IPB  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
> Fight Less Often For More Money Or Fight More Often For Less Money?, Vote in the Poll!
What's Better For Boxing?
Fight The least Often For The Most Money or Most Often For Less Money?
Fight Most Often For Less Money [ 4 ] ** [36.36%]
Fight Less Often For More Money [ 6 ] ** [54.55%]
Not Sure [ 1 ] ** [9.09%]
Total Votes: 11
Guests cannot vote 
Jack 1000
post Dec 27 2012, 09:57 PM
Post #1


The Consultant


Group: Root Admin
Posts: 9,453
Joined: 2-December 02
Member No.: 14



In boxing glamor days, it was common for fighters to fight so often you could set your alarm clock for when their next fight would take place. This helped build up a following of boxing for its fans and fighters, as well as commercial TV back than. Today, the big star fighters Mayweather, Pacquaio, the Klitschkos (ok, some may find them boring, but they are still huge in Germany,) you have today's champions fighting once a year, maybe twice, but usually, that's all

Floyd Mayweather raises an interesting statement, "If it makes dollars, it makes sense." However, boxers would be known better to general population people if they fought more often. I wonder how the star fighters would feel about that? Unfortunately, this may mean a pay-cut, but at least they are out there and they are fighting. Several of Marvin Hagler's title defenses were on HBO before the big fights went to closed circuit for him. Mike Tyson was a cable and commercial network staple before moving to HBO. Do you think fighters might be willing to fight more often even if it was for less money? Note however, that the superstars of boxing like Mayweather and Pacquiao, at least before he was shockingly KO'd by Marquez built up a strong fan base by fighting rather infrequently. This question may be a challenge to answer.

As a bonus, what up and coming boxer(s) if you can think of some would like to see fight say three to four times a year? We may not get the six Robinson-Lamotta wars, but we got close with four Pacquiao-Marquez fights. It's just too bad they were far apart, but still happened.

I would like to see in boxing, barring medical reasons why a fighter cannot fight, a boxer with a following should fight four times a year.

Jack
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 6)
BigDDatHomey
post Dec 27 2012, 10:23 PM
Post #2


Junior Flyweight


Group: Members
Posts: 136
Joined: 15-July 11
Member No.: 12,802



QUOTE (Jack 1000 @ Dec 27 2012, 10:57 PM) *
In boxing glamor days, it was common for fighters to fight so often you could set your alarm clock for when their next fight would take place. This helped build up a following of boxing for its fans and fighters, as well as commercial TV back than. Today, the big star fighters Mayweather, Pacquaio, the Klitschkos (ok, some may find them boring, but they are still huge in Germany,) you have today's champions fighting once a year, maybe twice, but usually, that's all

Floyd Mayweather raises an interesting statement, "If it makes dollars, it makes sense." However, boxers would be known better to general population people if they fought more often. I wonder how the star fighters would feel about that? Unfortunately, this may mean a pay-cut, but at least they are out there and they are fighting. Several of Marvin Hagler's title defenses were on HBO before the big fights went to closed circuit for him. Mike Tyson was a cable and commercial network staple before moving to HBO. Do you think fighters might be willing to fight more often even if it was for less money? Note however, that the superstars of boxing like Mayweather and Pacquiao, at least before he was shockingly KO'd by Marquez built up a strong fan base by fighting rather infrequently. This question may be a challenge to answer.

As a bonus, what up and coming boxer(s) if you can think of some would like to see fight say three to four times a year? We may not get the six Robinson-Lamotta wars, but we got close with four Pacquiao-Marquez fights. It's just too bad they were far apart, but still happened.

I would like to see in boxing, barring medical reasons why a fighter cannot fight, a boxer with a following should fight four times a year.

Jack

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
daprofessor
post Dec 28 2012, 03:59 PM
Post #3


Cruiserweight


Group: Members
Posts: 5,773
Joined: 20-May 11
From: killa kali
Member No.: 12,336



it is good to fight more than just once or twice a year typically...but when u have been in the game for as long as guys like floyd, pac, marquez, the klitschkos...u've earned your right to pick and choose...and fight less often. for the up-and-comers....if u want to make ur mark...u have to be seen. if u want to be seen...u have to be active. if they want to make the bigger bucks and fight less often...they have to be really, really impressive.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mgrover
post Dec 29 2012, 07:51 PM
Post #4


Super Middleweight


Group: Moderators
Posts: 3,048
Joined: 23-May 11
Member No.: 12,366



a completely unrelated sport is soccer, here in the UK, there are matches the very least every weekend, and they fill stadiums and make a lot of money. This helps keeps teams relevant. I think if fighters were more exposed to the mainstream the better, in the UK a lot of far west fighters, like Garcia, Ortiz, Berto, Guerrero etc etc and people are like who the fuck are these.

Maybe its different in America, but the mainstream here hardly knows the American and Mexican fighters, and it seems if they do they know the bullshit facts of things, like you know, Ortiz was KOed by Mayweather even though we know theres an * to that. A lot of people hear about results but they don't know the truth about it here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kratza
post Dec 30 2012, 11:52 AM
Post #5


Super Flyweight


Group: Members
Posts: 211
Joined: 8-December 11
From: England
Member No.: 13,360



Fighters before they are champion should be fighting 3/4 times a year but when you're champion, you need to preserve your place in the sport and not take too much punishment to make the most out of your career (this is exactly like Floyd) so yeah when you're champion you should really only fight once or twice a year unless you arent happy with your pay or whatever else may come into it
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wolterb
post Dec 30 2012, 12:34 PM
Post #6


Featherweight


Group: Members
Posts: 524
Joined: 12-July 11
From: mi
Member No.: 12,770



I'd like to see champions that fight at the drop of the hat and choose opponents based on merit - not "storyline", exposure or bottomline numbers. but i know where i live, don't think i don't know its a dream lol
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cshel86
post Jan 1 2013, 07:08 PM
Post #7


"The Meanest Nice Guy"


Group: Moderators
Posts: 12,224
Joined: 11-May 11
From: Wherever Greatness is Bred
Member No.: 12,050



Good thread Jack! I'll be the first to come out and admit that I was the only asshole who picked "not sure".

As we all know, back in the glory days of boxing, boxers were boxers...and boxers only. With that in mind, they HAD TO fight as often as they did. There were no such things as "Al Haymon hook-ups" back then, where you could fight a tomato can and pocket over $500k a fight. Those guys back then fought for the glory, recognition, and consistent paydays...what REAL boxers do.

Nowadays, you have guys who are willing to tarnish their careers by taking consistent safe fights and cling to their undefeated records, rather than take on all comers and prove themselves. All of this is done out of fear of "ruining" their chances at a big fight, which to me, spells "doubt". Then, they get the big fight and have their minds made up that they're gonna lose, but they're just content with a huge payday. Sad...

I picked "not sure" because I cant help but to agree with the first two choices, coupled with everyone's opinion in this thread. Guys like Floyd, Manny, and the Klitz bros cant really afford to fight more than twice a year, without taking a paycut. In 2008, Manny fought Marquez, Diaz, and De La Hoya...so Im sure there was enough money to pay him for those 3 fights...not so much nowadays.

As most of you guys mentioned, once a fighter has prove themselves (by beating everyone or being marketable enough to take a top spot in the sport), they have the right to pick and choose opposition.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th April 2014 - 06:20 PM