BoxRec

Posted: **18 Apr 2018, 12:10**

the_doctor wrote: ↑18 Apr 2018, 07:30 One quick point on the argument that Parker got xx% therefore Wilder should get xx%

The whole point of overpaying Parker (and, lets be honest, he was overpaid) was to get his belt and strengthen the negotiating position with Wilder. He now has three belts to one rather than two to one. It's also not true that Wilder has been earning much more than Parker was prior to fighting Joshua ($2m for Wilder vs Ortiz, around $1.5m for Parker vs Fury).

Joshua has everything - the huge sold-out venues, three of the four belts, massive commercial deals, guaranteed PPV numbers in the UK. What is Wilder risking?

Edit: for the record, I voted 70/30. Give him 25% for 1/4 belts and an extra 5% for bringing in a share of the US audience.

I agree with you, 99 %

Posted: **18 Apr 2018, 14:02**

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑18 Apr 2018, 04:20
candyslim wrote: ↑18 Apr 2018, 03:23I do find it sad that a gentleman like Joshua, who treats opponents with respect, is quietly confident and believes in walking the walk, is considered boring by so many who prefer the loudmouth braggart who never tires of telling us how great he is.

Cultural differences I guess
You can’t please everyone all of the time.

The thing is… Deontay’s alleged “exciting” demeanour hasn’t translated in commercial success, popularity in his homeland or decent paydays.

His trash-talking simply isn’t working.

Well it hasn't put bums on seats admittedly but there looks to me a very good chance he's going to trash-talk his way to a unification deal massively more lucrative than anything he's earned before compared to Joshua's modest improvement on his normal payout.

Riddick Blowe wrote: ↑18 Apr 2018, 07:30
candyslim wrote: ↑17 Apr 2018, 03:51
Just out of curiousity, If Joshua were just the same fighter, held the same belts, but was a resident of Lagos or Abouja because his family had never moved to the UK, with no Sky interest, no UK fan-base and all that implies, how many posters on here thinks Wilder would still be interested in a unification match?

Genuine question.

Of course he wouldn't be interested, there wouldn't be any money in the pot. In that scenario if he can earn $2 million fighting lesser risks than Joshua he would.

Riddick you're so cynical. Surely it's all about legacy isn't it?

Actually I was rather hoping that might have flushed out one of the nut-huggers, who would assure us that the money has nothing to do with it, but this thread appears to have become an idiot-free zone

Posted: **18 Apr 2018, 15:34**

I don't normally comment on these threads about percentages and a sides or b sides etc.

However I think we should look at this through a different lens. As boxing fans we want to see the best fight the best and to see titles being unified.

The only way that happens frequently is if the purses are more even. Top fighters aren't going to sign up for unification fights for low percentages so we should be encouraging a more even distribution rather than supporting 70/30 or 75/25 splits.

Posted: **18 Apr 2018, 15:43**

This is ridiculous. . . .Ali vs Frazier was 50/50. . . .Ali vs Foreman was 50/50. . . .Cooney vs Holmes was 50/50. . . . Wilder is an undefeated heavyweight champion. . . . . Joshua could not make the kind of money that he will pull down against any other boxer as well. Just fight the fight and take home more money at 50/50. That is more than either has ever made.

Posted: **18 Apr 2018, 15:47**

actjac wrote: ↑18 Apr 2018, 15:43 This is ridiculous. . . .Ali vs Frazier was 50/50. . . .Ali vs Foreman was 50/50. . . .Cooney vs Holmes was 50/50. . . . Wilder is an undefeated heavyweight champion. . . . . Joshua could not make the kind of money that he will pull down against any other boxer as well. Just fight the fight and take home more money at 50/50. That is more than either has ever made.

50/50 would leave Joshua earning LESS than he usually takes home.

Why should he get a pay cut for his toughest fight, while Wilder earns 8x his previous highest payday?

Posted: **18 Apr 2018, 15:51**

Without the rematch clause I'd say it needs to be 60-40

If you include the rematch clause in there 70-30 seems acceptable to me.

Posted: **18 Apr 2018, 17:15**

actjac wrote: ↑18 Apr 2018, 15:43 This is ridiculous. . . .Ali vs Frazier was 50/50. . . .Ali vs Foreman was 50/50. . . .Cooney vs Holmes was 50/50. . . . Wilder is an undefeated heavyweight champion. . . . . Joshua could not make the kind of money that he will pull down against any other boxer as well. Just fight the fight and take home more money at 50/50. That is more than either has ever made.

I'm with you on more even splits as it is healthier for the sport in the longer term. Unfortunately I think we are in the minority here.

Posted: **18 Apr 2018, 22:59**

Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑18 Apr 2018, 15:47
actjac wrote: ↑18 Apr 2018, 15:43 This is ridiculous. . . .Ali vs Frazier was 50/50. . . .Ali vs Foreman was 50/50. . . .Cooney vs Holmes was 50/50. . . . Wilder is an undefeated heavyweight champion. . . . . Joshua could not make the kind of money that he will pull down against any other boxer as well. Just fight the fight and take home more money at 50/50. That is more than either has ever made.
50/50 would leave Joshua earning LESS than he usually takes home.

Why should he get a pay cut for his toughest fight, while Wilder earns 8x his previous highest payday?

Then don't take the fight if you are not prepared for an equal and fair split between two undefeated champions.. . . .If I were Deontay I would hold out until the fight built into a mega fight in another year or two.. . . .If you want to see huge money then wait until the Raisers stadium is built in Las Vegas in 2020 and the Visitors Convention Authority can get behind it with the casinos and fill 70,000 seats.

Posted: **19 Apr 2018, 03:56**

Looks like I spoke too soon (IFZ) Thank you DS for restoring a little sanity.

Posted: **19 Apr 2018, 10:00**

actjac wrote: ↑18 Apr 2018, 22:59
Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑18 Apr 2018, 15:47
actjac wrote: ↑18 Apr 2018, 15:43 This is ridiculous. . . .Ali vs Frazier was 50/50. . . .Ali vs Foreman was 50/50. . . .Cooney vs Holmes was 50/50. . . . Wilder is an undefeated heavyweight champion. . . . . Joshua could not make the kind of money that he will pull down against any other boxer as well. Just fight the fight and take home more money at 50/50. That is more than either has ever made.
50/50 would leave Joshua earning LESS than he usually takes home.

Why should he get a pay cut for his toughest fight, while Wilder earns 8x his previous highest payday?
Then don't take the fight if you are not prepared for an equal and fair split between two undefeated champions.. . . .If I were Deontay I would hold out until the fight built into a mega fight in another year or two.. . . .If you want to see huge money then wait until the Raisers stadium is built in Las Vegas in 2020 and the Visitors Convention Authority can get behind it with the casinos and fill 70,000 seats.

Think of it this way.

You work a job where you're expected to do a fixed amount of work each week, and in return your boss gives you £1000.

One week, your boss tells you there's twice as much work to be done this week, but there's a guy over there that wants a pay rise, so for doing twice as much work as usual, I'll only be paying you £700.

What's your answer to that going to be? Do you take the low pay for more work, or do you look for work elsewhere?

As much as 50/50 for all fights would be nice, that's not how boxing works anymore.

Equal is fair, if both guys bring the same to the table. If one guy brings in £45m, and the other guy brings in £5m, why should they both take home £15m afterwards?

Posted: **19 Apr 2018, 12:04**

at this stage 50:50.

Posted: **19 Apr 2018, 13:23**

man wrote: ↑19 Apr 2018, 12:04 at this stage 50:50.

love this post immediately after the one above it

Posted: **19 Apr 2018, 14:48**

I would offer Wilder 15 million... His stock has obviously gone up since the Ortiz fight so let's see who Wilder fights next and what kind of action it gets... He could fight Parker, Ruiz, Takam, Povetkin, Fury, Miller, Rivas, Jennings etc -- But I would have gotten him out of Alabama years ago... He's not catching on with the public and I'm not sure why.

I think a Wilder vs Miller fight would do extremely well, but I'm not sure... Maybe it's just crap promotion... Marciano was undefeated and didn't draw nearly as well as Dempsey or Louis... Promoters can suck shitt as well as fighters, or it could have been the lack of opponents... Wilder doesn't have that problem. There are plenty of good opponents.

Posted: **19 Apr 2018, 15:05**

actjac wrote: ↑18 Apr 2018, 22:59
Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑18 Apr 2018, 15:47
actjac wrote: ↑18 Apr 2018, 15:43 This is ridiculous. . . .Ali vs Frazier was 50/50. . . .Ali vs Foreman was 50/50. . . .Cooney vs Holmes was 50/50. . . . Wilder is an undefeated heavyweight champion. . . . . Joshua could not make the kind of money that he will pull down against any other boxer as well. Just fight the fight and take home more money at 50/50. That is more than either has ever made.
50/50 would leave Joshua earning LESS than he usually takes home.

Why should he get a pay cut for his toughest fight, while Wilder earns 8x his previous highest payday?
Then don't take the fight if you are not prepared for an equal and fair split between two undefeated champions.. . . .If I were Deontay I would hold out until the fight built into a mega fight in another year or two.. . . .If you want to see huge money then wait until the Raisers stadium is built in Las Vegas in 2020 and the Visitors Convention Authority can get behind it with the casinos and fill 70,000 seats.

To semi-quote "Booger" from Revenge Of The Nerds, "What the f**k is a Raiser?"

Posted: **19 Apr 2018, 15:25**

Why don't we just make this fight a bit more interesting and competitive!?

50% to both fighters if the fight ends in a draw. Then they BOTH have to sit thru an entire Kathy Griffin comedy show.

55% to the WINNER of a split decision victory. 45% to the LOSER and has to bow down to the victor.

60% to the WINNER of a unanimous decision victory. 40% to the LOSER, who must then crawl back to his dressing room.

65% to the WINNER of a mid to late round TKO or KO victory. The LOSER gets 35% and has to admit to the crowd while inside the ring after the fight that the winner is far "the far superior fighter, and is the King of the Heavyweights!"

70% to the WINNER of a 2nd to 5th round TKO or KO victory. The LOSER gets 30%, but will be paid in nickels.

80% to the WINNER of a 1st round TKO or KO victory. And the LOSER gets 20% and a spanking in the ring from Lisa Lampanelli.

With all that written into the contract, it would almost guarantee one great heavyweight championship fight!

Posted: **19 Apr 2018, 15:29**

HeavyHitters wrote: ↑19 Apr 2018, 15:25 Why don't we just make this fight a bit more interesting and competitive!?

50% to both fighters if the fight ends in a draw. Then they BOTH have to sit thru an entire Kathy Griffin comedy show.

55% to the WINNER of a split decision victory. 45% to the LOSER and has to bow down to the victor.

60% to the WINNER of a unanimous decision victory. 40% to the LOSER, who must then crawl back to his dressing room.

65% to the WINNER of a mid to late round TKO or KO victory. The LOSER gets 35% and has to admit to the crowd while inside the ring after the fight that the winner is far "the far superior fighter, and is the King of the Heavyweights!"

70% to the WINNER of a 2nd to 5th round TKO or KO victory. The LOSER gets 30%, but will be paid in nickels.

80% to the WINNER of a 1st round TKO or KO victory. And the LOSER gets 20% and a spanking in the ring from Lisa Lampanelli.

With all that written into the contract, it would almost guarantee one great heavyweight championship fight!

that is pretty ... stupid.

you're welcome.

Posted: **19 Apr 2018, 15:33**

actjac wrote: ↑18 Apr 2018, 15:43 This is ridiculous. . . .Ali vs Frazier was 50/50. . . .Ali vs Foreman was 50/50. . . .Cooney vs Holmes was 50/50. . .

Both fighters were equal draws in those fights... Foreman was the undefeated Heavyweight Champion... Ali was the twice defeated challenger... (Deontay is already as old as Ali was for the Foreman fight) ... Joshua will be doing 90% of the draw for Joshua-Wilder... Wilder will be making 10 X what he ever made... Joshua might double what he ever made... You can't give Wilder a split... Offer him a flat fee... 70% of Brits will be watching... 5% of Americans will watch.

Posted: **19 Apr 2018, 15:34**

Just for THAT comment, "man" gets to sit thru an entire Kathy Griffin comedy show AND gets a spanking from Lisa Lampanelli!

Posted: **19 Apr 2018, 15:39**

That's damned stupid too... That's what trolling is correct?

Posted: **19 Apr 2018, 16:41**

Kalan wrote: ↑19 Apr 2018, 15:33
actjac wrote: ↑18 Apr 2018, 15:43 This is ridiculous. . . .Ali vs Frazier was 50/50. . . .Ali vs Foreman was 50/50. . . .Cooney vs Holmes was 50/50. . .
Both fighters were equal draws in those fights... Foreman was the undefeated Heavyweight Champion... Ali was the twice defeated challenger... (Deontay is already as old as Ali was for the Foreman fight) ... Joshua will be doing 90% of the draw for Joshua-Wilder... Wilder will be making 10 X what he ever made... Joshua might double what he ever made... You can't give Wilder a split... Offer him a flat fee... 70% of Brits will be watching... 5% of Americans will watch.

The largest British boxing ppv in history was
1.2 million buys.
Conservative figures would put a minimum
1 million USA Ppv buys for this fight.
And American ppv cost a hell of a lot more than they do in Britain.
This fight is not as easy to base percentage off of as most fights. Regardless of what the majority thinks.

Posted: **20 Apr 2018, 00:39**

Riddick Blowe wrote: ↑19 Apr 2018, 13:23
man wrote: ↑19 Apr 2018, 12:04 at this stage 50:50.
love this post immediately after the one above it

Come on Man you're smarter than that, I know you are. F-me I hope you are.

This fight is the riskiest fight that both Wilder and Joshua will have ever taken. It's what, a
60m dollar fight? Even if you said Joshua gets 60% of that figure and that's assuming that is a nett figure i.e. after all costs and expenses have been deducted (I'm not sure if that's what is meant by an X million dollar fight nett or gross or somewhere in between) that 60% is $36m or just over 25 million Sterling.

Of course Deontay wants the fight. At 40% that's 24m bucks, at least 6 times more than he ever got before, probably 10 times or more because the money for not fighting Povetkin remains in escrow I believe.

Joshua reportedly gets 20 million (34 million US) whoever is in the other corner. Why TF should Joshua risk all the belts for a 6% increase on what he'd get for facing Joe Schmoe? He can make bags of money defending his 3 or 4 belts against Povetkin, Miller, Whyte, Ortiz, Pulev, Ruiz, Kownacki, Kabayel, Parker, Fury and/or Fury, and that's before Hrgovic, Yoka, Joyce and the next crop start vying for a shot.

Joshua is a fighting man; he wants Wilder. If it was me I'd be telling team Wilder "10 million. Either take it or go back to knocking out stiffs in Alabama for 0.5 to 2m dollars a go." Actually if it really was me I'd be telling Wilder to FRO and then I'd go hide under the stairs.

Posted: **20 Apr 2018, 03:45**

candyslim wrote: ↑20 Apr 2018, 00:39
Riddick Blowe wrote: ↑19 Apr 2018, 13:23
man wrote: ↑19 Apr 2018, 12:04 at this stage 50:50.
love this post immediately after the one above it
Come on Man you're smarter than that, I know you are. F-me I hope you are.

This fight is the riskiest fight that both Wilder and Joshua will have ever taken. It's what, a
60m dollar fight? Even if you said Joshua gets 60% of that figure and that's assuming that is a nett figure i.e. after all costs and expenses have been deducted (I'm not sure if that's what is meant by an X million dollar fight nett or gross or somewhere in between) that 60% is $36m or just over 25 million Sterling.

Of course Deontay wants the fight. At 40% that's 24m bucks, at least 6 times more than he ever got before, probably 10 times or more because the money for not fighting Povetkin remains in escrow I believe.

Joshua reportedly gets 20 million (34 million US) whoever is in the other corner. Why TF should Joshua risk all the belts for a 6% increase on what he'd get for facing Joe Schmoe? He can make bags of money defending his 3 or 4 belts against Povetkin, Miller, Whyte, Ortiz, Pulev, Ruiz, Kownacki, Kabayel, Parker, Fury and/or Fury, and that's before Hrgovic, Yoka, Joyce and the next crop start vying for a shot.

Joshua is a fighting man; he wants Wilder. If it was me I'd be telling team Wilder "10 million. Either take it or go back to knocking out stiffs in Alabama for 0.5 to 2m dollars a go." Actually if it really was me I'd be telling Wilder to FRO and then I'd go hide under the stairs.

I agree, there is absolutely zero justification for 50:50 and not even team Wilder are saying there is.

As a fan I want to watch this fight as much as the next guy but let's be real, hearn should stick to his guns and if team wilder don't want it just walk away.

Posted: **20 Apr 2018, 06:11**

tiny_acres wrote: ↑19 Apr 2018, 16:41
Kalan wrote: ↑19 Apr 2018, 15:33
actjac wrote: ↑18 Apr 2018, 15:43 This is ridiculous. . . .Ali vs Frazier was 50/50. . . .Ali vs Foreman was 50/50. . . .Cooney vs Holmes was 50/50. . .
Both fighters were equal draws in those fights... Foreman was the undefeated Heavyweight Champion... Ali was the twice defeated challenger... (Deontay is already as old as Ali was for the Foreman fight) ... Joshua will be doing 90% of the draw for Joshua-Wilder... Wilder will be making 10 X what he ever made... Joshua might double what he ever made... You can't give Wilder a split... Offer him a flat fee... 70% of Brits will be watching... 5% of Americans will watch.
The largest British boxing ppv in history was
1.2 million buys.
Conservative figures would put a minimum
1 million USA Ppv buys for this fight.
And American ppv cost a hell of a lot more than they do in Britain.
This fight is not as easy to base percentage off of as most fights. Regardless of what the majority thinks.

you have no clue if you think 1m us ppvs is conservative for this, wilders biggest number on showtime is barely 1m, let alone getting that many on ppv, neither guy has even been on ppv in the us, and thats because they arent superstars there

mate you really are way off with this stuff, before you were claiming theyd have like 140m dollars to split, which would be 100m more then any total split for an aj fight, and like 137m more then any wilder fight

way inflated numbers

Posted: **20 Apr 2018, 06:46**

Some of the claims being proposed in this thread are incredibly preposterous!

Those that support Deontay Wilder are clearly ignoring the actual figures being quoted by reliable sources, which are easily-accessible, and then proposing their own stats out of thin air, simply because their personal agenda or bias is compelling them to blatantly misrepresent or twist the facts to suit their preferred narrative.

Posted: **20 Apr 2018, 09:12**

ya agreed, plus some ppl seem to forget that not all the money goes to the fighters

hearn just said:

"I saw reports that it's a $100 million dollar fight - no it's not. It can get there, if both guys are really built in America. I think the fight is really worth, conservatively... I know my numbers and it does around $40 million dollars or $50 million dollars in profit from the show. If we talk about generated, it's totally something different. You have pay-per-view companies who take splits of the pay-per-view, you have to pay for arenas, undercards, hotels, flights, doping, everything. Let's call it $40 million to be safe

and

"I feel that we're getting penalized because somebody has done a sh*t job with Deontay Wilder. You have a guy who is making $2 to 2.5 million a fight (jamamb: actually more like 900 to 2m) and people are like 'he deserves $25 million.' Why? On what basis? He has no profile. He can't sell 10,000 tickets when he fights in a great fight in America. And we have a guy who is making all of this money, and can continue doing so, in risk free fights. Now you're asking our guy to be in the biggest fight of his career for a little more.

btw hes right, someone here did claim wilder deserved 25m, at minimum too

BoxRec

Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?