Thread: A side and B side - your definition

Okay guys,

We dont need to mention floyd or manny (yeah, right!) but I want you to put yourself in any pro boxers shoes or promoter and explain to me your definition of an A side and B side fighter and what each side should tolerate.

Please name some fights in the past or present where this was correctly implicated.

Cheers

imp

I hate the term since Floyd come up with it but it exists.

Floyd A side to Khan B side
Khan A side to Brooks B side

A side fighters command more money, status, political power and rights because they have earned it.

Originally Posted by Master

I hate the term since Floyd come up with it but it exists.

Floyd A side to Khan B side
Khan A side to Brooks B side

A side fighters command more money, status, political power and rights because they have earned it.

I like that definition because I cant stand the phrase either and the implications. Now you got guys crying about who's name is first in the promos. Picking the opponents gloves, catchweights, ring size who the ref is and most likely a say on the judges. Muddies the A-side.

Originally Posted by Master

I hate the term since Floyd come up with it but it exists.

Floyd A side to Khan B side
Khan A side to Brooks B side

A side fighters command more money, status, political power and rights because they have earned it.

I think it is a mix of who the people want to see the most, who has the most to lose, and who is putting up most of the money for who to get in the ring is where we should realize the A side.

Floyd is the perennial A side. So too is Wlad. But I feel as if he fights Wilder, he won't be the A side anymore.

Basically its Champion vs Challenger to me.

I hate these definitions. Lock this thread immediately.

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Originally Posted by Master

I hate the term since Floyd come up with it but it exists.

Floyd A side to Khan B side
Khan A side to Brooks B side

A side fighters command more money, status, political power and rights because they have earned it.

I like that definition because I cant stand the phrase either and the implications. Now you got guys crying about who's name is first in the promos. Picking the opponents gloves, catchweights, ring size who the ref is and most likely a say on the judges. Muddies the A-side.

I know there times before where fighters made some choices but when I think of this I think of how Leonard bent over Hagler. Is there a previous case? I know fighters have given up percentages of all future earnings and various other crazy demands. But Leonard was the first I know of to pick and choose all things that would effect the outcome.(from ring since to number of rounds)Am I wrong on this?

Originally Posted by Master

A side fighters command more money, status, political power and rights because they have earned it.

Not always, @Master .

Sometimes they're born with a silver spoon and they really haven't earned squat.
A name..... lots of hype.... and legions of blind fans is all it takes to sometimes unrealistically and unfairly claim "A side" status.

Originally Posted by Ron Swanson

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Originally Posted by Master

I hate the term since Floyd come up with it but it exists.

Floyd A side to Khan B side
Khan A side to Brooks B side

A side fighters command more money, status, political power and rights because they have earned it.

I like that definition because I cant stand the phrase either and the implications. Now you got guys crying about who's name is first in the promos. Picking the opponents gloves, catchweights, ring size who the ref is and most likely a say on the judges. Muddies the A-side.

I know there times before where fighters made some choices but when I think of this I think of how Leonard bent over Hagler. Is there a previous case? I know fighters have given up percentages of all future earnings and various other crazy demands. But Leonard was the first I know of to pick and choose all things that would effect the outcome.(from ring since to number of rounds)Am I wrong on this?

Spot on and gloves also but here is the thing. People will say well Hagler didn't have to take it or the cheque but that misses the point. Thee "A-side" looks more like the B-side by trying to tilt the fight in their favour instead of just beating the B-side. Leonard probably could have had Hagler remove a limb.
Had that fight been 15, there is little doubt in my mind who would have won. I've never been able to score that fight for Leonard as it is.

Leonard is a great example because the Lalonde travesty also fits. Those kinds of things should never be expected and accepted just because one fighter draws more or is viewed as better. If you are really the A fighter then you dont need that shit.

Originally Posted by Arvid_85

I hate these definitions. Lock this thread immediately.

Truthfully, I don't mind these identifiers that much, they're easy to understand and if you trust the person using them they're great. I don't watch as many fights as most of you so I'm not as familiar with as many fighters so I find them helpful.

Guess I think of the B side as a fighter who has no other way to make as much money as he would fighting a guy who does have other comparable options. Hagler-Leonard is a good example, Marvin was a dominant long time champion who had been active, but he was getting old and without any cash cows around, I don't there was any other way to make near half as much money as he did fighting Ray. Leonard on the other hand probably wouldn't have even taken the fight if he didn't get things his way. It's not always(if not even often!) a matter of who has earned what.

Morales also made Pacquiao were winnings gloves in their first fight instead of Reyes.

I thought Leonard conceded the ring size, gloves, money just so he could fight 12 rounds and not 15?

Originally Posted by p4pking

Guess I think of the B side as a fighter who has no other way to make as much money as he would fighting a guy who does have other comparable options. Hagler-Leonard is a good example, Marvin was a dominant long time champion who had been active, but he was getting old and without any cash cows around, I don't there was any other way to make near half as much money as he did fighting Ray. Leonard on the other hand probably wouldn't have even taken the fight if he didn't get things his way. It's not always(if not even often!) a matter of who has earned what.

Precisely my point.

Originally Posted by Master

I thought Leonard conceded the ring size, gloves, money just so he could fight 12 rounds and not 15?

Nope. Leonard called all the shots including the 12 rounds. Hagler made more money in that fight then his entire career. Hagler thought it would be easy money after all the guy was an x-welter who had been retired for 3 years. How tough could it be?