BoxRec

I've been following the debates about the quality of opposition faced by Burns, Froch and Cleverley. As a traditional boxing fan I want, and expect, world champions to fight the best possible opponent every time. But ,coming back to the real world,it's all about making the most money for the promoter, manager and boxer.
Froch is a superstar - he fights the best almost all the time. Burns is sensible and fights opponents he has a good chance of beating and who are acceptable to the paying public. Nathan however fights absolute no-chancers , but good for him and his team - they get away with it .

But the bottom line is , it's not about status, unification, legacy, or pride - its ££££££££££££££'s.

What boxing fans on this forum , and I include myself, need to realise is that we can rant and rave all we want about who so and so is fighting , but nobody , NOBODY , is listening , because we simply don't count until we have to cough up the cash.

Only strong personalities like Hagler and the Klitschko's TELL those around them who they are fighting, the rest just leave that to their teams.
I can't recall ANY world champion coming out and saying ' I'm not defending my title against him- because he's not good enough and the fans are getting ripped off "

In the good old days champions did defend against the best , generally speaking, and in between times they fought catch weight contests over 10 rounds to keep the money coming in . Why can't Cleverley ,for example, do a 10 rounder in Cardiff Arena at 14 stones against the British cruiserweight champion?? Or Ricky Burns fight Willie Limond over 10 at say 142 pounds? Good earners those fights , and even defeats wouldn't mean too much, and the fans wouldn't be cheated again.

it's ok saying it's all about the money but that attitude will destroy boxing , fraudley went down the i just want money root and look whay happened to him , i think 20 years ago you could get away with fighting easy fights ,if you look at eubanks he fought some complete crap at times but now the public want more quality from shows .
if you keep giving the public shit fights they will stop watching .

stevedoc wrote:it's ok saying it's all about the money but that attitude will destroy boxing , fraudley went down the i just want money root and look whay happened to him , i think 20 years ago you could get away with fighting easy fights ,if you look at eubanks he fought some complete crap at times but now the public want more quality from shows .
if you keep giving the public poo fights they will stop watching .

Im pretty sure i read FW say something similar *ironically i know* not that long ago.

stevedoc wrote:it's ok saying it's all about the money but that attitude will destroy boxing , fraudley went down the i just want money root and look whay happened to him , i think 20 years ago you could get away with fighting easy fights ,if you look at eubanks he fought some complete crap at times but now the public want more quality from shows .
if you keep giving the public poo fights they will stop watching .

Only way to stop it happening is to stop buying tickets to these events if you have an issue with it. They will soon learn they need big fights to attract the public. If Clev can fight a nobody and sell 8,000 tickets he will do it all his career

Josh1111 wrote:

stevedoc wrote:it's ok saying it's all about the money but that attitude will destroy boxing , fraudley went down the i just want money root and look whay happened to him , i think 20 years ago you could get away with fighting easy fights ,if you look at eubanks he fought some complete crap at times but now the public want more quality from shows .
if you keep giving the public poo fights they will stop watching .

Only way to stop it happening is to stop buying tickets to these events if you have an issue with it. They will soon learn they need big fights to attract the public. If Clev can fight a nobody and sell 8,000 tickets he will do it all his career

Kovalev might be a nobody in terms of his name and profile *over here anyway* but that's certainly not an easy fight. That isnt aimed at you by the way. Just generally regarding this theme

Josh1111 wrote: Only way to stop it happening is to stop buying tickets to these events if you have an issue with it. They will soon learn they need big fights to attract the public.

You would think so, but low attendances are then used as an excuse by promoters for not putting on more regular shows, better bills or using better quality (and more expensive) boxers.

It is a chicken and egg situation - if you don't put on decent competitive bills then you won't attract paying customers, but promoters will not put on decent competitive bills because they don't think the potential customers will buy tickets !

In order to attract customers, the promoters need to deliver a value for money product. At the moment it is clear that this is not happening.

Also, I am interested in competitive fights, not just "big" fights.

Look at the records of boxers in every weight division - in each division there are a handful of boxers with massively losing records.

If you then delve deepr into the records of those boxers who have better records, you will see that they have built up these records by beating those boxers who always lose!

It is just a merry-go-round and the public are literally "not buying it" any more.

dalcumly wrote:But the bottom line is , it's not about status, unification, legacy, or pride - its ££££££££££££££'s.

that's a figure of speech which you just took full circle.

desperados wrote:

dalcumly wrote:But the bottom line is , it's not about status, unification, legacy, or pride - its ££££££££££££££'s.

that's a figure of speech which you just took full circle.

If the board actually were in control and the promoters feared the courts and not to much prevelance was put on retaining your 0 the fight game would be loads better.Big Risk should reap big reward we are fast becoming an academy of fighters for world champs to defend against with shit terms over seas and thats the big payday for our fighters.
No where near enough media on domestic fighters to build a profile .
Take Macklin for instance jumped ship to pretend his an Irish New yorker
being fed to World champs making good dough but he has great tear ups ei Murray and Barker here that well promoted and covered in the media ciuld have made them all big money instead all 3 have no titles and un finished business.If they do eventually fight they will be shop worn from tough fights.

It's all about money and it allways has been, so welcome to the party if you have only just realised this fact. It's a case of like it or lump it, because despite people like Goldon Boy saying they only want to put on the best fights, the truth is that a fight between two competative boxers at at the height of the game will only be sanctioned if enough money is on the table to cushion a loss. FW may talk about badly matched fights etc as being bad for boxing, but he has also recently criticised Matchroom for being too gung ho in matching their fighters in world title fights they couldn't win, hence not being worth it. The example he gave was Barker vs Martinez. FW was saying it's better to pay out more money, get home advantage against a guy who is beatable, get the title, string out the defences and then make a big fight if the money is there. FW said that matchroom had taken the headlines of getting a fight with Martinez away from home, perhaps made a few quid, but in the long term didn't gain very much out of it. So, who is right ? Eddie who goes for the jugular and puts Barker in a fight he was almost certain to lose or FW who would fight a less named champion, gain a belt, have a few easy defences and then look maximise the finances later down the road.

If you don't like the fight (because the opponent isn't good enough) then don't watch it !

stevedoc wrote:it's ok saying it's all about the money but that attitude will destroy boxing , fraudley went down the i just want money root and look whay happened to him , i think 20 years ago you could get away with fighting easy fights ,if you look at eubanks he fought some complete crap at times but now the public want more quality from shows .
if you keep giving the public poo fights they will stop watching .

NOPE! Dead wrong shipmate, you are miles off.

People dont want to see "fights" they want to see "stars" Once you understand this, the world suddenly makes a lot more sense.

Its not what goes on in the ring that draws people to boxing.

A fair amount of Joe Louis opposition were just there to put money in the coffers, Jim Braddock fought Joe Louis instead of Max Schmeling because there was more money on the table, sure he lost but he made more money losing to Louis than he would losing to Schmeling and the "Fabulous Four" never stepped into the ring with Mike McCallum. It's something that is a large part of boxing history, even Sugar Ray Robinson with over 200 bouts didn't fight every dangerous opponent. Managers and promoters have an investment to protect, they aren't likely to gamble it away putting their boxer in with a "high risk, low reward" type of opponent.