First let me point out that you conveniently replied only to one small portion of my post, and yet again refused to answer the questions I addressed to you, which is a common feature of weak argumentation.
Additionally, my central argument throughout this discussion has been that drawing power and purse sizes don't always correspond precisely and that the disparity between Ward and GGG's purses must be explained by other factors than drawing power. Rather than chiefly supporting your counterargument with viewership figures showing that Ward's ability to draw viewers is significantly better than GGG's, your main line of evidence seems to be purses and the ill-supported assumption that since GGG is paid less, he's not a bigger draw. Since that validity of that assumption is also the key point we've been debating, your arguments are plagued by circularity and do little to persuade me.
Have you used the poetic phrase “false dichotomy” as a weak attempt to refuse to address a valid point, one which you have no answer for?
Either Golovkin really is “a bigger draw” than Andre Ward, which means that Team Golovkin have been lying about the apparent lack of funds to attract top-tier world-class opposition to fight him… or the current cost of promoting GGG’s fights means that there is very little money in the pot left to pay for the big name fighters to share the ring with him… so which one is it?
I've made several posts outlining my positions, providing evidence for those positions, and responding to your claims, and I posted 'false dichotomy'--which is still a response to your argument-- not because I could think of no other way to pick apart that aspect of your post, but because you've listed two options as if they were the only possibilities when there is a range of several more possible explanations. If you've read my posts carefully you should know that I could easily pick another option based on my comments that drawing power is only one factor influencing purse size. Golovkin may be a big draw (refuting your first option, which is flawed because it assumes a questionable relationship between drawing power and purse size that hasn't been shown to uniformly exist) while still not bringing in the type of money, at least in the past, to attract even bigger draws and money makers who will likely want larger purses than usual due to the risk involved (refuting you second option). That you think you've covered the gamut of possibilities suggests to me that you're seeing the matter simplistically.
I think it's ironic that you jump on me for giving a brief response to one of your arguments amidst a generally detailed reply to your post when you failed to respond to all but two words of my last post. I enjoy debating and addressing your arguments, so I have no problem elaborating. You, on the other hand, continue to dodge the questions I ask and are now reduced to quoting only two words that I posted.
Simply put: if
“Golovkin is a bigger draw than Ward”, then there should be money to fund fights against big name opponents!
Not that simple. I've already given plenty of evidence that GGG's bouts attract more viewers than Ward's despite the latter being paid significantly more. You've also posted examples of people such as Lara who don't have comparable drawing power to GGG but were paid more than his career-high purse. The numbers in this case clearly suggest that drawing power and purse size don't precisely correspond.
The total fight purses for Andre Ward’s previous two bouts were $5.1m, with the equivalent figures for Golovkin’s fights against Geale and Rubio supplying a combined grand total of $2.7m.
So assuming your argument rings true… Why isn’t Golovkin being paid more (he's earning less than half the sums being paid to most of his pound-for-pound rivals)? Why does the boxing media and Golovkins' rivals claim that they aren’t being offered enough money to fight him? Why did Rubio only receive $450K (before the $100K deduction) for facing GGG, but Rodriguez (originally) received $1m to fight Ward?
I'm not privy to all information, but what's clear is that someone is forking out more money for Ward's bouts even though GGG regularly attracts more viewers. One reason may be that people at HBO see Ward, or saw him at one time, as someone with superstar potential--perhaps a future Floyd--based on his impressive ability, accomplishments, and possibly him being American rather than someone from the former USSR who speaks rudimentary English. Therefore they paid him very well to lure him away from Showtime and start developing his stardom. That means that they're still concerned with making a profit, but do not assess each of his fights in a vacuum and instead take a longer term perspective. Moreover, that Ward is earning significantly more does not necessarily suggest that GGG is being underpaid relative to his drawing power; it seems like it's more a case of Ward being overpaid when his purse sizes are juxtaposed with the viewing figures for his bouts.
On that note, we can speculate on the reasons why Ward is paid more but what we can't speculate on those viewing numbers. Since we've been debating the relationship between drawing power and purse size in a specific set of cases, the two boxers' purses cannot be adduced as evidence of their drawing power as doing so would be circular reasoning, something you've been guilty of throughout this thread. Drawing power is a boxer's ability to attract viewers, so TV viewership and attendance are the best available evidence of that quality:
1. Three of GGG's fights are higher rated than every Ward fight apart from Dawson.
2. GGG's highest rated fight is rated higher than Ward's.
3. The attendance for GGG's last two US fights were nearly 9923k and 8572k, while Ward's last two drew 4158k and 8500k.
4. Ward's peak numbers occurred against a multiple-time HBO and Showtime A-side who was coming off a win on HBO against Bernard Hopkins. GGG's peak numbers came against someone with significantly less exposure than Dawson who had never headlined a major HBO or Showtime card and was coming off a win on NBC Sports against Saul Roman.
5. Ward's fight with Dawson was in 2012 when he was relatively fresh off his Super Six win. The glow of him winning that tournament has faded, he's been very inactive, and his numbers for his last fight weren't very good. Since this is about current drawing power, his one standout rating against Dawson--which is still lower than GGG's best rating--is losing relevance.
I think these figures suggest that GGG is currently a bigger draw, and I don't see how they provide evidence to the contrary, let alone to the argument that Ward holds an advantage that is commensurate to him receiving purses over 2x the size of GGG's.
