Thread: what would you do?

It seems now common for the "big name" champions offering their challengers a fraction of the fight purse.

the challengers have to put in a gruelling training camp for a relatively tiny financial reward. On top of this they obviously get a crack at a big name, a world championship and the exposure win or loose

the klits seem to be the worst culprits for this, negotiating the financial side heavily in their favour and adding a number of clauses as a safety net in case the fight goes against them, all their opponent gets is the fight (and a rematch if they win, and another if they win again )

Amir Khan seems to be trying to pull the same trick, offering a relative unknown the door to the big time for a small gain (financially) for the fight

but say in McClousky's case. I dont know how much he was offered to fight khan but say it was enough to support your training camp and come out of the other end with a little bit in the bank - £50 grand say. Would you have taken it?

Honestly, I think I probably would. If he puts in a good show, he probably earns twice that (or more) for his next fight, he has big exposure where it counts in boxing

I voted 'yes' because if Boxing was my occupation, then surely your goal is to become the best at what you do. These opportunities seem few and far between so if it were me I'd take it, work hard and hope to get something out of the fight.

In McCloskey's case, you never know if his promotor has something else more financially rewarding with less risk in the pipeline. Like when Haye rejected Vitali, he did it for more money & less risk to go to Valuev, knowing having that belt would get him a bigger slice at the Klitschko negotiating table. Time will tell with McCloskey has made the right choice. Maybe he'll fight a Maidana, Peterson or an Ortiz next, or maybe he's been offered big money and main event status to go fight in Ireland. The Irish love their fighters and since Duddy retired a gap just opened up in the market.

I can't truly answer the question because I'm not fighting for a living. If I was, it would depend on how highly I value myself as a fighter (as a commodity).
I don't really know if McClosky wants a higher pay-out for a granted 'L', or if McClosky genuinely rates himself highly enough to believe that he will never devalue himself to such a low as he believes he'll get his break else wear. I hope it's the latter, I mean he is a talented fighter after all.

I mean I feel he should just take the fight but then if he looses, then he has proven to be of low level AND low pay. So what of the exposure? It's a difficult one for sure.

I will be training in my basement. Running the streets of Philly, ducking bullets. One win over a big name, a fighters' life can change.

IMO, fighters should use these big names fighter not giving them a reasonable amount of money as motivation. I'm always going with the underdog but the underdog needs to make something happen an upset these so caleed big name fighters.

I understand the question but the key word here is "relatively tiny financial reward" and it doesn't really fit the question. The Reward vs Risk is out of proportion. Ask any 'up and coming' fighter if they'd take $500K to fight Mayweather or Pacquiao and 99 out of 100 are going to say yes. When you have nothing, then something is more.

You only live once and the other mutha fucka has two hands legs etc....just like you do. And hell it's amir freakin khan, wasn't he just starched by a guy who no one knew or gave a fuck about ? You actually have a good shot of winning imo. Boxing is a game of inches take a chance get lucky. If you loose now so what, learn and don't loose anymore. And if you win learn on the job like berto and tim bradley are doing. And as far as the training you should be training for every fight like you're fighting floyd on fri and pac on sat imo. But i've never hit anyone not even my bad ass kids so i dunno

Originally Posted by fan johnny

I understand the question but the key word here is "relatively tiny financial reward" and it doesn't really fit the question. The Reward vs Risk is out of proportion. Ask any 'up and coming' fighter if they'd take $500K to fight Mayweather or Pacquiao and 99 out of 100 are going to say yes. When you have nothing, then something is more.

would you prefer it if "relatively timy financial reward" was reworded to, "gets fuck all for the fight compared to the champ"?

Originally Posted by Mar

You only live once and the other mutha fucka has two hands legs etc....just like you do. And hell it's amir freakin khan, wasn't he just starched by a guy who no one knew or gave a fuck about ? You actually have a good shot of winning imo. Boxing is a game of inches take a chance get lucky. If you loose now so what, learn and don't loose anymore. And if you win learn on the job like berto and tim bradley are doing. And as far as the training you should be training for every fight like you're fighting floyd on fri and pac on sat imo. But i've never hit anyone not even my bad ass kids so i dunno

aye but the question is - would you take the fight even if you were getting fuck all money compared to the champ?

I wouldnt take the fight for peanuts especially in his hometown, look at the Barrera fight. McCloskey is better off fighting someone else in the top 10 and building his reputation. Just wait a few fights and let Khan lose to the Bradley/Alexander winner. Then laugh because your stock is actually higher than his.

Yeah i would if i was him. He isn't getting any younger, and he's not really that good to begin with. So yeah, i would. Besides, if he does ok-ish he will probably earn a few decent scraps off the back of it.

Originally Posted by No Contest

I wouldnt take the fight for peanuts especially in his hometown, look at the Barrera fight. McCloskey is better off fighting someone else in the top 10 and building his reputation. Just wait a few fights and let Khan lose to the Bradley/Alexander winner. Then laugh because your stock is actually higher than his.

Hahaha. Good post.

A challenger should never be offered less than 40% of the purse IMO. If a credible fighter wants a so called gimme then he should pay his opponent and likewise if the opponent is a credible opponent his share should rise accordingly.

Its an investment and as long as he believes he can win... as well as his camp, hell yes. When opportunity grabs you from obscurity and thrust you into the spotlight you piss or get off the pot. He may very well lose but the notoriety and exposure will see him well. Of course thats not always a good thing, certainly not if he's ko'd in 1 by Khan

Originally Posted by No Contest

I wouldnt take the fight for peanuts especially in his hometown, look at the Barrera fight. McCloskey is better off fighting someone else in the top 10 and building his reputation. Just wait a few fights and let Khan lose to the Bradley/Alexander winner. Then laugh because your stock is actually higher than his.

What happens when McCloskey loses to that top 10 fighter while trying to build his rep? Which is very possible considering he's crap. What than?

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Originally Posted by No Contest

I wouldnt take the fight for peanuts especially in his hometown, look at the Barrera fight. McCloskey is better off fighting someone else in the top 10 and building his reputation. Just wait a few fights and let Khan lose to the Bradley/Alexander winner. Then laugh because your stock is actually higher than his.

What happens when McCloskey loses to that top 10 fighter while trying to build his rep? Which is very possible considering he's crap. What than?

He still makes more money. He is a draw in Ireland. I know, he's not mexican so you cant give him any credit. Its also then you fucking highschool dropout.