Terence Crawford vs. Kell Brook - 14 November 2020
Re: Terence Crawford vs. Kell Brook - 14 November 2020
The thing is there is nothing to point at to say Brook is going to come even close to winning against Crawford.
I will say well done to Brook for being professional and coming in at exactly 10st 7lbs at the official weigh in.
I will say well done to Brook for being professional and coming in at exactly 10st 7lbs at the official weigh in.
Re: Terence Crawford vs. Kell Brook - 14 November 2020
Nice piece from Dom Ingle. It must be frustrating when guys they have trained for so long, choose for whatever reasons not to cut you in for the bigger paying fights.
Out of curiosity - how old is Dom Ingle??
Out of curiosity - how old is Dom Ingle??
-
forcefraser
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 5429
- Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 06:15
Re: Terence Crawford vs. Kell Brook - 14 November 2020
Anyone know what time the ring walk will be UK time?
-
Switch hitter
- Super Welterweight
- Posts: 590
- Joined: 09 Aug 2014, 07:43
Re: Terence Crawford vs. Kell Brook - 14 November 2020
8 hrs difference so about 4 or 5 I reckon ?
-
Ruthless-RKO
- Welterweight
- Posts: 100766
- Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59
Re: Terence Crawford vs. Kell Brook - 14 November 2020
I’d cal it half 4..
Re: Terence Crawford vs. Kell Brook - 14 November 2020
It will be frustrating but it's understandable from a prize fighter's point of view. Kell, probably rightly, will think he doesn't need anything more than a pad man at this point. You don't pay a pad man 10 per cent.
Re: Terence Crawford vs. Kell Brook - 14 November 2020
I can't do allnighters, often go to bed at 11 wake up around main event, go back to bed for a few hours after it, other wise Sunday just feel ruined and waste a day.
Re: Terence Crawford vs. Kell Brook - 14 November 2020
I can see both sides point of view, think GGG left Sanchez after he wanted 10% of his 7 figure purse. Brook just trying to keep most of his 2 million purse after this is probably his last fight if it's a one-sided affair. 9 times out of 10 people split in boxing because of money.
-
TheLeprechaun
- Middleweight
- Posts: 5137
- Joined: 27 Jun 2013, 20:42
Re: Terence Crawford vs. Kell Brook - 14 November 2020
I think it's unrealistic for the trainers not to be flexible about the percentage. I remember hearing Brendan Ingle banging on about Naz not wanting to give him his percentage. Why would he? I'm not sure how much it was but if it was 10% then thats a huge figure coming out of a 1 million purse. The fighter is in there taking the punches and the risk and then paying the tax man/promotor etc afterward. The trainer should adjust the purse, if they really care about the fighter. Keeping it at 10% rigidly is just not ridiculous imo.
-
high tower 1
- Super Featherweight
- Posts: 1591
- Joined: 04 Aug 2018, 09:36
Re: Terence Crawford vs. Kell Brook - 14 November 2020
Depends on the situation. If they were there from the early days providing the training and motivation all the way when there was no money then they deserve a good cut when the big purses come to make up for it.TheLeprechaun wrote: ↑14 Nov 2020, 13:33 I think it's unrealistic for the trainers not to be flexible about the percentage. I remember hearing Brendan Ingle banging on about Naz not wanting to give him his percentage. Why would he? I'm not sure how much it was but if it was 10% then thats a huge figure coming out of a 1 million purse. The fighter is in there taking the punches and the risk and then paying the tax man/promotor etc afterward. The trainer should adjust the purse, if they really care about the fighter. Keeping it at 10% rigidly is just not ridiculous imo.
A manager will try grab 30% for sitting on boxrec.
-
Ruthless-RKO
- Welterweight
- Posts: 100766
- Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59
-
Tuan_Jim
- Heavyweight

Re: Terence Crawford vs. Kell Brook - 14 November 2020
I'm with the fighters. I appreciate trainers do a lot of work but ultimately the boxer only has a short period of time to make money. Look at Abe Sanchez. I remember him getting paid off the Norris brothers in the 1980s. Are the Norris brothers still earning? But here's Abe bitching about not being able to coin it in off the punches Golovkin's taking in 2020? Abe will still be training and making money when Golovkin is gone and budgeting his earnings.
Re: Terence Crawford vs. Kell Brook - 14 November 2020
This ^ with young kids as well , I'm done inGlass Joe wrote: ↑14 Nov 2020, 13:25I can't do allnighters, often go to bed at 11 wake up around main event, go back to bed for a few hours after it, other wise Sunday just feel ruined and waste a day.
Had too many disappointing fight nights to bother with the hassle .
Re: Terence Crawford vs. Kell Brook - 14 November 2020
Bit cvntish , hope he gets smoked .
-
TheLeprechaun
- Middleweight
- Posts: 5137
- Joined: 27 Jun 2013, 20:42
Re: Terence Crawford vs. Kell Brook - 14 November 2020
high tower 1 wrote: ↑14 Nov 2020, 13:50Depends on the situation. If they were there from the early days providing the training and motivation all the way when there was no money then they deserve a good cut when the big purses come to make up for it.TheLeprechaun wrote: ↑14 Nov 2020, 13:33 I think it's unrealistic for the trainers not to be flexible about the percentage. I remember hearing Brendan Ingle banging on about Naz not wanting to give him his percentage. Why would he? I'm not sure how much it was but if it was 10% then thats a huge figure coming out of a 1 million purse. The fighter is in there taking the punches and the risk and then paying the tax man/promotor etc afterward. The trainer should adjust the purse, if they really care about the fighter. Keeping it at 10% rigidly is just not ridiculous imo.
A manager will try grab 30% for sitting on boxrec.
Brook is reportedly getting 2 million. If dom Ingle had called him up and said just pay me 50k I wonder if he'd be working the corner tonight. Instead he's banging on about not getting 200k. I think that's ridiculous.
Re: Terence Crawford vs. Kell Brook - 14 November 2020
This is how i view a basic gym PT wanting 35 quid an hourTheLeprechaun wrote: ↑14 Nov 2020, 14:33high tower 1 wrote: ↑14 Nov 2020, 13:50Depends on the situation. If they were there from the early days providing the training and motivation all the way when there was no money then they deserve a good cut when the big purses come to make up for it.TheLeprechaun wrote: ↑14 Nov 2020, 13:33 I think it's unrealistic for the trainers not to be flexible about the percentage. I remember hearing Brendan Ingle banging on about Naz not wanting to give him his percentage. Why would he? I'm not sure how much it was but if it was 10% then thats a huge figure coming out of a 1 million purse. The fighter is in there taking the punches and the risk and then paying the tax man/promotor etc afterward. The trainer should adjust the purse, if they really care about the fighter. Keeping it at 10% rigidly is just not ridiculous imo.
A manager will try grab 30% for sitting on boxrec.
Brook is reportedly getting 2 million. If dom Ingle had called him up and said just pay me 50k I wonder if he'd be working the corner tonight. Instead he's banging on about not getting 200k. I think that's ridiculous.
Re: Terence Crawford vs. Kell Brook - 14 November 2020
I'd have a contract from the start along the lines of the lower figure of x% of the purse or a fixed sum of y. Would reduce the likelihood of acrimony.
-
Pugilist-specialist
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1632
- Joined: 11 Jul 2008, 04:37
Re: Terence Crawford vs. Kell Brook - 14 November 2020
Have you a link to Dom asking for 200k or are you making it up?TheLeprechaun wrote: ↑14 Nov 2020, 14:33
Brook is reportedly getting 2 million. If dom Ingle had called him up and said just pay me 50k I wonder if he'd be working the corner tonight. Instead he's banging on about not getting 200k. I think that's ridiculous.
-
TheLeprechaun
- Middleweight
- Posts: 5137
- Joined: 27 Jun 2013, 20:42
Re: Terence Crawford vs. Kell Brook - 14 November 2020
His youtube interview is basically giving out about fighters moving on when they make big purses.Pugilist-specialist wrote: ↑14 Nov 2020, 14:54Have you a link to Dom asking for 200k or are you making it up?TheLeprechaun wrote: ↑14 Nov 2020, 14:33
Brook is reportedly getting 2 million. If dom Ingle had called him up and said just pay me 50k I wonder if he'd be working the corner tonight. Instead he's banging on about not getting 200k. I think that's ridiculous.
When I was getting 10 per cent of £1,000, £2000, £3000 purses you’re putting in all the hard work then, you’re building a base and you’re putting in time and effort and hours for the pay-off later on down the line. When they become world champions and they don’t appreciate what they’ve got, it’s disappointing. I’ve been with Kell 23 years, since he was 10.
He mentions the 10% figure. Brook is getting 2 million from what I've read. Ingle seems a bit aggrieved, saying he's not even watching the fight. So im assuming he would have expected 200k. Now correct me if im wrong because I may not have got it right.
And look im not saying a good corner isn't a huge help. Dom probably saved his career with the GGG pullout and he took a lot of stick for pulling him out. 200k just seems way too much for me.
Re: Terence Crawford vs. Kell Brook - 14 November 2020
Agreed , it's the fighters putting their necks on the block.TheLeprechaun wrote: ↑14 Nov 2020, 15:06His youtube interview is basically giving out about fighters moving on when they make big purses.Pugilist-specialist wrote: ↑14 Nov 2020, 14:54Have you a link to Dom asking for 200k or are you making it up?TheLeprechaun wrote: ↑14 Nov 2020, 14:33
Brook is reportedly getting 2 million. If dom Ingle had called him up and said just pay me 50k I wonder if he'd be working the corner tonight. Instead he's banging on about not getting 200k. I think that's ridiculous.
When I was getting 10 per cent of £1,000, £2000, £3000 purses you’re putting in all the hard work then, you’re building a base and you’re putting in time and effort and hours for the pay-off later on down the line. When they become world champions and they don’t appreciate what they’ve got, it’s disappointing. I’ve been with Kell 23 years, since he was 10.
He mentions the 10% figure. Brook is getting 2 million from what I've read. Ingle seems a bit aggrieved, saying he's not even watching the fight. So im assuming he would have expected 200k. Now correct me if im wrong because I may not have got it right.
And look im not saying a good corner isn't a huge help. Dom probably saved his career with the GGG pullout and he took a lot of stick for pulling him out. 200k just seems way too much for me.
Re: Terence Crawford vs. Kell Brook - 14 November 2020
Of course the boxer wants what they are entitled to but if it's on a percentage basis, when the boxer earns 'eff all so does the trainer. It does seem wrong to me how when the earned number sounds a lot the percentage becomes a problem.
Boxers can't do it all on their own and without the other players in boxing it would all collapse.
The trainer is often the first one to get it in the neck when a boxer loses, especially these days. Although I'm not keen on either Froch or Degale I have to respect how they stuck with McCracken and McDonnell after they lost fights.
Boxers can't do it all on their own and without the other players in boxing it would all collapse.
The trainer is often the first one to get it in the neck when a boxer loses, especially these days. Although I'm not keen on either Froch or Degale I have to respect how they stuck with McCracken and McDonnell after they lost fights.
-
CaptainSpacerod
- Welterweight
- Posts: 3302
- Joined: 15 Dec 2015, 03:21
Re: Terence Crawford vs. Kell Brook - 14 November 2020
I’m not saying that it was the case between naz and ingle but if you split up with a trainer who’s been integral to your success because of a few % points here and there and lose your next fight then your purse for the fight after will often drop by a very large percentage so it can be a false economy when a boxer leaves a trainer over money.TheLeprechaun wrote: ↑14 Nov 2020, 13:33 I think it's unrealistic for the trainers not to be flexible about the percentage. I remember hearing Brendan Ingle banging on about Naz not wanting to give him his percentage. Why would he? I'm not sure how much it was but if it was 10% then thats a huge figure coming out of a 1 million purse. The fighter is in there taking the punches and the risk and then paying the tax man/promotor etc afterward. The trainer should adjust the purse, if they really care about the fighter. Keeping it at 10% rigidly is just not ridiculous imo.
Probably makes no difference in the brook crawford context as having Dom taking the camp would likely make no difference to the outcome but if the fighters were more evenly matched then Dom would surely be worth his 10%. Lose tonight and Kell either retires or earns buttons next time out ... win tonight and he’s lookin at big bucks
-
Pugilist-specialist
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1632
- Joined: 11 Jul 2008, 04:37
Re: Terence Crawford vs. Kell Brook - 14 November 2020
Which interview, pal?TheLeprechaun wrote: ↑14 Nov 2020, 15:06 His youtube interview is basically giving out about fighters moving on when they make big purses.
-
Frostieballs
- Super Bantamweight
- Posts: 1995
- Joined: 15 Aug 2020, 17:38
Re: Terence Crawford vs. Kell Brook - 14 November 2020
If Dom is aggrieved, I can understand his POV.
In the majority of cases, the Ingles invest far more into boxers than they ever get back. Hundreds of kids walk through their door.
Then when the 1 or 2 make it big and they don’t get their cut, it must grate. Particularly when that share of the cut often ends up going to other hangers on who haven’t invested.
The money often goes back into their gym as well.
Trainers aren’t just there for the night. They invest weeks, months, years... often living with these guys for weeks at a time and propping them up.
If fighters are able to say down the line that your cut reduces, trainers should have the right to charge at the outset when they are losing money.
In the majority of cases, the Ingles invest far more into boxers than they ever get back. Hundreds of kids walk through their door.
Then when the 1 or 2 make it big and they don’t get their cut, it must grate. Particularly when that share of the cut often ends up going to other hangers on who haven’t invested.
The money often goes back into their gym as well.
Trainers aren’t just there for the night. They invest weeks, months, years... often living with these guys for weeks at a time and propping them up.
If fighters are able to say down the line that your cut reduces, trainers should have the right to charge at the outset when they are losing money.
Last edited by Frostieballs on 14 Nov 2020, 18:23, edited 1 time in total.