BoxRec

*

Based on their drawing power, 25% is more than adequate. However GGG is used to overpaying his opponents just to get them into the ring. I am pretty sure that he is being offered much more than 25% now, but 40% of $5 mil is "only" $2 mil, and he wants more.

30-40% is a fair range. I could see Jacobs holding out for more.

boxing_rocks wrote:Based on their drawing power, 25% is more than adequate. However GGG is used to overpaying his opponents just to get them into the ring. I am pretty sure that he is being offered much more than 25% now, but 40% of $5 mil is "only" $2 mil, and he wants more.

Please post the facts that lead you to draw this particular conclusion.

In terms of the question being posed by the thread title, 40% is a fair figure based on the percentages earned by previous high-profile GGG opponents.

The WBA rule is the "world" champion receives 25% and the super champion receives 75%.

So it was when Povetkin fought Klitschko.

I don't think they should change the rule just to cater to a privileged American boxer.

Anything over 30% is being very generous to him.

30% seems fair to me.

...I don't know what is fair and what is not, I believe they should stick to the rules..

Look at the typical purse splits received by other high profile GGG opponents and the average should apply to Jacobs.

Picking arbitrary random numbers is an unacceptable method of determining "fairness".

To answer the question posed by this thread... the minimum that Jacobs should accept is 40%.

All of these posts saying Jacobs deserves 25 or 30% are completely idiotic. For one thing, Golovkin isn't as much of a draw as you're claiming him to be. Second, Golovkin has always had mediocre drawing power and negotiating power his entire career, and the only tactical way of overcoming that is to fight the best opponents possible, and give them generous purse splits to make the fights happen; otherwise you're going to have to settle for lesser opposition and your drawing power will continue stagnating. Third, the same Golovkin nut-huggers who think he should pay his opponents peanuts also are supremely confident that Golovkin will 100% win the fight and hurt his opponent in the process without getting hurt in return at all; which is precisely why Golovkin doesn't need as much compensation as his opponent -- Golovkin isn't the one who is going to get hurt, he's not the one who's going to take the loss, he doesn't need all sorts of extra compensation to sweeten the deal. The fact that Golovkin is going to pick-up another win and collect one of his best scalps thus far and have more drawing power in the future implies that this win will propel Golovkin to be able to earn an extra $250k per fight for the rest of his career, and any non-idiot should be capable of factoring that into the myriad of rewards that he'd be getting from this fight.

If Jacobs catches a loss from this fight, it's going to cut his drawing power in less than half; plus if he gets hurt, he's going to have to take nearly a year off of the sport and fight bums / journeymen during his comeback trail until he fully recovers and regains his confidence, all of which adds-up to more money than the entire purse he's being offered.
Path 1: Fight Golovkin for $2 million, get hurt, fight a bum 10 months later for $70,000, fight a journeyman 4 months later for $100,000, fight a gatekeeper 5 months after that for $200,000. Total revenue: $2.37 million in 19 months. Drawing power damaged, confidence damaged, had to take a lot of time away from the gym, skills declined, physical fitness declined.
Path 2: Fight some middling contenders like Dominic Wade and Willie Monroe every 5 months for $700,000 each. Total revenue: $3.5 million in 20 months. Drawing power higher than ever, confidence higher than ever, skills better than ever, physical fitness better than ever.

Lackeos wrote:All of these posts saying Jacobs deserves 25 or 30% are completely idiotic. For one thing, Golovkin isn't as much of a draw as you're claiming him to be. Second, Golovkin has always had mediocre drawing power and negotiating power his entire career, and the only tactical way of overcoming that is to fight the best opponents possible, and give them generous purse splits to make the fights happen; otherwise you're going to have to settle for lesser opposition and your drawing power will continue stagnating. Third, the same Golovkin nut-huggers who think he should pay his opponents peanuts also are supremely confident that Golovkin will 100% win the fight and hurt his opponent in the process without getting hurt in return at all; which is precisely why Golovkin doesn't need as much compensation as his opponent -- Golovkin isn't the one who is going to get hurt, he's not the one who's going to take the loss, he doesn't need all sorts of extra compensation to sweeten the deal. The fact that Golovkin is going to pick-up another win and collect one of his best scalps thus far and have more drawing power in the future implies that this win will propel Golovkin to be able to earn an extra $250k per fight for the rest of his career, and any non-idiot should be capable of factoring that into the myriad of rewards that he'd be getting from this fight.

If Jacobs catches a loss from this fight, it's going to cut his drawing power in less than half; plus if he gets hurt, he's going to have to take nearly a year off of the sport and fight bums / journeymen during his comeback trail until he fully recovers and regains his confidence, all of which adds-up to more money than the entire purse he's being offered.
Path 1: Fight Golovkin for $2 million, get hurt, fight a bum 10 months later for $70,000, fight a journeyman 4 months later for $100,000, fight a gatekeeper 5 months after that for $200,000. Total revenue: $2.37 million in 19 months. Drawing power damaged, confidence damaged, had to take a lot of time away from the gym, skills declined, physical fitness declined.
Path 2: Fight some middling contenders like Dominic Wade and Willie Monroe every 5 months for $700,000 each. Total revenue: $3.5 million in 20 months. Drawing power higher than ever, confidence higher than ever, skills better than ever, physical fitness better than ever.

That is of course exaggeration, as Jacobs doesn't fight for 100k or even 200k. Total revenue will likely be comparable in both paths. However, the unfortunate part is that this is the logic PBC and many other fighters use when selecting opponents.

I think 35% would be adequate.

I hate to keep repeating myself, but I may as well do, since my previous post directly relates to the subject matter of this thread…

Enlightened-One wrote:I’ve reviewed the ballpark paydays for six of Golovkin’s last nine bouts and it seems that his opponents’ were paid an average of 43% of the total combined fight purse.
• Golovkin = $4m; Brook = $4m (plus PPV buys) (50.0%)
• Golovkin = $2m; Lemieux = $1.5m (42.9%)
• Golovkin = $900K; Rubio = $450K (33.3%)
• Golovkin = $750K; Geale = $600k (44.4%)
• Golovkin = $400K; Stevens = $290K (42.0%)
• Golovkin = $350K; Macklin = $300K (46.2%)

I excluded from consideration fight purses for the following opponents:
• Martin Murray = The fight purses weren’t announced
• Dominic Wade & Willie Monroe Jr. = These were anonymous fighters that were nowhere near Danny Jacobs’ ilk in terms of fame, calibre and accomplishments

So it seems that there are Golovkin-biased people that have submitted posts in this thread bodly-proclaiming that by demanding more than 25% of the purse split, Danny Jacobs is being unreasonable, running scared and is also pricing himself out of the fight, despite the following facts being irrefutably true:
• The Miracle Man is rated by ESPN, Ring & BoxRec as the second best 160lb-er on the planet, ranked immediately below GGG
• Gennady Golovkin has never faced a middleweight opponent with an ESPN, Ring & BoxRec rating as high as Danny Jacobs
• The Miracle Man received $1.5m for his first round stoppage victory over Peter Quillin and none of GGG’s previous opponents have ever received a payday anywhere near that size
• The average high profile Gennady Golovkin opponent is paid an average of 43% of the total combined fight purse
• Danny Jacobs’ attorney has petitioned the WBA for a 40% share of the total fight purse, which is slightly less than the average paid to high-profile GGG opponents

40% would be the minimum figure.

He really doesn't deserve more than 30 or so based on what he brings to the table (no title to make it a unification as with Lemieux, 386k viewers for his biggest fight, etc.) although GGG's side may have to split things more evenly to lure him to the ring, as they've done with weary opponents in the past.

What a fighter would need to take a fight doesn't = what he deserves

crusader wrote:He really doesn't deserve more than 30...

You're proposing that Danny Jacobs receives a smaller purse split than all of GGG's previous high-profile world-ranked title challengers, which makes no sense whatsoever. It is not possible for you to eloquently articulate a logical and factually-correct argument that defends your stance on this matter, since your reasoning is solely driven by emotion.

Lackeos wrote:All of these posts saying Jacobs deserves 25 or 30% are completely idiotic. For one thing, Golovkin isn't as much of a draw as you're claiming him to be. Second, Golovkin has always had mediocre drawing power and negotiating power his entire career, and the only tactical way of overcoming that is to fight the best opponents possible, and give them generous purse splits to make the fights happen; otherwise you're going to have to settle for lesser opposition and your drawing power will continue stagnating. Third, the same Golovkin nut-huggers who think he should pay his opponents peanuts also are supremely confident that Golovkin will 100% win the fight and hurt his opponent in the process without getting hurt in return at all; which is precisely why Golovkin doesn't need as much compensation as his opponent -- Golovkin isn't the one who is going to get hurt, he's not the one who's going to take the loss, he doesn't need all sorts of extra compensation to sweeten the deal. The fact that Golovkin is going to pick-up another win and collect one of his best scalps thus far and have more drawing power in the future implies that this win will propel Golovkin to be able to earn an extra $250k per fight for the rest of his career, and any non-idiot should be capable of factoring that into the myriad of rewards that he'd be getting from this fight.

If Jacobs catches a loss from this fight, it's going to cut his drawing power in less than half; plus if he gets hurt, he's going to have to take nearly a year off of the sport and fight bums / journeymen during his comeback trail until he fully recovers and regains his confidence, all of which adds-up to more money than the entire purse he's being offered.
Path 1: Fight Golovkin for $2 million, get hurt, fight a bum 10 months later for $70,000, fight a journeyman 4 months later for $100,000, fight a gatekeeper 5 months after that for $200,000. Total revenue: $2.37 million in 19 months. Drawing power damaged, confidence damaged, had to take a lot of time away from the gym, skills declined, physical fitness declined.
Path 2: Fight some middling contenders like Dominic Wade and Willie Monroe every 5 months for $700,000 each. Total revenue: $3.5 million in 20 months. Drawing power higher than ever, confidence higher than ever, skills better than ever, physical fitness better than ever.

Jacobs did 386k viewers in his biggest fight, whereas GGG has drawn over 1m several times, did 500k UK PPV buys for Brook, and attracted crowds of around 20k. He's a much bigger draw than Jacobs, and it's not like Danny has a belt he can win as was the case with Lemieux. Hardcore fans are already high on GGG, and casuals won't give a fuckk about Danny Jacobs, so I think you're overvaluing how much $$$ GGG would get in future bouts if he beat him.

Of course, what it actually takes to get an opponent in the ring is one thing (see the splits in various GGG bouts), but what the fighters really deserve based on what they bring to the equation is another. I think around 30 percent is fair, but it's probably going to take more than that for this fight to happen, so if GGG really wants it he'll likely have to be flexible.

By the way ferg, you're on ignore. The arguments you used in past threads are all over the place, and if we put the logic together the total purses would be around $10m for this fight; we'd have to pay Jacobs significantly more than the $1.5m he got against Quillin (because GGG is more dangerous than PQ), pay GGG significantly more than the $4-5m he got against Brook (because Jacobs is more dangerous than KB), and then bump up Jacobs's split to around 40 percent (because some other opponents got roughly this split to fight GGG).

crusader wrote:By the way ferg, you're on ignore.

... Are you talking to me? You think ferguson was one of my alts or something?

Lackeos wrote:

crusader wrote:By the way ferg, you're on ignore.

... Are you talking to me? You think ferguson was one of my alts or something?

No, he is talking to Rover/fergusg/Enlightened

Lackeos wrote:

crusader wrote:By the way ferg, you're on ignore.

... Are you talking to me? You think ferguson was one of my alts or something?

No...I was adressing EO/fergusg. You're a much better poster than him.

They should give him 40% I just want to see another American get beat up by GGG.

Urgh I don't care. Give him fornicating 50/50. I don't care that he did over Peter "I got a draw with Andy Lee" Quillin. He'll always be the geezer that got smashed in a round by Pirog to me. His chin is the finest china. Just beat him up and then move onto the next bum who wants overpaying. BJS can't draw flies, Eubank Jnr is busy screwing his career, Canelo has lost his bollocks, who else is he going to fight?

Give the jug eared goof his cash and go lay him out.

Enlightened-One wrote:

crusader wrote:He really doesn't deserve more than 30...

You're proposing that Danny Jacobs receives a smaller purse split than all of GGG's previous high-profile world-ranked title challengers, which makes no sense whatsoever. It is not possible for you to eloquently articulate a logical and factually-correct argument that defends your stance on this matter, since your reasoning is solely driven by emotion.

Don't worry.

You won the argument with the percentages earlier.
Only a buffoon would say Jacobs should take a split lower than Rubio.

Especially considering this won't be a blockbuster purse, unless Haymon wins.

And another one fails to grasp the difference between what a fighter deserves, and what is needed to get them in the ring. Danny '386k viewers in his biggest fight' Jacobs doesn't deserve more than around more than 30 percent based on what he brings to the table (weak drawing power and no belt for GGG), but if GGG wants the fight to happen he'll probably need to pay more to get DJ in the ring, as was the case with other weary opponents who got more than they deserved.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

crusader wrote:He really doesn't deserve more than 30...

You're proposing that Danny Jacobs receives a smaller purse split than all of GGG's previous high-profile world-ranked title challengers, which makes no sense whatsoever. It is not possible for you to eloquently articulate a logical and factually-correct argument that defends your stance on this matter, since your reasoning is solely driven by emotion.

Don't worry.

You won the argument with the percentages earlier.
Only a buffoon would say Jacobs should take a split lower than Rubio.

Especially considering this won't be a blockbuster purse, unless Haymon wins.

OK, Golovkin vs Rubio purse was $1.35 mil. Jacobs can have 100% of it

Danny is a very poor draw and doesn't have a belt GGG needs. Even Rubio had something GGG needed -- the WBC Interim belt which was giving him a shot at the real belt. Golovkin vs Jacobs purse just isn't worth more than $5 mil, so even at 40% it is "just" $2 mil for Jacobs.

And again, if we followed all of the logic offered by the supposed argument winner, the total purses would be a laughably unfeasible $10m or so for this fight; we'd have to pay Jacobs significantly more than the $1.5m he got against Quillin (because GGG is more dangerous than PQ), pay GGG significantly more than the $4-5m he got against Brook (because Jacobs is more dangerous than KB), and then bump up Jacobs's split to around 40 percent (because some other opponents got roughly this split to fight GGG).

Only a buffoon thinks that's a winning argument