are known on the Internet involved with me, etc. Along with more realistic photographs of myself with different people, some of them also ranked, plus in the testimonials on the website. It’s become an incessant chase if not obsessive over getting trusted by new contacts who don’t yet know me then judge on first impressions of what that media, under 10 links has done to my name.

The reason I’m putting those links with those mug shots and the damaging complaints onto my website along with text and links on related issues about how negative media on net destroys immediate perception vs facts on a person: My goal is when my name is searched, even though my website does come up with LinkedIn profile first, second or third is to obliterate those mug shot media links by displaying my more accurate versions of them with details, truth and other links & images that are much more relevant to me along with detailed text that is also more relevant to who and what I always was.

If anyone has handled reputation management or especially reputation and succeeded at it I’d love your opinion.

Let’s not misunderstand here; I certainly have my complaints about AI issues. Mostly with virtual receptionist which never have the option you need to press or address. It’s obvious that AI could not handle what basic clerks can handle. Many small businesses use these as “intake systems” to appear “big or corporate or professional”. It’s completely annoying.

More so when they so obviously send you into a circle so that you hang up and don’t bother them. Mind you, that cannot be done with the smaller, competing businesses. It’s always big business, big entities, government, medical, sometimes educational. It’s absolutely a variation of what used to be called monopoly. It just comes out in a different way today. And the AI with virtual receptionists’ purposefully unsupportive design is the message today versus what used to be something as simple as price or market control.

That being said, this annoyance will dissipate (same as standard oil or AT&T, breaking up). Same as iPhones took over cell phones took over land lines or voice mail with tape recorders. Some evolution is automatically more efficient. Microwave ovens for instance. Digital watches. Newspapers and magazines versus radio versus television versus YouTube & the net. And streaming.

Remember the worry, computers were going to destroy jobs? Computers, like evolution createed more jobs. Complex industries.

Historically, the industrial revolution left plenty of initial conflict. The automobile threatened the horse and buggy which was more reliable, at first. We can certainly go on. Most uneducated people don’t recall or don’t know this. Evolution cannot be stopped. Along with new perspectives which always existed. Like the sexual revolution. It’s always been there just with lots of frustration for unique people. So? Coming out of the closet was a sadly unfair connotation but it’s dissipating; as it’s evolving.

Yes, that’s a different subject. Although it’s quite related. In what way? One overwhelming fact: many progressive people can get affected negatively by inexperienced, less educated, shallow or prejudiced people. Not in the long run, however.

Im no different than most folks frustrated with AI systems and apps attempting to provide services as information, support, simple answers. It’s absolutely trickle down from Giant to large to medium, and now even small businesses. The message is us the same: pass your money, don’t bother us.

This recent post summarizes it: The Entrepreneur article by Natalie Ruiz is titled "AI in Customer Service Is Eroding Trust — Here's What You Need to Know Before It Derails Your Business"

I am no proponent of things like this which bother most of us, and scare others. But I also know the annoyance will dissipate quickly enough. It’s similar to an essay required in my management class at Hofstra University in 1985: Are computers destroying jobs. The answer was more than just no. That evolution was in fact creating more jobs, just changing the types of jobs; replacing traditional work with evolved positions.

Im no different than most folks frustrated with AI systems and apps attempting to provide services as information, support, simple answers. It’s absolutely trickle down from Giant to large to medium, and now even small businesses. The message is us the same: pass your money, don’t bother us.

This recent post summarizes it: The Entrepreneur article by Natalie Ruiz is titled "AI in Customer Service Is Eroding Trust — Here's What You Need to Know Before It Derails Your Business"

I am no proponent of things like this which bother most of us, and scare others. But I also know the annoyance will dissipate quickly enough. It’s similar to an essay required in my management class at Hofstra University in 1985: Are computers destroying jobs. The answer was more than just no. That evolution was in fact creating more jobs, just changing the types of jobs; replacing traditional work with evolved positions.

To be even more accurate I am on the big end annoyance or frustration when it comes to things like taking over everything from virtual receptionists in Giant entities to making a reservation in our local restaurant. However, I was also around during the Cold War, which disappeared along with various threats to the United States, the year 2000 connected with the coming of some bad spirits or Jesus, multiple UFO stories, Bigfoot, etc. I recall the story of a radio message or commercial popularized before I was born, where the men from Mars will be attacking the Earth.

It’s one thing to be bugged by a system like AI that will backfire to some degree. It’s another thing to think that stuff like that is gonna take over Earth.

https://preview.redd.it/8qeb9icm1peh1.png?width=2778&format=png&auto=webp&s=f2b62a28f8f77f418bd6ff3f8eaddb6385670e44

Im no different than most folks frustrated with AI systems and apps attempting to provide services as information, support, simple answers. It’s absolutely trickle down from Giant to large to medium, and now even small businesses. The message is us the same: pass your money, don’t bother us.

This recent post summarizes it: The Entrepreneur article by Natalie Ruiz is titled "AI in Customer Service Is Eroding Trust — Here's What You Need to Know Before It Derails Your Business"

I am no proponent of things like this which bother most of us, and scare others. But I also know the annoyance will dissipate quickly enough. It’s similar to an essay required in my management class at Hofstra University in 1985: Are computers destroying jobs. The answer was more than just no. That evolution was in fact creating more jobs, just changing the types of jobs; replacing traditional work with evolved positions.

To be even more I am on the end annoyance frustration when it comes to things like taking over everything virtual receptionist in Giant making a reservation in our local restaurant. However, I was also around during the Cold War, which disappeared along with various threats to the United States, the year 2000 connected with the coming of some bad Jesus, multiple UFO stories, Bigfoot, etc. I recall the story of a radio message or commercial popularized before I was born, where the men from Mars will be attacking the Earth.

It’s one thing to be bugged by a system like AI that will backfire to some degree. It’s another thing to think that stuff like that is gonna take over the .

Rico Verhoven, supposedly is getting offers from everyone since being stopped by Usyk. After all the conflict with that professed, unfair stoppage and his decision to remain in boxing why hadn’t his mgt, he gone for one of em?

https://preview.redd.it/86rt4iv07leh1.png?width=2778&format=png&auto=webp&s=6ed3fa45da2f4b1e1dd5e8cac326bbeffd324065

Is Verhoeven fighting a ranked contender, one of the new belt recipients or … what are we waiting for?

Just watched AJ’s Ring interview and I honestly think people are way too quick to write him off.

I get why they do it. Ruiz shocked him, Usyk outboxed him, Dubois got the stoppage. On paper that’s enough for most people to say he’s done at the top level. But when I listen to him now, he sounds a lot more grounded and a lot more dangerous than the version of AJ that was trying to be perfect all the time.

What stands out to me isn’t just the losses themselves, it’s how he seems to have processed them. Some fighters get cracked mentally by setbacks. AJ looks like he’s actually learned from them. There’s a difference between a guy declining and a guy rebuilding. I think people are mixing those two things up.

He still has the size, the power, the experience, and when he lets his hands go he’s still a serious problem for basically anyone in the division. The heavyweight scene is weird right now because one loss gets treated like a funeral, but this isn’t some small weight class where a guy gets old overnight and can’t physically compete anymore. If AJ is still locked in, he’s not out of anything.

I’m not saying he automatically beats everybody tomorrow. Usyk is still the hardest puzzle in the division and Fury is Fury if he’s actually switched on. But I don’t think it’s crazy at all to say AJ can work his way back into the top spot and beat elite heavyweights again. In fact I think a lot of people are going to look stupid if they keep treating him like he’s finished.

Curious where people are at with him now. Do you see a genuine second peak still possible, or do you think the top-level losses told us everything we need to know?

The second someone says I believe, they’re also admitting they don’t know for sure.

That’s basically why I call myself agnostic, even though I do believe in God and I’m not an atheist.

I pray. I think there’s something bigger than us. But if I’m being honest, I don’t know exactly what God is, and I don’t think anybody else does either. People can be fully convinced, sure, but conviction is not the same thing as proof.

And on the other side, atheists can argue hard against God, but they can’t prove nonexistence either. So if I were sitting between Richard Dawkins and the Pope, I don’t think either one would actually close the case for me.

What has always bothered me is how many religions make faith sound like a requirement before you’re even allowed in the door. Believe first. Submit first. Doubt less. And if you don’t, then maybe punishment, exclusion, lower status, or some version of being wrong at the deepest level.

That immediately makes me suspicious.

If something is true, why does fear need to help sell it? Why should eternal consequences be attached to not being certain about something nobody can actually demonstrate?

That’s also why I have more respect for traditions that lean more toward practice, reflection, and experience than toward forced belief. Buddhism gets brought up a lot for that. Some forms of Taoism too. I’m not saying they’re automatically right, just that they make more sense to me than systems that demand mental loyalty to claims you cannot verify.

My view is pretty simple: look at the world, pay attention to your life, remember what you’ve experienced, think for yourself, and start there.

I can agree with parts of Christianity, parts of Islam, parts of Buddhism, parts of Judaism, parts of pretty much anything without handing over my whole mind to one system. I don’t need to become a full disciple of every idea I find wise. And I definitely don’t think reading a book means I’m obligated to feel, think, or interpret reality exactly the way that book tells me to.

To me, that’s where religion often loses me. Not in the possibility of God, but in the demand for certainty.

So yeah, my basic position is this: in the long run, we are all agnostic.

Some people are agnostics with confidence. Some are agnostics with rituals. Some are agnostics with institutions. Some are agnostics with strong opinions.

But unless someone can actually prove the full nature of God or ultimate reality, then we’re all operating somewhere inside uncertainty.

Curious how religious people and atheists here react to that. What exactly is wrong with admitting that we do not know?

Getting back into writing about boxing, and this is the thing that keeps bothering me most about the sport right now:

Too much of boxing is still controlled by people around the fighters instead of the fighters themselves. Promoters, managers, sanctioning bodies, networks, now new promo outfits too. And the fans end up arguing about “who is the real champ” because the system is built to keep that unclear.

A lot of casual fans just see a belt and assume that means something simple. But anyone who’s followed boxing for a while knows it’s a mess. WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, and then Ring as the lineal/most respected type of championship in a lot of people’s eyes. That’s five different sources of legitimacy, all with different incentives, rules, rankings, and politics. And of course fees are involved too, usually coming out of the boxer’s purse.

The Ring is interesting because it’s still probably the belt a lot of serious fans respect most, but it also has its own conflict issues because of who owns it and who’s involved in promotion. That said, its rankings still often make more sense than the sanctioning bodies.

Now add Zuffa Boxing into it.

Dana White says he wants to clean boxing up and get rid of the old sanctioning nonsense, but what we may be getting is just another power center with its own belt, its own control, and its own politics. That doesn’t automatically fix anything. It might just repackage the same problem.

The best example right now is Jai Opetaia at cruiserweight.

Most people who actually follow the division know Opetaia is the man at cruiserweight. He had the IBF and Ring titles, and he’s generally seen as the real champion even with other belts split up. He’s also been pretty clear that he wants undisputed. That should be the whole story.

Instead, he gets pulled into another layer of boxing politics. He aligns with Zuffa, there’s talk about what happens to his IBF belt, then he gets stripped. So now the guy most people think is the real champ is even further from becoming undisputed, not because he lost, but because the system keeps getting in the way.

And meanwhile, the other titleholders and contenders keep circling around instead of giving us the obvious fights. Whether that’s the fighters themselves or the people behind them is another question, but usually we know the answer. A lot of the time it’s management and promotional strategy, not fear, not merit, just business.

That’s what frustrates me most. The sport itself is still great. The actual boxing is still great. But the structure around it keeps making it harder than it should be to crown one clear champion in any division.

Cruiserweight is just one example, but it’s a pretty clean one.

Curious how other people see it: is boxing getting worse with this stuff, or is this just the same old mess with new branding?