BoxRec

I was having this debate with a friend the other day. Now, assume Spence goes on and wins another belt from Ugas, it's on PPV, does over 200K. Crawford goes on and faces Lopez next, which he is rumored to do. Who would you give the majority of the purse to? I'm not saying anything crazy either like 70/30, 80/20, etc. I'm talking about 55/45 or 60/40 on either side, or having it 50/50?

I myself think Spence deserves the bigger share of the purse by a little. He'd have 3 belts and would have been proven to be a PPV player, bringing in more money in part to the PPV past sales. Crawford has failed miserably in two PPV's. He also has more options to bring in better gate, more belts (3 of 4 if he faces/beats Ugas), and is the higher ranked WW to me.

Winner 60 loser 40

Jeff_lacy_ko wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 12:28 Winner 60 loser 40

It should always be like that for major fights.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 13:05

Jeff_lacy_ko wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 12:28 Winner 60 loser 40

It should always be like that for major fights.

Arum was saying 45-45 guarantee.. remaining 10 goes to the winner..

or can do 40-40 guarantee, with 20 going to the winner.

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 13:08

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 13:05

Jeff_lacy_ko wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 12:28 Winner 60 loser 40

It should always be like that for major fights.

Arum was saying 45-45 guarantee.. remaining 10 goes to the winner..

or can do 40-40 guarantee, with 20 going to the winner.

Either one is perfectly reasonable.

From what Crawford is saying though. He's perfectly content to just not fight Spence. Which is why he's dropping further and further down the P4P list. Weird to me when people still call him #1. He never reached that and stopped being even Top 3 or 4 a long time ago. I don't have him Top 5 anymore.

The only thing I fear with the winner getting the larger %, how many times in the sport do we not see the correct winner? Imagine a clear winner being robbed on the cards in a fight. Not only do you lose the fight, but now you get a smaller purse. Talk about insult to injury.

armageto wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 13:13 The only thing I fear with the winner getting the larger %, how many times in the sport do we not see the correct winner? Imagine a clear winner being robbed on the cards in a fight. Not only do you lose the fight, but now you get a smaller purse. Talk about insult to injury.

It would give the guys more incentive to give it their all to win clearly. KO or something. You don't want it close if you got lots of money on the line.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 13:16

armageto wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 13:13 The only thing I fear with the winner getting the larger %, how many times in the sport do we not see the correct winner? Imagine a clear winner being robbed on the cards in a fight. Not only do you lose the fight, but now you get a smaller purse. Talk about insult to injury.

It would give the guys more incentive to give it their all to win clearly. KO or something. You don't want it close if you got lots of money on the line.

Not every fighter is KO artist though. To me, it's setting up the "B" side guy for a loss and less money, assuming it goes to a decision.

armageto wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 13:21

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 13:16

armageto wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 13:13 The only thing I fear with the winner getting the larger %, how many times in the sport do we not see the correct winner? Imagine a clear winner being robbed on the cards in a fight. Not only do you lose the fight, but now you get a smaller purse. Talk about insult to injury.

It would give the guys more incentive to give it their all to win clearly. KO or something. You don't want it close if you got lots of money on the line.

Not every fighter is KO artist though. To me, it's setting up the "B" side guy for a loss and less money, assuming it goes to a decision.

In a case like Spence and Crawford though. It's a battle of A sides. There really is no B side guy in this fight.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 13:21

armageto wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 13:21

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 13:16

It would give the guys more incentive to give it their all to win clearly. KO or something. You don't want it close if you got lots of money on the line.

Not every fighter is KO artist though. To me, it's setting up the "B" side guy for a loss and less money, assuming it goes to a decision.

In a case like Spence and Crawford though. It's a battle of A sides. There really is no B side guy in this fight.

Still, it's boxing. Fuckery is always afoot.

armageto wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 13:33

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 13:21

armageto wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 13:21

Not every fighter is KO artist though. To me, it's setting up the "B" side guy for a loss and less money, assuming it goes to a decision.

In a case like Spence and Crawford though. It's a battle of A sides. There really is no B side guy in this fight.

Still, it's boxing. Fuckery is always afoot.

No doubt, but when there's real major controversy, the public often demands a rematch. So the money would find it's way back to the rightful guy one way or the other a great deal of the time.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 13:35

armageto wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 13:33

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 13:21

In a case like Spence and Crawford though. It's a battle of A sides. There really is no B side guy in this fight.

Still, it's boxing. Fuckery is always afoot.

No doubt, but when there's real major controversy, the public often demands a rematch. So the money would find it's way back to the rightful guy one way or the other a great deal of the time.

Ray Robinson.......

As usual Crawford made his bed. He should never complain about not getting big fights

Simultaneously the pbc guys could reach over and make the fight. They are self proclaimed free agents

Both things can be and are true

I don't give a rats ass what either of them are paid, as long as the fight gets made.

If we're talking numbers, it's clear Spence is the one who should should get a higher percentage of the split.

If fight pay was based on ability every title fight would just be 60-40 in favour of the winner, but that’s not how pay is based but you don’t get paid based on your ability you get paid based on your economics.

Spence has been racking up big American names on successful PPV shows and has collected 2 belts. while craw has been fighting trashing picked up an easy belt of horn. Honestly I’m on the far side for this split but, I feel it should be 70-30 in spences favour, more belts, more good welter wins, more money made, more opportunity to make money in the future.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 13:05

Jeff_lacy_ko wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 12:28 Winner 60 loser 40

It should always be like that for major fights.

So the judges decide the purse split??

No, it should never be that way for any fight ever.

Perseus wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 19:12

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 13:05

Jeff_lacy_ko wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 12:28 Winner 60 loser 40

It should always be like that for major fights.

So the judges decide the purse split??

No, it should never be that way for any fight ever.

The judges ain't gonna decide sh*t if you knock your opponent out.

Key points to consider:

• Spence Jr. is a commercially bigger name than Crawford.
• Spence Jr. has more titles.
• Spence Jr. has plenty of options at 147lbs and 154lbs.
• Spence Jr’s resume at 147lbs is vastly superior than Crawford’s
• Crawford’s options at 147lbs are extremely limited
• Crawford’s non-PPV viewing figures are declining (i.e. the Kavaliauskas [40%] and the Brook [26%] fights attracted significantly smaller audiences than the Benavidez bout)
• Crawford’s PPV buy-rates are appalling and dwarfed by Spence Jr's (i.e. Khan [150,000] & Postol [55,000] versus Mikey Garcia [375,000], Porter [350,000] & Danny Garcia [250,000])
• Top Rank are losing money promoting Crawford's events due to his $4m minimum purse guarantee per bout (regardless as to whoever he faces)

Calibre of opposition fought at 147lbs within the last four years:

• Errol Spence Jr. = Kell Brook [prime version], Lamont Peterson, Carlos Ocampo, Mikey Garcia, Shawn Porter and Danny Garcia)
• Terence Crawford = Jeff Horn, Jose Benavidez Jr., Amir Khan, Egidijus Kavaliauskas and Kell Brook [shot version]

Anybody thinks that Spence Jr. would be currently willing to accept less than a 60% purse split are deluded.

However, the situation might change if Crawford leaves Top Rank/ESPN and makes the jump to PBC/Fox/Showtime in October.

Jeff_lacy_ko wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 16:16 As usual Crawford made his bed. He should never complain about not getting big fights

Simultaneously the pbc guys could reach over and make the fight. They are self proclaimed free agents

Both things can be and are true

To be fair, I don’t think Top Rank/ESPN can afford/justify to pay the PBC guys their commercial worth, mainly because of Crawford’s unimpressive viewing figures coupled with his anomalously and onerously high $4m minimum purse guarantee.

The PBC guys won’t bother crossing the proverbial street if they’re not receiving a decent payday.

Also, it’s not just about the size of the purse either, since they’d also have to sacrifice (to Top Rank) the additional income they receive from promoting their own bouts.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 19:32

Perseus wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 19:12

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 13:05

It should always be like that for major fights.

So the judges decide the purse split??

No, it should never be that way for any fight ever.

The judges ain't gonna decide sh*t if you knock your opponent out.

Yeah and it's easy to just knock out world class boxers.

Perseus wrote: ↑23 Mar 2021, 05:15

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 19:32

Perseus wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 19:12

So the judges decide the purse split??

No, it should never be that way for any fight ever.

The judges ain't gonna decide sh*t if you knock your opponent out.

Yeah and it's easy to just knock out world class boxers.

Didn't say it was easy. But you can still win definitively that they can't take it from you if they wanted to someimes. Look at Vernon Forrest vs Shane Mosley. It was marketed and promoted like Mosley was gonna get revenge on his amateur rival so you know that's what the promoter wanted, but Forrest precedes to beat the sh*t out of Mosley in such an emphatic way. He can't be denied his victory.

I know it ain't always easy to do that either, but that's the way you win fights and fans.

Errol has beaten better opponents and draws bigger crowds so it has to be Spence.

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 13:08

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 13:05

Jeff_lacy_ko wrote: ↑22 Mar 2021, 12:28 Winner 60 loser 40

It should always be like that for major fights.

Arum was saying 45-45 guarantee.. remaining 10 goes to the winner..

or can do 40-40 guarantee, with 20 going to the winner.

That sounds the most reasonable.

Tell you right now they won't do it.
Spence is the sell here.

Spence has the better resume at 147, with more belts, so he deserves the bigger split. Look at Floyd, taking only half what DLH took, and Canelo took much less than Floyd. Sometimes you have to give up big money to make it. Spence isn't anywhere near a former DLH or Floyd draw, but he is a bigger draw than Crawford, regardless who you think is a better boxer. If the fight doesn't happen, I expect Spence will move to 154 after his next fight.

Why do a 45/45/10 to the winner or 40/40/20? Boxing doesn't work that way when one is clearly more of a draw and more established with better wins. If they were equal in that regard, yes. I think it is a 50-50 fight, with a very slight edge to Spence.