Serial "losers" picking up the paydays

whicker · Post by **whicker** » 07 May 2008, 19:24

Firstly- I'm NOT suggesting that these men don't try, or that these men lose on purpose. I know that it is hard work, and these men put a lot of effort into training - fair play to them for it.

It seems that, for a professional boxer, there is money to be made if you are a serial loser.

Boxers such as Robin Deakin, James Tucker, Paul Royston, Johnny Greaves etc have all has several fights this year, averageing about 1 every three or four weeks.

However, most unbeaten fighters, or young prospects, seem to have had only one or two bouts so far in the same time period.

If an individual is in boxing for the money- and lets be honest, that IS part of being a professional, then it seems that the best way to get regular work is to be a durable loser!

To be honest, I don't know why promotors don't line up other fighters for more regular work. Sure, they won't win them all, but is money never the less.

SticknMove · Post by **SticknMove** » 07 May 2008, 23:14

Well I wouldn't knock any 'self avowed' journeyman boxer looking for regular work and paydays. It seems that the state of boxing as it exists is ripe for those type of guys to pick up a cheque.

The game has dried up quite a bit from the good old days. Promoters with good prospects will only showcase them on their own bills. There was a time when a trainer was also a manager and could negotiate on behalf of his boxer to fight on any promoter's bill - pretty much like how a journeyman does it now. The promoter/manager relationship makes this much more difficult when the prospect should be in reality turning out at least once a month in their early stages.

How many bills do top promoters turnover every year nowadays? And given that they want to protect their marketable fighters, how many opportunities do these prospects have in moving along quickly enough relative to their talent and abilities?

m1kee50 · Post by **m1kee50** » 08 May 2008, 02:18

SticknMove wrote:Well I wouldn't knock any 'self avowed' journeyman boxer looking for regular work and paydays. It seems that the state of boxing as it exists is ripe for those type of guys to pick up a cheque.

The game has dried up quite a bit from the good old days. Promoters with good prospects will only showcase them on their own bills. There was a time when a trainer was also a manager and could negotiate on behalf of his boxer to fight on any promoter's bill - pretty much like how a journeyman does it now. The promoter/manager relationship makes this much more difficult when the prospect should be in reality turning out at least once a month in their early stages.

How many bills do top promoters turnover every year nowadays? And given that they want to protect their marketable fighters, how many opportunities do these prospects have in moving along quickly enough relative to their talent and abilities?

Well the allegedly 'top' promoter, allegedly, promotes the top prospect, Amir Khan, who had his first 17 fights in a 33 month timespan, nearly a fight every 60 days.

SticknMove · Post by **SticknMove** » 08 May 2008, 02:56

MatthewS wrote:
SticknMove wrote:Well I wouldn't knock any 'self avowed' journeyman boxer looking for regular work and paydays. It seems that the state of boxing as it exists is ripe for those type of guys to pick up a cheque.

The game has dried up quite a bit from the good old days. Promoters with good prospects will only showcase them on their own bills. There was a time when a trainer was also a manager and could negotiate on behalf of his boxer to fight on any promoter's bill - pretty much like how a journeyman does it now. The promoter/manager relationship makes this much more difficult when the prospect should be in reality turning out at least once a month in their early stages.

How many bills do top promoters turnover every year nowadays? And given that they want to protect their marketable fighters, how many opportunities do these prospects have in moving along quickly enough relative to their talent and abilities?
Well the allegedly 'top' promoter, allegedly allegedly, promotes the top prospect, Amir Khan, who had his first 17 fights in a 33 month timespan, nearly a fight every 60 days.

Yeah so what's your point mate.

Carl Froch has had 22 fights in 6 years and is now 30 years of age.

I am not trying to point a finger specifically towards one promoter/fighter or another but suggesting that fighters in general and prospects in particular need to be kept busy and with the right kind of fights.

No doubt the die hard fan will denigrate the level of opposition for a prospect - but they still need to get the rounds under their belt on a regular basis.

m1kee50 · Post by **m1kee50** » 08 May 2008, 02:58

SticknMove wrote: How many bills do top promoters turnover every year nowadays? And given that they want to protect their marketable fighters, how many opportunities do these prospects have in moving along quickly enough relative to their talent and abilities?

I was answering that question, partially

SticknMove · Post by **SticknMove** » 08 May 2008, 03:07

MatthewS wrote:
SticknMove wrote: How many bills do top promoters turnover every year nowadays? And given that they want to protect their marketable fighters, how many opportunities do these prospects have in moving along quickly enough relative to their talent and abilities?
I was answering that question, partially

Then you was answering a partial sentence. Relative to talent can and does apply to British/Euro level prospects below the prospective abilities of Khan - the media babe. Warren has a few decent fighters on his books that will never be on Khan's levell. These guys should be getting more regular competitive work - who knows that may even suit the fan.

Gray-Fox · Post by **Gray-Fox** » 08 May 2008, 03:18

Fighters don't fight much because they don't sell tickets. Sad state of affairs.

SticknMove · Post by **SticknMove** » 08 May 2008, 03:28

If fans like a particular boxer why don't they buy tickets through that boxer's connection. It's quite simple really. Poor old Witter - so many supporters by proxy - but little from the fan side commensurate for his efforts.

lefthook82 · Post by **lefthook82** » 08 May 2008, 03:28

Its terrible isn't it @ Gray Fox

Gray-Fox · Post by **Gray-Fox** » 08 May 2008, 05:45

lefthook82 wrote:Its terrible isn't it @ Gray Fox

Yep. However, I also think it's partly the onus of a prizefighter to a) excite the general fans b) build a fanbase for himself through self-promotion.

lefthook82 · Post by **lefthook82** » 08 May 2008, 06:37

True, but then if you don't have that 'hare em scare em' crowd pleasing style how can you do that

I love nothing better than a slick southpaw going to work on a dopey orthodox fighter. If Sergio Martinez was based in London I would go and watch him. But then how many people really care for outright skills. They wanna see knockouts and f thats not your style, how can you seell tickets

Who was the last non-puncher/non come forward fighter to be a great ticketseller in this country?

Gray-Fox · Post by **Gray-Fox** » 08 May 2008, 07:58

lefthook82 wrote:True, but then if you don't have that 'hare em scare em' crowd pleasing style how can you do that

I love nothing better than a slick southpaw going to work on a dopey orthodox fighter. If Sergio Martinez was based in London I would go and watch him. But then how many people really care for outright skills. They wanna see knockouts and f thats not your style, how can you seell tickets

Who was the last non-puncher/non come forward fighter to be a great ticketseller in this country?

Eubank? He could punch, but he wasn't a renowned puncher. As I said though, it's more down to how many fans hear of you from the outset (a la Khan) and also up to the fighter. All GOOD fighters, no matter how slick, can set down and their punches and take more risks. That's essentially what the fans want to see. Even if it's not blood and guts.

twenty six · Post by **twenty six** » 08 May 2008, 11:21

Whicker,
Just explain to me where you think British Boxing would be, without journeymen ?
How would you see a prospect's career developing if every fight from day one, was against another hot prospect ?

whicker · Post by **whicker** » 08 May 2008, 11:44

twenty six wrote:Whicker,
Just explain to me where you think British Boxing would be, without journeymen ?

dude, please re-read my original post.

I wasn't begrudging the right of a journeyman to get regular work.

Also, I fully acknowledge that journeymen have a role to play in boxing.

My point was it seems that the only way a boxer can get regular bouts is by being a serial loser. There ARE exceptions, of course- Lee Noble, for example.

twenty six wrote: How would you see a prospect's career developing if every fight from day one, was against another hot prospect ?

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with two young hopefuls squaring off against each other.

Sure, one will have to lose- but a true prospect can build on a defeat, and improve.

Scrap · Post by **Scrap** » 08 May 2008, 11:55

It doesnt just happen in Brtain its a world wide thing Gray said it its about bums on seats.

whicker · Post by **whicker** » 08 May 2008, 12:01

Scrap wrote:It doesnt just happen in Brtain its a world wide thing Gray said it its about bums on seats.

I don't think anywhere else you get cards where most of the opponents have each lost like the last 30 fights in a row.

Scrap · Post by **Scrap** » 08 May 2008, 12:05

Think you do

whicker · Post by **whicker** » 08 May 2008, 12:14

Yeah, you might be right there- I don't watch lower level boxing in anywhere else, so I havn't seen much.