Has the politics of money always cost us good fights??
I was just reading the Cotto/Martinez thread regarding talks being off now because Arum couldn't make as much money as he wanted out of the fight...
Whether that is correct or not is not really my point.... Really, so much stuff at the top of boxing right now is all determined by money..
I'm not really that old, and didn't follow boxing the day I was born, so I don't have much experience of boxing in the 80's, 70's, 60's, 50's, aside from the classics that I have watched.... So some of you guys who know a lot more about those era's of boxing may be a little better equipped to judge this situation that I was wondering about..
Do you think this is probably the worst time for boxing in regards to fights only being made if the money is right? Or has that really been going on in boxing for as long as Prize Fighting has been around??? or was it as relevant right through as it is now???
Re: Has the politics of money always cost us good fights??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dizaster
I was just reading the Cotto/Martinez thread regarding talks being off now because Arum couldn't make as much money as he wanted out of the fight...
Whether that is correct or not is not really my point.... Really, so much stuff at the top of boxing right now is all determined by money..
I'm not really that old, and didn't follow boxing the day I was born, so I don't have much experience of boxing in the 80's, 70's, 60's, 50's, aside from the classics that I have watched.... So some of you guys who know a lot more about those era's of boxing may be a little better equipped to judge this situation that I was wondering about..
Do you think this is probably the worst time for boxing in regards to fights only being made if the money is right? Or has that really been going on in boxing for as long as Prize Fighting has been around??? or was it as relevant right through as it is now???
I actually reckon it's better now than in the best as regarding the best fighting each other.
Barring a few much hyped rivalries, the Ali, Foreman, Frazier and Leonard, Duran, Hagler, Hearns eras top fighters getting into the ring has always been difficult to accomplish.
I actually the last two or three years has been very good in terms of the best fights being made. Aside from Floyd against Manny and Haye against a Klitschko nobody has really been avoiding each other.
Certainly it's better than 15, 20 years ago I think. Look at the careers of guys like Eubank and Nigel Benn, or Cazlaghe in his prime. Very rarely were there any big transatlantic fights. I think that seems to be changing now. Even in Australia Danny Green has branched out and fought some foreign competition.
I don't remember it happening as much a decade or more ago.
I think one of the upsides to the UFC bursting onto the scene is that fight cards have improved in the last 3 or 4 years, in my opinion at least.
Re: Has the politics of money always cost us good fights??
Hell yeah
close thread!!!!!
Re: Has the politics of money always cost us good fights??
Of course it's always been the same. Money is the only thing that has ever mattered in boxing. Back in the "good old days" you had to throw fights if you wanted to get anywhere.
Re: Has the politics of money always cost us good fights??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dizaster
I was just reading the Cotto/Martinez thread regarding talks being off now because Arum couldn't make as much money as he wanted out of the fight...
Whether that is correct or not is not really my point.... Really, so much stuff at the top of boxing right now is all determined by money..
I'm not really that old, and didn't follow boxing the day I was born, so I don't have much experience of boxing in the 80's, 70's, 60's, 50's, aside from the classics that I have watched.... So some of you guys who know a lot more about those era's of boxing may be a little better equipped to judge this situation that I was wondering about..
Do you think this is probably the worst time for boxing in regards to fights only being made if the money is right? Or has that really been going on in boxing for as long as Prize Fighting has been around??? or was it as relevant right through as it is now???
I actually reckon it's better now than in the best as regarding the best fighting each other.
Barring a few much hyped rivalries, the Ali, Foreman, Frazier and Leonard, Duran, Hagler, Hearns eras top fighters getting into the ring has always been difficult to accomplish.
I actually the last two or three years has been very good in terms of the best fights being made. Aside from Floyd against Manny and Haye against a Klitschko nobody has really been avoiding each other.
Certainly it's better than 15, 20 years ago I think. Look at the careers of guys like Eubank and Nigel Benn, or Cazlaghe in his prime. Very rarely were there any big transatlantic fights. I think that seems to be changing now. Even in Australia Danny Green has branched out and fought some foreign competition.
I don't remember it happening as much a decade or more ago.
I think one of the upsides to the UFC bursting onto the scene is that fight cards have improved in the last 3 or 4 years, in my opinion at least.
Didn't you turn up on this site 4/5 years ago claiming boxing wasn't worth watching below the middleweight division, the men are too small, or something like that?
How do you know what boxing was like back then?
I bet you've never bought a boxing magazine in your life ;D
Re: Has the politics of money always cost us good fights??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dizaster
I was just reading the Cotto/Martinez thread regarding talks being off now because Arum couldn't make as much money as he wanted out of the fight...
Whether that is correct or not is not really my point.... Really, so much stuff at the top of boxing right now is all determined by money..
I'm not really that old, and didn't follow boxing the day I was born, so I don't have much experience of boxing in the 80's, 70's, 60's, 50's, aside from the classics that I have watched.... So some of you guys who know a lot more about those era's of boxing may be a little better equipped to judge this situation that I was wondering about..
Do you think this is probably the worst time for boxing in regards to fights only being made if the money is right? Or has that really been going on in boxing for as long as Prize Fighting has been around??? or was it as relevant right through as it is now???
I actually reckon it's better now than in the best as regarding the best fighting each other.
Barring a few much hyped rivalries, the Ali, Foreman, Frazier and Leonard, Duran, Hagler, Hearns eras top fighters getting into the ring has always been difficult to accomplish.
I actually the last two or three years has been very good in terms of the best fights being made. Aside from Floyd against Manny and Haye against a Klitschko nobody has really been avoiding each other.
Certainly it's better than 15, 20 years ago I think. Look at the careers of guys like Eubank and Nigel Benn, or Cazlaghe in his prime. Very rarely were there any big transatlantic fights. I think that seems to be changing now. Even in Australia Danny Green has branched out and fought some foreign competition.
I don't remember it happening as much a decade or more ago.
I think one of the upsides to the UFC bursting onto the scene is that fight cards have improved in the last 3 or 4 years, in my opinion at least.
Didn't you turn up on this site 4/5 years ago claiming boxing wasn't worth watching below the middleweight division, the men are too small, or something like that?
How do you know what boxing was like back then?
I bet you've never bought a boxing magazine in your life ;D
Nah I've always enjoyed the boxing and followed it, although obviously without the internet and access to fights it was pretty much tv only back in the day.
I still stand by little man comments, although it was below featherweight that they were aimed. If you can honestly be impressed by, for example Nonito Donaire beating up on a 5 ft 2ish man on the weekend who the average 12 stone male could beat up in a street fight then I'm pleased for you. Those weight classes just don't have much competition and I will always maintain that. That's why you see guys with single digit number of fights facing off against established world champs.
The magazine comment is a bit weird. I have never bought a boxing magazine it is true. But then I stopped buying magazines and comics when I turned 16. What next? Am I not a true fan because I don't have any stickers or posters on my wall? :confused:
Re: Has the politics of money always cost us good fights??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dizaster
I was just reading the Cotto/Martinez thread regarding talks being off now because Arum couldn't make as much money as he wanted out of the fight...
Whether that is correct or not is not really my point.... Really, so much stuff at the top of boxing right now is all determined by money..
I'm not really that old, and didn't follow boxing the day I was born, so I don't have much experience of boxing in the 80's, 70's, 60's, 50's, aside from the classics that I have watched.... So some of you guys who know a lot more about those era's of boxing may be a little better equipped to judge this situation that I was wondering about..
Do you think this is probably the worst time for boxing in regards to fights only being made if the money is right? Or has that really been going on in boxing for as long as Prize Fighting has been around??? or was it as relevant right through as it is now???
I actually reckon it's better now than in the best as regarding the best fighting each other.
Barring a few much hyped rivalries, the Ali, Foreman, Frazier and Leonard, Duran, Hagler, Hearns eras top fighters getting into the ring has always been difficult to accomplish.
I actually the last two or three years has been very good in terms of the best fights being made. Aside from Floyd against Manny and Haye against a Klitschko nobody has really been avoiding each other.
Certainly it's better than 15, 20 years ago I think. Look at the careers of guys like Eubank and Nigel Benn, or Cazlaghe in his prime. Very rarely were there any big transatlantic fights. I think that seems to be changing now. Even in Australia Danny Green has branched out and fought some foreign competition.
I don't remember it happening as much a decade or more ago.
I think one of the upsides to the UFC bursting onto the scene is that fight cards have improved in the last 3 or 4 years, in my opinion at least.
Didn't you turn up on this site 4/5 years ago claiming boxing wasn't worth watching below the middleweight division, the men are too small, or something like that?
How do you know what boxing was like back then?
I bet you've never bought a boxing magazine in your life ;D
Nah I've always enjoyed the boxing and followed it, although obviously without the internet and access to fights it was pretty much tv only back in the day.
I still stand by little man comments, although it was below featherweight that they were aimed. If you can honestly be impressed by, for example Nonito Donaire beating up on a 5 ft 2ish man on the weekend who the average 12 stone male could beat up in a street fight then I'm pleased for you. Those weight classes just don't have much competition and I will always maintain that. That's why you see guys with single digit number of fights facing off against established world champs.
The magazine comment is a bit weird. I have never bought a boxing magazine it is true. But then I stopped buying magazines and comics when I turned 16. What next? Am I not a true fan because I don't have any stickers or posters on my wall? :confused:
The magazine comment is because, as you said, back before the internet you was limited to whatever British TV decided to show, so boxing magazines was where all the info was at. And I never took you for a "hardcore" fan before this internet lark. That's all.
So it was below featherweight? That's a lot fairer than middle. Sorry about that :D
Re: Has the politics of money always cost us good fights??
Absolutely, I would have loved to watch Cotto/Martinez. In Arum's case since it is not Cotto vs Top Rank fighter, then it factors in.
Is Arum just doing his job? Is he keeping Cotto viable (Money wise) by not letting him face such a dangerous fight in Martinez.
Re: Has the politics of money always cost us good fights??
More presumed 'best on best' match ups. I give Arum a pass on Cotto v Martinez. Good names but advantage Martinez in every single catagory....Arum can sell Cotto v Margarito 2 on scandal and good fight....let them cancel the other out and still bank the winner in the end. Martinez is on another level now...cha ching
