BoxRec

just thinking, a lot of people on the forum ( including myself ) bang on about promoters not making real fights, fighters ducking other fighters and in general the sport of boxing going downhill. the biggest reason for these things is money, but for the spectator they want to see glory.

who can honestly say that they would ( if in this position) opt for the glory before the money?

larry cake wrote:just thinking, a lot of people on the forum ( including myself ) bang on about promoters not making real fights, fighters ducking other fighters and in general the sport of boxing going downhill. the biggest reason for these things is money, but for the spectator they want to see glory.

who can honestly say that they would ( if in this position) opt for the glory before the money?

As a business it is MONEY, bt a consumers, we do not have to spend to watch!


Last SN I went to was

Naz Vs Johnston.
Collins Vs Sellier(?)
Robin Reid Vs Petrioussususuus (?)
etc etc

All World Title Fights
Compare that with the toilet we get now!

Depends on my position. If I was reliant on Boxing, I'd go for money. If I wasn't relaint on Boxing, glory!

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:Depends on my position. If I was reliant on Boxing, I'd go for money. If I wasn't relaint on Boxing, glory!

but most the people (if not all ) we criticise do reliae on boxing

larry cake wrote:

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:Depends on my position. If I was reliant on Boxing, I'd go for money. If I wasn't relaint on Boxing, glory!

but most the people (if not all ) we criticise do reliae on boxing

Definately. I'd say 95% of Boxers rely on it. However, fighters like Lewis have the natural intelligence IMO to make money no matter what their talent.

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:

larry cake wrote:

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:Depends on my position. If I was reliant on Boxing, I'd go for money. If I wasn't relaint on Boxing, glory!

but most the people (if not all ) we criticise do reliae on boxing

Definately. I'd say 95% of Boxers rely on it. However, fighters like Lewis have the natural intelligence IMO to make money no matter what their talent.

but could they make the same sort of money and make it as quickly as they could from boxing?

of course not.

larry cake wrote:

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:

larry cake wrote:but most the people (if not all ) we criticise do reliae on boxing

Definately. I'd say 95% of Boxers rely on it. However, fighters like Lewis have the natural intelligence IMO to make money no matter what their talent.

but could they make the same sort of money and make it as quickly as they could from boxing?

of course not.

Who's to say. Probably not. Lennox came across as very astute on The Apprentice.

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:

larry cake wrote:

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote: Definately. I'd say 95% of Boxers rely on it. However, fighters like Lewis have the natural intelligence IMO to make money no matter what their talent.

but could they make the same sort of money and make it as quickly as they could from boxing?

of course not.

Who's to say. Probably not. Lennox came across as very astute on The Apprentice.

Glory all the way.

No amount of money in the world can match being a world champion in a sport like boxing.

I would honestly rather be Clinton Woods than Bill Gates.

Money doesn't actually mean a lot to me. Being down the pub with my mates made me happier than driving a Merc would have, still does. If I lived in mansion, I'd be bored shitless, like a dead-end. I boxed amateur, and if I was any good and turned pro, it would have been the glory first for me. As Nigel Benn says - 'fight for glory and the money follows, fight for money and you'll get hurt'.

Both ideally.

In some ways Hatton's career was a good way to acheive both.

Financially secure yourself with a string of 'pushover' learning type fights before taking a few more risks and chasing the glory.

larry cake wrote:just thinking, a lot of people on the forum ( including myself ) bang on about promoters not making real fights, fighters ducking other fighters and in general the sport of boxing going downhill. the biggest reason for these things is money, but for the spectator they want to see glory.

who can honestly say that they would ( if in this position) opt for the glory before the money?

Once you've set yourself up financially for the future, then it should be for the glory IMO.

What you certainly shouldn't do is claim you're in the sport for the glory then not take the fights that are going to reap the glory [cough Hatton-Witter]

Hit the nail on the head.

One reason I respect Eubank is because he was honest. I don't know another fighter who flat-out said money is the major factor or doesn't want to fight certain fighters because of risk-factor.

I'm with Nigel Benn on this one. Glory first and foremost everytime. The glory should be the motivation, but that isn't to say you shouldn't look out for your best interests too. This is something lots of people in this country don't seem to be able to get their heads around - case in point being Ricky Hatton. If you earn lots of money many people think that automatically makes you money-centred, when in reality I think it's just about making sure you get your market value, and surely this is something we are all looking to do.

Research into motivation shows that those that are intrinsically motivated i.e. are motivated by a sense of achievement, tend to be more persistent and successful that those who are dependent on extrinsic sources of motivation.

STP wrote:Hit the nail on the head.

One reason I respect Eubank is because he was honest. I don't know another fighter who flat-out said money is the major factor or doesn't want to fight certain fighters because of risk-factor.

But surely this can't be the initial motivation as it takes a long time and a lot of genetic good fortune to get to a position to make a lot of money from the sport. If you don't have an intrinsic desire to train hard and to win then you wouldn't get to the point of earning such money in the first place.

I think money-making may overtake this intrinsic motivation once the big purses start coming in - the silk pyjama syndrome - but to me it seems far-fetched that a youngster would start boxing and persist with it for many years because they hope to make money from it.

Funny, I was thinking about Nigel Benn this morning re the Gerald McClellan fight - Gerald was, as Nigel put it, brought over to "do a number" on Benn and it would have been very easy for a fighter other than Nigel to just drop the belt, say no and avoid a very dangerous opponent. But there was no way a fighter with Benn's mentality could have put future financial gain in front of professional pride. There have always been too few Nigel Benn's for my liking

Build up a record and a reputation, make a bit of money, then glory. Dont rush and get out of your depth by taking big challenges too soon.

Chambers2 wrote:

larry cake wrote:just thinking, a lot of people on the forum ( including myself ) bang on about promoters not making real fights, fighters ducking other fighters and in general the sport of boxing going downhill. the biggest reason for these things is money, but for the spectator they want to see glory.

who can honestly say that they would ( if in this position) opt for the glory before the money?

Once you've set yourself up financially for the future, then it should be for the glory IMO.

What you certainly shouldn't do is claim you're in the sport for the glory then not take the fights that are going to reap the glory [cough Hatton-Witter]

Stuart, I'm hereby imposing a Hatton/Witter tax. Each time you mention them both in the same post you owe me 1000 BoxPix coins.

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:

larry cake wrote:just thinking, a lot of people on the forum ( including myself ) bang on about promoters not making real fights, fighters ducking other fighters and in general the sport of boxing going downhill. the biggest reason for these things is money, but for the spectator they want to see glory.

who can honestly say that they would ( if in this position) opt for the glory before the money?

Once you've set yourself up financially for the future, then it should be for the glory IMO.

What you certainly shouldn't do is claim you're in the sport for the glory then not take the fights that are going to reap the glory [cough Hatton-Witter]

Stuart, I'm hereby imposing a Hatton/Witter tax. Each time you mention them both in the same post you owe me 1000 BoxPix coins.

I have been trying to cut down on my Hatton dissing, but its difficult because hes wound me up so much with his 'man of the people' routine

Every boxer to start with get's into the sport for the glory.

As some say, once the money has started to flow in and they see the type of things that they can now buy, then the money might take over for a lot of them.

Still, it's glory all the way for me.
No one gives two shits about a man who goes to the grave loaded.
It's what you achieve in life that matters most, and earning a shed load of money is well within EVERYONE'S capabilities really.

Being a Boxing World Champion only happens to a certain few, and it looks much better on the gravestone

Yiddo - agreed. With the proviso that there are 3,287 world championships now and even if I wanted a recognised belt I could buy one off the WBC. Bollocks.

Glyn - good to see your article on Hatton-Mayweather in this month's BM. Good stuff.

Go for the glory, if you're successful then decent paydays will come.....

Unless you're in the heavyweight division and you can be shite and make money!

FMJR wasn't obsessed with money a few yrs back.. he was fighting for recognition alongside the likes of RJJR, Hamed, ODLH, Hopkins, Zoo, Morales, Barrera, Pacquiao, Mosley, Trinidad, Vargas, Gatti, Mayorga et al.. last few yrs he's turned to money.. remember he's been a WORLD CHAMPION for 10 yrs already..

Whatever one you would rather have, if you acquire once I think it's likely the other will follow.

With guys like Mayweather, he's got both & he will acquire more money & glory before he retires.

A short story about motivation...

A group of kids start to play football outside a bloke's house. The noise does his napper in. Everything he tried to do to get them to move failed. One afternoon he called them over and offered them 50p each to play outside of his house. Each child was well chuffed at this payoff. Sure enough, they returned the next day and he offered them more money, and the day after that he offered them more again. The kids couldn't believe their luck. Days later they turned up for their regular game and he told them he wouldn't be able to pay them that day. The kids left and never returned.