BoxRec

Deep interest? LMAO, it's just common sense and Business 101. You do accept it, as you're still watching. Complaining on the internet is just a side bar of your acceptance. When I don't like a product, I don't watch it.

uptconnect wrote:

An absurd analogy, unrelated to boxing. I suspect you had to do that to hide the fact sport is about competition.

You act as if the sport of boxing is only about competition, and not about business.
This isn't the olympics. These are guys who are damaging themselves to earn a living, while competing.
If fighter A is somewhat of a recognizable beast and guarantees a large purse, and fighter B is of the same caliber but has no recognition and brings a small purse, you don't think it's reasonable from a business standpoint to choose fighter A as the opponent? That's obvious risk vs reward assessment, my friend.
Fighter B claims to have been ducked, but oh well.
A fighter can apply risk vs reward to his choices and still wind up taking on all of those he's supposed to fight.

Intelligent risk Vs reward management doesn't involve fighters like Salka.
Salka was a simple soft touch to stay busy. There was no risk or reward for Garcia in that fight.

I say again, any fighter/manager that doesn't at least consider risk v reward, is an idiot or a stooge, or both.

How is it good for business if the best don't fight the best?
How is it good for business if the market is over saturated with PPV's of substandard quality?

You have a problem separating what's good for business and what's in the fighter's best interest. If a fighter has fought several tough opponents and needs a few powder puffs. Whose going to complain? But if a fighter has been fed a steady diet of tomato cans, how can you expect the fans to pay £40 - £60 for the privilege.

No fighter has to fight the best. But if you choose that path don't fight for a title.

How is it good for business if the best don't fight the best?

Often times, best, is arguable when it comes to the choice between opponents.
And intelligent risk vs reward matchmaking does not necessarily mean that the best don't fight the best.
All promoters, good managers and intelligent fighters consider risk vs reward in this game.
If there are 2 equally dangerous opponents with 2 almost equal sized backings of supporters, but one has better name recognition and brings a larger purse, who do you choose to fight?
Either way, you're ducking the other guy, right?

My point is just that "Risk Vs Reward" is a not a dirty phrase.
Can it be used an an excuse to duck a fighter? Sure it can.
But that doesn't make it any less wise, if you are trying to maximize your earnings in a short lived and brutal profession.

Keith Thurman should sign with Top Rank

Often times, best, is arguable when it comes to the choice between opponents.
And intelligent risk vs reward matchmaking does not necessarily mean that the best don't fight the best.
All promoters, good managers and intelligent fighters consider risk vs reward in this game.
If there are 2 equally dangerous opponents with 2 almost equal sized backings of supporters, but one has better name recognition and brings a larger purse, who do you choose to fight?
Either way, you're ducking the other guy, right?

My point is just that "Risk Vs Reward" is a not a dirty phrase.
Can it be used an an excuse to duck a fighter? Sure it can.
But that doesn't make it any less wise, if you are trying to maximize your earnings in a short lived and brutal profession.

Why the need to create doubt in what is being said? Is your own argument so unfounded it requires you parse every sentence I write?

For instance how is the best fighters in dispute. Is Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao not the 2 best fighters at welterweight? Isn't Andre Ward and Wladimir Klitschko the best super middleweight and heavyweight respectively?
[Bit in Bold] is the most asinine statement yet. When someone uses the word "necessarily" in the context you have, it means they're being intellectually dishonest. The facts have already been established in previous posts, but you feel the need to include some random exception to justify your ludicrous assertions.
If you can do a risk v reward assessment on every fighter you will take the easiest fight available. It's human nature.
The analogy of 2 dangerous fighters is another red herring. It suggests a fighter is ducking another fighter if he agrees to fight someone else. Although it isn't ducking if the fight is made at some timely interval, later.

You talk about maximizing your earnings, but fighting the best or having a fight where you're tested to your limits gets you name recognition. Name recognition leads to more lucrative fights and more investment from promoters and networks, in the form of guaranteed purses and PPV share. By identifying name recognition in your post you're aware it requires the fighter to have fought someone dangerous in order to get it. Which leads us back to the best fighting the best or the most dangerous fighters out there.

G.McClellan wrote:

Often times, best, is arguable when it comes to the choice between opponents.
And intelligent risk vs reward matchmaking does not necessarily mean that the best don't fight the best.
All promoters, good managers and intelligent fighters consider risk vs reward in this game.
If there are 2 equally dangerous opponents with 2 almost equal sized backings of supporters, but one has better name recognition and brings a larger purse, who do you choose to fight?
Either way, you're ducking the other guy, right?

My point is just that "Risk Vs Reward" is a not a dirty phrase.
Can it be used an an excuse to duck a fighter? Sure it can.
But that doesn't make it any less wise, if you are trying to maximize your earnings in a short lived and brutal profession.

Why the need to create doubt in what is being said? Is your own argument so unfounded it requires you parse every sentence I write?

For instance how is the best fighters in dispute. Is Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao not the 2 best fighters at welterweight? Isn't Andre Ward and Wladimir Klitschko the best super middleweight and heavyweight respectively?
[Bit in Bold] is the most asinine statement yet. When someone uses the word "necessarily" in the context you have, it means they're being intellectually dishonest. The facts have already been established in previous posts, but you feel the need to include some random exception to justify your ludicrous assertions.
If you can do a risk v reward assessment on every fighter you will take the easiest fight available. It's human nature.
The analogy of 2 dangerous fighters is another red herring. It suggests a fighter is ducking another fighter if he agrees to fight someone else. Although it isn't ducking if the fight is made at some timely interval, later.

You talk about maximizing your earnings, but fighting the best or having a fight where you're tested to your limits gets you name recognition. Name recognition leads to more lucrative fights and more investment from promoters and networks, in the form of guaranteed purses and PPV share. By identifying name recognition in your post you're aware it requires the fighter to have fought someone dangerous in order to get it. Which leads us back to the best fighting the best or the most dangerous fighters out there.

The problem you've got is that the concept of the 'best' is not universal. It's subject to opinion, and the majority of the cash paying masses believe that the best is the person the media have portrayed to be the best through marketing or whatever publicity they've had.
Speaking from the UK, the general boxing public would think Khan currently holds a World title and Brook doesn't; whilst it doesn't mean it's true it does mean that Khan probably carries more clout, generates more cash and is perceived as being 'the best'.
The ABC organisations don't help with this.

You can't equate boxing with other sports like this, there aren't one off football matches that generate different incomes.
For example - in England Manchester United finished 7th place in the Premier League last year, but in a one off game most teams would want to play them as they generate the most income. That doesn't mean they're the best, or most deserving, but it's not about that. Add into the mix that it's an individual getting paid and also risking their own health and wellbeing and you simply cannot dismiss the concept of risk vs reward.

The ideology of fighting 'the best' - ie the one presenting you with the most chance of losing - only holds weight if your payment increases in conjunction with the risk. As long as other fighters are more popular/generate more income whilst presenting a lower risk it's an absolute no-brainer to fight them.

Kell Brook could earn more fighting Ricky Hatton right now in the UK than Keith Thurman for example. If he picked Thurman to defend against it would be a stinker in the UK and Kell would get no kudos from the general public for fighting him whatsoever.

G.McClellan wrote:

Often times, best, is arguable when it comes to the choice between opponents.
And intelligent risk vs reward matchmaking does not necessarily mean that the best don't fight the best.
All promoters, good managers and intelligent fighters consider risk vs reward in this game.
If there are 2 equally dangerous opponents with 2 almost equal sized backings of supporters, but one has better name recognition and brings a larger purse, who do you choose to fight?
Either way, you're ducking the other guy, right?

My point is just that "Risk Vs Reward" is a not a dirty phrase.
Can it be used an an excuse to duck a fighter? Sure it can.
But that doesn't make it any less wise, if you are trying to maximize your earnings in a short lived and brutal profession.

Why the need to create doubt in what is being said? Is your own argument so unfounded it requires you parse every sentence I write?

For instance how is the best fighters in dispute. Is Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao not the 2 best fighters at welterweight? Isn't Andre Ward and Wladimir Klitschko the best super middleweight and heavyweight respectively?
[Bit in Bold] is the most asinine statement yet. When someone uses the word "necessarily" in the context you have, it means they're being intellectually dishonest. The facts have already been established in previous posts, but you feel the need to include some random exception to justify your ludicrous assertions.
If you can do a risk v reward assessment on every fighter you will take the easiest fight available. It's human nature.
The analogy of 2 dangerous fighters is another red herring. It suggests a fighter is ducking another fighter if he agrees to fight someone else. Although it isn't ducking if the fight is made at some timely interval, later.

You talk about maximizing your earnings, but fighting the best or having a fight where you're tested to your limits gets you name recognition. Name recognition leads to more lucrative fights and more investment from promoters and networks, in the form of guaranteed purses and PPV share. By identifying name recognition in your post you're aware it requires the fighter to have fought someone dangerous in order to get it. Which leads us back to the best fighting the best or the most dangerous fighters out there.

You're bang wrong.
I won't fight a guy in the office for a fiver who I could KO, it's just not worth it.
But I'd get in with a decent pro who has a 90% chance of KO-ing me for £10k.
That is also human nature - if you reckon people only take the easy fight on the table and it's not about money you're crazy...... It's ALL about money!

sharpei_louis wrote: The problem you've got is that the concept of the 'best' is not universal. It's subject to opinion, and the majority of the cash paying masses believe that the best is the person the media have portrayed to be the best through marketing or whatever publicity they've had.
Speaking from the UK, the general boxing public would think Khan currently holds a World title and Brook doesn't; whilst it doesn't mean it's true it does mean that Khan probably carries more clout, generates more cash and is perceived as being 'the best'.
The ABC organisations don't help with this.

You can't equate boxing with other sports like this, there aren't one off football matches that generate different incomes.
For example - in England Manchester United finished 7th place in the Premier League last year, but in a one off game most teams would want to play them as they generate the most income. That doesn't mean they're the best, or most deserving, but it's not about that. Add into the mix that it's an individual getting paid and also risking their own health and wellbeing and you simply cannot dismiss the concept of risk vs reward.

The ideology of fighting 'the best' - ie the one presenting you with the most chance of losing - only holds weight if your payment increases in conjunction with the risk. As long as other fighters are more popular/generate more income whilst presenting a lower risk it's an absolute no-brainer to fight them.

Kell Brook could earn more fighting Ricky Hatton right now in the UK than Keith Thurman for example. If he picked Thurman to defend against it would be a stinker in the UK and Kell would get no kudos from the general public for fighting him whatsoever.

How do you know what the cash paying public believes?
Khan carries more clout? You mean name recognition. Those cash paying public who you believe to be brain washed by the media might have seen Khan get demolished in 87 seconds by an unknown Breidis Prescott and may have made up their own minds about him. The media can do damage limitation, but they can't erase the impression left by the manner of the defeat.

The best is subject to opinion. But those opinions are subject to criteria. My criteria and your criteria should match where it counts and if they don't one of us would be clearly wrong. It is to say the best can be agreed upon most, if not all of the time.

Most active boxers today will never fight for a world title. The closest many will get is to become a sparring partner for a champion (if they are good in some aspect) or for a contender (if they're not). Others will be used to pad the record of a prospect.
All of these fighters risk health and well being for measly sums. The risks are inherent in boxing the rewards not so much.

p.s. Ricky Hatton is retired.

sharpei_louis wrote: You're bang wrong.
I won't fight a guy in the office for a fiver who I could KO, it's just not worth it.
But I'd get in with a decent pro who has a 90% chance of KO-ing me for £10k.
That is also human nature - if you reckon people only take the easy fight on the table and it's not about money you're crazy...... It's ALL about money!

So you would pass up on the fiver but you would take the risk of permanent brain damage for 10k.

I think you need someone to do your risk assessments for you.

G.McClellan wrote:

sharpei_louis wrote: You're bang wrong.
I won't fight a guy in the office for a fiver who I could KO, it's just not worth it.
But I'd get in with a decent pro who has a 90% chance of KO-ing me for £10k.
That is also human nature - if you reckon people only take the easy fight on the table and it's not about money you're crazy...... It's ALL about money!

So you would pass up on the fiver but you would take the risk of permanent brain damage for 10k.

I think you need someone to do your risk assessments for you.

You risk permanent damage in any fight. I think you'd take that into account too. You gotta fight 2k guys for a fiver to get 10k. I think you jump @ the 10k offer.

G.McClellan wrote:

sharpei_louis wrote: The problem you've got is that the concept of the 'best' is not universal. It's subject to opinion, and the majority of the cash paying masses believe that the best is the person the media have portrayed to be the best through marketing or whatever publicity they've had.
Speaking from the UK, the general boxing public would think Khan currently holds a World title and Brook doesn't; whilst it doesn't mean it's true it does mean that Khan probably carries more clout, generates more cash and is perceived as being 'the best'.
The ABC organisations don't help with this.

You can't equate boxing with other sports like this, there aren't one off football matches that generate different incomes.
For example - in England Manchester United finished 7th place in the Premier League last year, but in a one off game most teams would want to play them as they generate the most income. That doesn't mean they're the best, or most deserving, but it's not about that. Add into the mix that it's an individual getting paid and also risking their own health and wellbeing and you simply cannot dismiss the concept of risk vs reward.

The ideology of fighting 'the best' - ie the one presenting you with the most chance of losing - only holds weight if your payment increases in conjunction with the risk. As long as other fighters are more popular/generate more income whilst presenting a lower risk it's an absolute no-brainer to fight them.

Kell Brook could earn more fighting Ricky Hatton right now in the UK than Keith Thurman for example. If he picked Thurman to defend against it would be a stinker in the UK and Kell would get no kudos from the general public for fighting him whatsoever.

How do you know what the cash paying public believes?
Khan carries more clout? You mean name recognition. Those cash paying public who you believe to be brain washed by the media might have seen Khan get demolished in 87 seconds by an unknown Breidis Prescott and may have made up their own minds about him. The media can do damage limitation, but they can't erase the impression left by the manner of the defeat.

The best is subject to opinion. But those opinions are subject to criteria. My criteria and your criteria should match where it counts and if they don't one of us would be clearly wrong. It is to say the best can be agreed upon most, if not all of the time.

Most active boxers today will never fight for a world title. The closest many will get is to become a sparring partner for a champion (if they are good in some aspect) or for a contender (if they're not). Others will be used to pad the record of a prospect.
All of these fighters risk health and well being for measly sums. The risks are inherent in boxing the rewards not so much.

p.s. Ricky Hatton is retired.

I know what the cash paying public believes cause I see who makes the most cash, and I speak to a lot of people who are casual fans. Even my wife thinks Amir Khan is a world champ and our best fighter.

And in case I need to spell the obvious out to you, the fact that Hatton is retired is the whole point.

Risk V reward makes perfect sense to me. E.g. Brook has just won the IBF in the states, so he comes back home to try and set up a legacy. Does he A. fight Thurman in his first defence with a decent chance of losing, without many "casual fans" knowing who Thurman even is (therefore little recognition win or lose) and without a big pay cheque. Or B. Fight someone like Rios, who is more beatable, slightly better known and set up massive fights with Khan and maybe even Mayweather in the future. Option A. could lose Brook millions (£) in potential fight purses. Option B. sees him richer and not having "avoided the best" as he would've fought Rios, Khan & whoever next instead of Thurman.

In an ideal world, Brook would fight and beat Thurman and go onto greatness regardless but since when did we live in an ideal world..?

sharpei_louis wrote: I know what the cash paying public believes cause I see who makes the most cash, and I speak to a lot of people who are casual fans. Even my wife thinks Amir Khan is a world champ and our best fighter.

And in case I need to spell the obvious out to you, the fact that Hatton is retired is the whole point.

You're becoming more pathetic with each post.