Replies

[Jack 1000]

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

[Cshel86]

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.