BoxRec

I always thought a purse bid was forced after the two parties couldn't sort their shit out on their own.
Therefore, starting all over again, and potentially taking the negotiations out of both camps hands to a certain extent?

bigred83 wrote:I always thought a purse bid was forced after the two parties couldn't sort their poo out on their own.
Therefore, starting all over again, and potentially taking the negotiations out of both camps hands to a certain extent?

The way it works, is the 2 parties management will sit down and work things out. Because Trout was in the box seat, he would've had his promoter at the table. With the contracts that were put forward, obviously Mundine didn't get his own way. So, wanting the fight between the manditory and title holder, the WBA intervene and say, "well, this fight must go ahead with a purse bid". Team Mundine, I'm assuming had come to the conclusion that they would never outbid Trouts promotion team and decided to vacate the belt and look for better business opportunities.

bigred83 wrote:I always thought a purse bid was forced after the two parties couldn't sort their poo out on their own.
Therefore, starting all over again, and potentially taking the negotiations out of both camps hands to a certain extent?

Purse bids are good in theory. But they really only work when both parties actually want the fight. Particularly if one party are prepared to ditch belts etc to avoid the fight.

Unfortunately sometimes, it all comes down to the dollar. If that fight was in Australia, like Trout said he wanted it to be, whyy would Mundine accept less than 40% of the purse, when he would be the draw for the fight!

Lairdy wrote:Unfortunately sometimes, it all comes down to the dollar. If that fight was in Australia, like Trout said he wanted it to be, whyy would Mundine accept less than 40% of the purse, when he would be the draw for the fight!

Trout was the world champion. Why would he or should he entertain taking less than 50%?

bash for cash wrote:

Lairdy wrote:Unfortunately sometimes, it all comes down to the dollar. If that fight was in Australia, like Trout said he wanted it to be, whyy would Mundine accept less than 40% of the purse, when he would be the draw for the fight!

Trout was the world champion. Why would he or should he entertain taking less than 50%?

That's where it fell into a heap I would assume. Had the fight been in the USA. Mundine would've got maybe a 70-30 split, if that. Hence why Mundine would've wanted the fight in Australia. Having said that, Trout would still be entitle to ask for at least a 50-50 split, being the champ. But on the Mundine side of things, I would say - as I have said previously - that Mundine would be the main draw for the fight in Australia, so why would he take a 50-50 cut?... On purse bid, the sanctioning body generally decides purse splits. They would've - regardless of where the fight would be held - demanded that Trout get more of the purse.

It's a dogie old world, boxing. I just hope the next fight happens so the world can see how overrated Trout is.

Lairdy wrote:

bash for cash wrote:

Lairdy wrote:Unfortunately sometimes, it all comes down to the dollar. If that fight was in Australia, like Trout said he wanted it to be, whyy would Mundine accept less than 40% of the purse, when he would be the draw for the fight!

Trout was the world champion. Why would he or should he entertain taking less than 50%?

That's where it fell into a heap I would assume. Had the fight been in the USA. Mundine would've got maybe a 70-30 split, if that. Hence why Mundine would've wanted the fight in Australia. Having said that, Trout would still be entitle to ask for at least a 50-50 split, being the champ. But on the Mundine side of things, I would say - as I have said previously - that Mundine would be the main draw for the fight in Australia, so why would he take a 50-50 cut?... On purse bid, the sanctioning body generally decides purse splits. They would've - regardless of where the fight would be held - demanded that Trout get more of the purse.

It's a dogie old world, boxing. I just hope the next fight happens so the world can see how overrated Trout is.

Why would Mundne settle for 50% you ask? Because Trout was the world champion and as world champion why should he settle for less than 50%?

What's the point of winning a world title if it doesn't get you at least 50% of the takings in a title defence? No point winning world titles if you can't make money out of them is there?

Some fighters are in it for the money, some for the glory of being the champ. Unfortunateley back then, money meant so much more than a world title to Mundine.

Lairdy wrote:Some fighters are in it for the money, some for the glory of being the champ. Unfortunateley back then, money meant so much more than a world title to Mundine.

Trout did nothing more as champion than want what was fair and reasonable in a title defence. No wonder he was pissed when Mundine stuffed them about for week after week and then ducked the fight. Hopefully this time it will get made.

bash for cash wrote:

Lairdy wrote:Some fighters are in it for the money, some for the glory of being the champ. Unfortunateley back then, money meant so much more than a world title to Mundine.

Trout did nothing more as champion than want what was fair and reasonable in a title defence. No wonder he was pissed when Mundine stuffed them about for week after week and then ducked the fight. Hopefully this time it will get made.

It sucked for Trout, yes. But, in saying that, I'm pretty sure Team Mundine offered him his biggest payday to that date too.

Lairdy wrote:

bash for cash wrote:

buster007 wrote:it was a duck.

don't bother sugar coating it, its common knowledge he wanted no part of trout.

Of course it was. Only some Mundine nuthuggers argue everything negative posted about him no matter how true it is.

Please explain WHY Mundine would duck Trout?!

Easy, he was scared, the same reason he ducked GGG, after ducking trout he spruiked he wanted a bigger name like cotto, funny how things work out, trout fights and beats cotto and where was Mundine, exactly where he has always been, taking fights like McKart instead of fights like trout, Australia's biggest underachiever in boxing, excellent skill level, very low self belief level, wouldn't even fight Geale when ordered by the sanctioning body after the appeal, at that stage that fight would have earnt good $ but he settled for being stripped

Please explain WHAT is scary about Austin Trout?! The amount of ignorant morons on here is astounding!

Lairdy wrote:Please explain WHAT is scary about Austin Trout?! The amount of ignorant morons on here is astounding!

Ask your mate mundine, your the one who said he was more interested in filling his pockets with money, so why didn't he take the trout fight, I'm sure he would have made more money and had better exposure with trout than fighting McKart in front of 200 spectators, please explain that you ignorant moron

By the way lardy, trout easily beat cotto so I wouldn't comment about why he's scary, mundines best win is Mosley, 10 years past his best with a training camp that looked like it lasted a week, mundine targets out of date fighters, clottey was a definately backfire, as I stated earlier, very talented with no confidence or belief in himself

"Mundines best win is Mosley". That statement is so stupid, I'm thinking I may have misread it... Nope, I didn't misread it! Wow! How many times does one have to explain it. MUNDINE. DID. NOT. FIGHT. TROUT. BECAUSE. OF. MONEY! Trout beat Cotto, yes. His best victory. Does this mean he can beat Mundine? You are clearly very amateur with your theories. Mundine has had lots of big wins!

Lairdy wrote:"Mundines best win is Mosley". That statement is so stupid, I'm thinking I may have misread it... Nope, I didn't misread it! Wow! How many times does one have to explain it. MUNDINE. DID. NOT. FIGHT. TROUT. BECAUSE. OF. MONEY! Trout beat Cotto, yes. His best victory. Does this mean he can beat Mundine? You are clearly very amateur with your theories. Mundine has had lots of big wins!

Who, rabchenco, not tested at the A level, antwun Echols was shot 3-4 months before their fight, lester ellis, Gunnar Jackson, Gareth wood, who is the big wins, tell me tossa

Pureist wrote:

Lairdy wrote:Please explain WHAT is scary about Austin Trout?! The amount of ignorant morons on here is astounding!

Ask your mate mundine, your the one who said he was more interested in filling his pockets with money, so why didn't he take the trout fight, I'm sure he would have made more money and had better exposure with trout than fighting McKart in front of 200 spectators, please explain that you ignorant moron

A very bad business venture maybe? I don't know. Please tell me why he would fights Echols, Green, Kessler etc. Then duck Trout?... You look very silly now.

Pureist wrote:

Lairdy wrote:"Mundines best win is Mosley". That statement is so stupid, I'm thinking I may have misread it... Nope, I didn't misread it! Wow! How many times does one have to explain it. MUNDINE. DID. NOT. FIGHT. TROUT. BECAUSE. OF. MONEY! Trout beat Cotto, yes. His best victory. Does this mean he can beat Mundine? You are clearly very amateur with your theories. Mundine has had lots of big wins!

Who, rabchenco, not tested at the A level, antwun Echols was shot 3-4 months before their fight, lester ellis, Gunnar Jackson, Gareth wood, who is the big wins, tell me tossa

It's funny that you make excuses for every fight he wins. His biggest win was over Green. Another one was Echols. Another was Rabchenko. Another was Geale. You forgot to put an excuse for the Green fight... Getting amnesia?... Most of Mundines best fights were losses IMO.

Haha, this is hilarious.

Good ol' Mundine ducked Trout, if he didn't, if he truly wanted the fight, he would've turned up for the purse bid. The fight would've been made.

I don't care if it was due to money, due to fear or if he had a vision that if he fought Trout the world would end, and therefore saved the world by not fighting Trout.
The bottom line is HE DUCKED HIM.

Just like he ducked the rematches with Kessler and (originally) Geale.

Lairdy wrote:

Pureist wrote:

Lairdy wrote:Please explain WHAT is scary about Austin Trout?! The amount of ignorant morons on here is astounding!

Ask your mate mundine, your the one who said he was more interested in filling his pockets with money, so why didn't he take the trout fight, I'm sure he would have made more money and had better exposure with trout than fighting McKart in front of 200 spectators, please explain that you ignorant moron

A very bad business venture maybe? I don't know. Please tell me why he would fights Echols, Green, Kessler etc. Then duck Trout?... You look very silly now.

I look silly? Who are his big wins, inform me please, when he was supposed to fight trout he wouldn't have beaten trout in a pink fit, as for " a very bad business venture" what a crock of shite, turns down trout to fight McKart and you say I look silly, your an absolute imbecile

Lairdy wrote:

Pureist wrote:

Lairdy wrote:"Mundines best win is Mosley". That statement is so stupid, I'm thinking I may have misread it... Nope, I didn't misread it! Wow! How many times does one have to explain it. MUNDINE. DID. NOT. FIGHT. TROUT. BECAUSE. OF. MONEY! Trout beat Cotto, yes. His best victory. Does this mean he can beat Mundine? You are clearly very amateur with your theories. Mundine has had lots of big wins!

Who, rabchenco, not tested at the A level, antwun Echols was shot 3-4 months before their fight, lester ellis, Gunnar Jackson, Gareth wood, who is the big wins, tell me tossa

It's funny that you make excuses for every fight he wins. His biggest win was over Green. Another one was Echols. Another was Rabchenko. Another was Geale. You forgot to put an excuse for the Green fight... Getting amnesia?... Most of Mundines best fights were losses IMO.

So green was his biggest win, do you think green was an elite boxer or something, first geale fight went to appeal and mundine was stripped after not taking the mandatory rematch, geale flogged him the second time, Echols was shot with a gun 3-4 months before their fight, who has rabchenko beaten that was elite?, no one. Again your an imbecile

When did I mention "elite" fighters?! And Echols... I'm sure you will tell your grandkids that Echols couldn't throw punches with the arm that had the bullet in its pit, I can picture it! Pathetic.

madball1982 wrote:Haha, this is hilarious.

Good ol' Mundine ducked Trout, if he didn't, if he truly wanted the fight, he would've turned up for the purse bid. The fight would've been made.

I don't care if it was due to money, due to fear or if he had a vision that if he fought Trout the world would end, and therefore saved the world by not fighting Trout.
The bottom line is HE DUCKED HIM.

Just like he ducked the rematches with Kessler and (originally) Geale.

Mundine - like 90% of his career - put money first. Simple. Have a look at dome of the guys he has fought previously. Kessler and Echols would both beat Trout with ease. I will say it again. Trout is very overrated and is lucky to be ranked so highly. "Rematch" with Kessler? That's a cracker! Christ, what dribble.

Lairdy wrote:When did I mention "elite" fighters?! When did anyone other than the little fella in your mind say anything about this mysterious "rematch" with Kessler?! What dribble. And Echols... I'm sure you will tell your grandkids that Echols couldn't throw punches with the arm that had the bullet in its pit, I can picture it! Pathetic.

1st off, I didn't mention Kessler, 2nd YOU said green was his best win, not me, so in your words his best win was against green who isn't an elite boxer, you put up such a good arguement for mundine, not, seriously you need to take a step back into reality

madball1982 wrote:Haha, this is hilarious.

Good ol' Mundine ducked Trout, if he didn't, if he truly wanted the fight, he would've turned up for the purse bid. The fight would've been made.

I don't care if it was due to money, due to fear or if he had a vision that if he fought Trout the world would end, and therefore saved the world by not fighting Trout.
The bottom line is HE DUCKED HIM.

Just like he ducked the rematches with Kessler and (originally) Geale.

you've got it right, my boy. Mundine wanted no part of Trout when Austin was at the top of his game. Instead, Mundane has waited to see how Trout can be beaten, how he can be 'boxed'! Mundine is no fighter, he's a "boxer", all be it a good one at that, but this is the fight game, he doesn't want to rematch people who will come to fight! Mundine has two of his very best wins in Danny Green and his second fight with am Soliman, those fights signify his peek period, he shamed himself in running from Kessler all night then calling that his "Everest" before refusing to rematch him.......in the words of the great Midnight Oil, "better to die on your feet than live on your knees!". Then he ducked and ducked and ducked, all the while, talking it up. He whispered Trout's name, the fight presented it's self, he shat his pants, an unknown, relatively untested GGG was put on offer, soiled pants again. This dud is the poor man's Aussie version of Floyd and he's been taking you all for chumps for a long time