I think Parson was saying top in terms of a world champion or something along those lines.jessi wrote:Well Thompson like it or not has been a top ten heavyweight for a decade, if price had knocked him out he would of been fighting for a world title with in 12 monthsParson Cross wrote:When did David Price taste defeat at the top table ?
Are things really so bad?
Re: Are things really so bad?
Re: Are things really so bad?
Jeff, I was reading you on Cagewarriors!Jeff Thomas wrote:Go on ANY BOXING FORUM and go through the threads about 70 percent are negative 20 percent are neutral and about 10 percent are positive.
People like to moan its in their nature. I read somewhere that the brain chemical released when thinking a negative thought is mildly euphoric (ironic i know)and that this becomes addictive but has less and less of an effect over time and thus people have to be more and more negative to feel that way.
Negative thought are a habit and are never ever productive. It takes discipline to stay positive that's why I don't really post as much anymore.that said boxrec is still easily the best forum I go on at the minute.
On a related note to your post above, this recent academic research had some really interesting findings:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/writers- ... d=19752072
I'll just pull out one quote here that boxing promoters could learn from:
"Writers of negative reviews tend to be the best customers of the business or service being criticized. By "best" they mean the most loyal and most valuable (customers who spend the most money)."
I think a lot of us simply want the best for the sport and so express our frustration on here about the things that hold it back - the farcical governing bodies, the multiplicity of titles, boxers not facing one another, the contempt some promoters show for fans etc.
The irony is that it's our very passion that leads to the 'negative' venting, while it's perfectly logical that those who don't care that much either way won't take the time to voice their views.
Re: Are things really so bad?
Deserter wrote:Jeff, I was reading you on Cagewarriors!Jeff Thomas wrote:Go on ANY BOXING FORUM and go through the threads about 70 percent are negative 20 percent are neutral and about 10 percent are positive.
People like to moan its in their nature. I read somewhere that the brain chemical released when thinking a negative thought is mildly euphoric (ironic i know)and that this becomes addictive but has less and less of an effect over time and thus people have to be more and more negative to feel that way.
Negative thought are a habit and are never ever productive. It takes discipline to stay positive that's why I don't really post as much anymore.that said boxrec is still easily the best forum I go on at the minute.![]()
On a related note to your post above, this recent academic research had some really interesting findings:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/writers- ... d=19752072
I'll just pull out one quote here that boxing promoters could learn from:
"Writers of negative reviews tend to be the best customers of the business or service being criticized. By "best" they mean the most loyal and most valuable (customers who spend the most money)."
I think a lot of us simply want the best for the sport and so express our frustration on here about the things that hold it back - the farcical governing bodies, the multiplicity of titles, boxers not facing one another, the contempt some promoters show for fans etc.
The irony is that it's our very passion that leads to the 'negative' venting, while it's perfectly logical that those who don't care that much either way won't take the time to voice their views.
Re: Are things really so bad?
Who could say a bad word about netball?MachoMan09 wrote:Ain't that the truth. I've been criticising boxing for over a quarter of a century. I've never once said a bad word about netball.Deserter wrote:"Writers of negative reviews tend to be the best customers of the business or service being criticized. By "best" they mean the most loyal and most valuable (customers who spend the most money)."
On a more serious note, if only Fwank and Co would grasp this basic fact..
Re: Are things really so bad?
What other sportsman makes more money than Floyd Mayweather? Even if you go right down to the bottom, there are journeymen that make thousands each year, in what other sport do the fighters/players/athletes at the very bottom make thousands?Deserter wrote:By what definition?expe wrote:Boxing is the most profitable sport in the world.
Re: Are things really so bad?
Still not the most profitable sport in the world though. That would be determined by how much revenue is produced throughout the whole sport and it would nowhere near compare with the likes of football and the big US sports.expe wrote:What other sportsman makes more money than Floyd Mayweather? Even if you go right down to the bottom, there are journeymen that make thousands each year, in what other sport do the fighters/players/athletes at the very bottom make thousands?Deserter wrote:By what definition?expe wrote:Boxing is the most profitable sport in the world.
Re: Are things really so bad?
Exactly. Expe, sorry mate, but it's time for business school 101 if that's how you define the most profitable sport in the world.columbo wrote:Still not the most profitable sport in the world though. That would be determined by how much revenue is produced throughout the whole sport and it would nowhere near compare with the likes of football and the big US sports.expe wrote:What other sportsman makes more money than Floyd Mayweather? Even if you go right down to the bottom, there are journeymen that make thousands each year, in what other sport do the fighters/players/athletes at the very bottom make thousands?
By the way, if anyone is interested in the real answer, according to Forbes.com, the most profitable sport in the world is American Football (College and Professional respectively).
This is a good read relating to that:
http://papadablogger.blogspot.ae/2009/0 ... sport.html
Re: Are things really so bad?
This could have been written in 1992.loaded_gloves wrote:All of boxing is bad, the sport is terminally ill, some Brits hold some paper belts which might satisfy the myopic nationalist types, but boxing itself is in appalling condition.
As others have said, I've known boxing fans to moan about the current state of the game since I took more than a casual interest, so the best part of 25 years.
People tend to look back fondly on the years of their youth, at the expense of the present. It happens when people are discussing other sports (and interests), not just boxing. If you're in your 30s, ask your mates whether 90s music was better than today's....
Boxing is far from perfect, but I get as much enjoyment from it now as I ever used to.
Re: Are things really so bad?
Even if Boxing isn't the most profitable sport in the world, that blog is complete and utter shite, the only reason those college American rugby teams make so much money is because they don't pay the players, loads of teams would make more if all the players were amateur.Deserter wrote:Exactly. Expe, sorry mate, but it's time for business school 101 if that's how you define the most profitable sport in the world.columbo wrote:Still not the most profitable sport in the world though. That would be determined by how much revenue is produced throughout the whole sport and it would nowhere near compare with the likes of football and the big US sports.expe wrote:What other sportsman makes more money than Floyd Mayweather? Even if you go right down to the bottom, there are journeymen that make thousands each year, in what other sport do the fighters/players/athletes at the very bottom make thousands?
By the way, if anyone is interested in the real answer, according to Forbes.com, the most profitable sport in the world is American Football (College and Professional respectively).
This is a good read relating to that:
http://papadablogger.blogspot.ae/2009/0 ... sport.html
Re: Are things really so bad?
Jesus Christ mate, how is that blog "shite" when it's outlining facts such as revenue and profitability? You may not agree that college players should be amateur but I thought we were dealing with real world facts here?expe wrote:Even if Boxing isn't the most profitable sport in the world, that blog is complete and utter shite, the only reason those college American rugby teams make so much money is because they don't pay the players, loads of teams would make more if all the players were amateur.
Even if you want to ignore the college set-up, sports such as pro American football, football, tennis and golf are all far more profitable than boxing.
-
Parson Cross
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 1991
- Joined: 03 Dec 2012, 18:57
Re: Are things really so bad?
Expe,
Erm football.
I've just done contracts for three players in League Two and last year they were all in the Conference. Not one is on under 55k gross and the minimum contract length is 2 years.
If you seriously think there are no boxers out there with worse deals you are on drugs.
Even the rugby league lads at the lower end are doing ok.
Erm football.
I've just done contracts for three players in League Two and last year they were all in the Conference. Not one is on under 55k gross and the minimum contract length is 2 years.
If you seriously think there are no boxers out there with worse deals you are on drugs.
Even the rugby league lads at the lower end are doing ok.
Re: Are things really so bad?
At Fleetwood? Those lads aren't at the bottom though, even if you don't count the bottom as Sunday League, at the bottom of the pyramid I highly doubt there's any players on the same kind of money as the fighters at the bottom.Parson Cross wrote:Expe,
Erm football.
I've just done contracts for three players in League Two and last year they were all in the Conference. Not one is on under 55k gross and the minimum contract length is 2 years.
If you seriously think there are no boxers out there with worse deals you are on drugs.
Even the rugby league lads at the lower end are doing ok.
-
lillywhite14
- Heavyweight

Re: Are things really so bad?
Boxing isn't the most profitable sport in the world.
Being a great, undisputed heavyweight champion, providing you have the right style and tick all the boxes etc is still the richest position in sport. Imagine how much money a prime Tyson or Ali would make per fight these days? They would be pulling in $200m a year before any kind of sponsorship deal!
Being a great, undisputed heavyweight champion, providing you have the right style and tick all the boxes etc is still the richest position in sport. Imagine how much money a prime Tyson or Ali would make per fight these days? They would be pulling in $200m a year before any kind of sponsorship deal!
-
Parson Cross
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 1991
- Joined: 03 Dec 2012, 18:57
Re: Are things really so bad?
Expe,
What do you categorise as a low level boxer and how much do you think they earn - net ? I suspect your figure is far removed from reality.
What do you categorise as a low level boxer and how much do you think they earn - net ? I suspect your figure is far removed from reality.
Re: Are things really so bad?
A journeyman or a fighter that while he wins, can't sell tickets so makes very little money. I would guess that a decent journeymen could earn £10,000-£30,000 a year if they fought often enough, for the fighter that can't sell tickets, I would have a guess at probably less than a £1000 a fight.Parson Cross wrote:Expe,
What do you categorise as a low level boxer and how much do you think they earn - net ? I suspect your figure is far removed from reality.
-
el_grande_mauro_mina
- Lightweight
- Posts: 11215
- Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 11:54
Re: Are things really so bad?
No chance, I knew someone who was a journeyman pro and some of his purses were shocking.expe wrote:A journeyman or a fighter that while he wins, can't sell tickets so makes very little money. I would guess that a decent journeymen could earn £10,000-£30,000 a year if they fought often enough, for the fighter that can't sell tickets, I would have a guess at probably less than a £1000 a fight.Parson Cross wrote:Expe,
What do you categorise as a low level boxer and how much do you think they earn - net ? I suspect your figure is far removed from reality.
It all depends on the weight division and other factors, a journeyman welterweight won't earn
the same as a journeyman heavyweight - not many of them as they are truly in the hurt business.
Re: Are things really so bad?
Are you an agent Parson?Parson Cross wrote:Expe,
Erm football.
I've just done contracts for three players in League Two and last year they were all in the Conference. Not one is on under 55k gross and the minimum contract length is 2 years.
If you seriously think there are no boxers out there with worse deals you are on drugs.
Even the rugby league lads at the lower end are doing ok.
-
The Insider
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 2581
- Joined: 26 Mar 2012, 11:21
Re: Are things really so bad?
Minus 25% for the manager and 10% for the trainer, travelling expenses and you lucky if you get the right side of 700 quid.MachoMan09 wrote:Unless he's the opponent, a fighter that can't sell tickets gets zero per fight because he won't get any shows. Journeymen are getting paid about £1100 for a four rounder at the moment, which is very good considering all they have to do is cover up for 12 minutes. The guys they are fighting must sell at least £1100 worth of tickets before they earn a dime for themselves. And then they get about £10 for each ticket they sell. What does this mean in reality?expe wrote:A journeyman or a fighter that while he wins, can't sell tickets so makes very little money. I would guess that a decent journeymen could earn £10,000-£30,000 a year if they fought often enough, for the fighter that can't sell tickets, I would have a guess at probably less than a £1000 a fight.Parson Cross wrote:Expe,
What do you categorise as a low level boxer and how much do you think they earn - net ? I suspect your figure is far removed from reality.
There are guys boxing on shows fighting for nothing, or even topping up in order to cover their opponents fee just to get on a show.
You need to sell about 87 tickets to get £500 before deductions.
You need to sell about 140 tickets to get a grand in your pocket before deductions.
-
Parson Cross
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 1991
- Joined: 03 Dec 2012, 18:57
Re: Are things really so bad?
Expe,
The answers above should explain to you how bottom rung boxers are on a pittance.
Also your figures are gross.
Conference players, often league cast offs do far better, with a guarenteed contract.
Footballers at the bottom do far better than boxers at the bottom. Fact.
Liilywhite,
At the other end of the scale the 5 of boxers that you can class as "elite" and earning the big money is miniscule in comparison to the overall numbers.
Not so in football. Believe me, for what I would describe as non descipt players, that one 3 year contract on mega money makes you for life.
The answers above should explain to you how bottom rung boxers are on a pittance.
Also your figures are gross.
Conference players, often league cast offs do far better, with a guarenteed contract.
Footballers at the bottom do far better than boxers at the bottom. Fact.
Liilywhite,
At the other end of the scale the 5 of boxers that you can class as "elite" and earning the big money is miniscule in comparison to the overall numbers.
Not so in football. Believe me, for what I would describe as non descipt players, that one 3 year contract on mega money makes you for life.
-
mickey1975
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 23189
- Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 12:54
Re: Are things really so bad?
So Curtis and Leon McKenzie are set? I would guess so. In fact, they are probably in the top ten most secure professional boxers in Britain.Parson Cross wrote:Expe,
The answers above should explain to you how bottom rung boxers are on a pittance.
Also your figures are gross.
Conference players, often league cast offs do far better, with a guarenteed contract.
Footballers at the bottom do far better than boxers at the bottom. Fact.
Liilywhite,
At the other end of the scale the 5 of boxers that you can class as "elite" and earning the big money is miniscule in comparison to the overall numbers.
Not so in football. Believe me, for what I would describe as non descipt players, that one 3 year contract on mega money makes you for life.
-
Wake up call
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1178
- Joined: 10 Feb 2008, 11:10
Re: Are things really so bad?
Expe clearly doesn't know much about the economics of boxing.
Here's a real life example. I know a footballer who plies in his trade in the Conference North that earns more money each year than a lad I know who is an established 12 round fighter and has topped bills on Sky.
Recently a top level amateur I interviewed asked me what he needs to go pro. As you would imagine, I said a good manager and promoter, but I told him the most important thing is to find a good sponsor because they'll provide him with some level of regular income and help him cover his training costs.
Here's a real life example. I know a footballer who plies in his trade in the Conference North that earns more money each year than a lad I know who is an established 12 round fighter and has topped bills on Sky.
Recently a top level amateur I interviewed asked me what he needs to go pro. As you would imagine, I said a good manager and promoter, but I told him the most important thing is to find a good sponsor because they'll provide him with some level of regular income and help him cover his training costs.
Last edited by Wake up call on 29 Jul 2013, 06:36, edited 1 time in total.
-
Parson Cross
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 1991
- Joined: 03 Dec 2012, 18:57
Re: Are things really so bad?
Mickey,
I don't know those two lads personal affairs mate, nor would I want to, but Curtis would openly tell you that he did very nicely thank you at Birmingham.
In fact he's the man to specify the massive difference in pay between a mediocre footballer and a low grade boxer. By that Im not saying Curt was mediocre nor can he help being a blade !
Curtis is fighting because he wants to fight. Money is a side issue.
I don't think you'd ever hear a footballer say he has to work to supplement his earnings. boxers do.
I don't know those two lads personal affairs mate, nor would I want to, but Curtis would openly tell you that he did very nicely thank you at Birmingham.
In fact he's the man to specify the massive difference in pay between a mediocre footballer and a low grade boxer. By that Im not saying Curt was mediocre nor can he help being a blade !
Curtis is fighting because he wants to fight. Money is a side issue.
I don't think you'd ever hear a footballer say he has to work to supplement his earnings. boxers do.
-
Parson Cross
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 1991
- Joined: 03 Dec 2012, 18:57
Re: Are things really so bad?
Andy,
Spot on mate.
I know a footballer who earned more in three weeks than a European boxing champion's turnover in the same year.
Spot on mate.
I know a footballer who earned more in three weeks than a European boxing champion's turnover in the same year.
-
Wake up call
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1178
- Joined: 10 Feb 2008, 11:10
Re: Are things really so bad?
You're right. I interviewed Curtis about two years ago and he said something alone the lines of "When I was a footballer I was rich and unhappy. Now I'm a boxer I'm skint but doing what I love".Parson Cross wrote:Mickey,
I don't know those two lads personal affairs mate, nor would I want to, but Curtis would openly tell you that he did very nicely thank you at Birmingham.
In fact he's the man to specify the massive difference in pay between a mediocre footballer and a low grade boxer. By that Im not saying Curt was mediocre nor can he help being a blade !
Curtis is fighting because he wants to fight. Money is a side issue.
I don't think you'd ever hear a footballer say he has to work to supplement his earnings. boxers do.
-
Parson Cross
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 1991
- Joined: 03 Dec 2012, 18:57
Re: Are things really so bad?
What I would do to earn now what Curt earned when he was 21 ........................... !
Bless him. Great kid.
Bless him. Great kid.