prizefighting

[actjac]

I have a novel idea. . . In situations like GGG vs Canelo and Joshua vs Wilder why not make an A side and a B side split but a bonus to the winner which puts them over the top in earnings for the fight?. . . "To the victor go the spoils"

[boxing_rocks]

I have a novel idea. . . In situations like GGG vs Canelo and Joshua vs Wilder why not make an A side and a B side split but a bonus to the winner which puts them over the top in earnings for the fight?. . . "To the victor go the spoils"

In most if not all of the cases, an A side will not want that.

[actjac]

I have a novel idea. . . In situations like GGG vs Canelo and Joshua vs Wilder why not make an A side and a B side split but a bonus to the winner which puts them over the top in earnings for the fight?. . . "To the victor go the spoils"

In most if not all of the cases, an A side will not want that.

Certainly that is the case otherwise the impasse would not be an issue. . . .Something like this would be fair and break the logjam getting fights done.

[SenorPipino]

Once again, why should the A side capitulate to the monetary demands of the B side and graciously allow parity?

The A side earned the right to the larger paycheck by being the bigger attraction.

So why would he ever agree to a split?

That's not the way it works in boxing or entertainment in general.

If the B side seeks a larger share of the purses, then he better acquire that intangible "It Factor" and become a star.

Otherwise he's doomed to being stuck with the short end of the purse.

[Lackeos]

I have a novel idea. . . In situations like GGG vs Canelo and Joshua vs Wilder why not make an A side and a B side split but a bonus to the winner which puts them over the top in earnings for the fight?. . . "To the victor go the spoils"

People have proposed this many times, especially for Mayweather - Pacquiao, and it's an absolutely awful idea, for the reasons that I stated 5 years ago, which you've probably read.

Part of the reason fighters don't leap into superfights is the risk of losing. Mayweather didn't want a loss against Pacquiao on his record, and Arum didn't want a loss against Mayweather on Pacquiao's record. If they were guaranteed a win, the money wouldn't matter much, because the win over an elite rival would crown you as an extraordinary cash cow. What they need is an insurance policy to offset the sting of a loss. In other words, the LOSER should get the bonus. The winner gets paid less, but they get the intangible value of winning. The loser gets paid more, but they eat the career-diminishing sting of the loss. This would make each fighter a lot less reluctant to agree to terms.

[lazboy]

The problem is the multiple alphabet organisations. If there was a single, clearly defined champ and single clearly defined number 1 contender than the public demand for a fight would and should push it to be made sooner rather than later. The pressure would be on Both parties to find a way. One or both would be forced to compromise. It would be a terrible look for both number 1 and champion to avoid each other in a prolonged sense. Anyway we don’t live in that world so basically I’m talking shiit.