Re: "He's in it for the money"
Professional prizefighting is mostly about fighting for money, but that's not the whole story: the competitive nature certainly plays a part as dos the drive for personal fame, to be somebody.
Some of these guys really want to prove they're the best, or can at least compete with the best.
Take mixed martial arts: most ufc guys, even the champions, are fighting for peanuts compared to the lion's share of the ppv dollars that goes to dana white and the fertittas. For them, apparently, the money isn't the most important factor.
When a guy's only in it for the money, that's when fight's end up not being on the level, when guy's throw fights and take dives if the money's right, and some prizefighters with real Heart just don't have it in them to lay down for anybody at any price...
Re: "He's in it for the money"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
"He's in it for the money"
@
Vendettos
I have deep philosophical problems with that phrase my friend. When I say problems I mean my own. Bit of a love hate relationship after 40 years. It starts with the grey matter that rests in between Archie Moore making literally 50 bucks a fight and his massive pay day of 800 dollars for a title fight against Maxim finally after 160 fights and a man that makes 30 million a fight and only fights once every year or two.
That was a rather long sentence.
Moore had to toil in obscurity to get enough money in order to feed himself to pursue legacy. Same goes for the rest of the Murderers row. They had to fight each other over and over. So I suppose in that sense "he was in it for the money"
My issue deep down is how money has taken over legacy. I mean from a puritan standpoint, the twisted interpretation of another phrase namely "risk and reward" is geared to that end. They have it ass backward.
I understand. Boxing and in general technology has evolved in a way that now a billion or more people could potentially watch a fight the same time, if they all paid £1 quid each then the purse is huge. Now this isn't an exact number but you understand the logic?
As opposed to Murderers row fighting each other once a week or whatever in front of at the very most 1000 people.
Television has made it all a little easy on the fighters now financially.
But at the same time, that ain't David Hayes fault.
Re: "He's in it for the money"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
"He's in it for the money"
@
Vendettos
I have deep philosophical problems with that phrase my friend. When I say problems I mean my own. Bit of a love hate relationship after 40 years. It starts with the grey matter that rests in between Archie Moore making literally 50 bucks a fight and his massive pay day of 800 dollars for a title fight against Maxim finally after 160 fights and a man that makes 30 million a fight and only fights once every year or two.
That was a rather long sentence.
Moore had to toil in obscurity to get enough money in order to feed himself to pursue legacy. Same goes for the rest of the Murderers row. They had to fight each other over and over. So I suppose in that sense "he was in it for the money"
My issue deep down is how money has taken over legacy. I mean from a puritan standpoint, the twisted interpretation of another phrase namely "risk and reward" is geared to that end. They have it ass backward.
Do you honestly think those old-timers were pursuing legacy over money? They'd laugh their fucking nuts off today (or possibly cry) looking back at what they went through for virtual peanuts compared with modern fighters. And swap places in a heartbeat.
Re: "He's in it for the money"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vendettos
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
"He's in it for the money"
@
Vendettos
I have deep philosophical problems with that phrase my friend. When I say problems I mean my own. Bit of a love hate relationship after 40 years. It starts with the grey matter that rests in between Archie Moore making literally 50 bucks a fight and his massive pay day of 800 dollars for a title fight against Maxim finally after 160 fights and a man that makes 30 million a fight and only fights once every year or two.
That was a rather long sentence.
Moore had to toil in obscurity to get enough money in order to feed himself to pursue legacy. Same goes for the rest of the Murderers row. They had to fight each other over and over. So I suppose in that sense "he was in it for the money"
My issue deep down is how money has taken over legacy. I mean from a puritan standpoint, the twisted interpretation of another phrase namely "risk and reward" is geared to that end. They have it ass backward.
I understand. Boxing and in general technology has evolved in a way that now a billion or more people could potentially watch a fight the same time, if they all paid £1 quid each then the purse is huge. Now this isn't an exact number but you understand the logic?
As opposed to Murderers row fighting each other once a week or whatever in front of at the very most 1000 people.
Television has made it all a little easy on the fighters now financially.
But at the same time, that ain't David Hayes fault.
I hear ya. When in Rome.....
I do get that but boxing fundamentally loses something from it. Its simply no longer legacy driven when that's all it should be about or at least near the top of the list. There are exceptions but it used to be the rule.
Anyway great topic which I'll return to but I work alone and better get to it.
Later
Re: "He's in it for the money"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vendettos
Most boxers come from deprived areas, money is their ONLY incentive.
True and they aren't usually the smartest either.
HOWEVER some guys still have this thing called pride and they will seek out opportunities to prove themselves as the best.
@
Fenster David Haye had 1 fight in 2012.....just 1. Does that tell you anything about how seriously he takes the sport? Tomaz Adamek had 4 fights in 2012, Wladimir had 3, Wilder had 6. Haye likes the "flashy flash" he's all style and no substance...he's not a real boxer he's a sideshow and he's made himself that. The way Haye acts he's little better than Butterbean.
OK... When did he stop being a "real" boxer? First off, can you confirm that you understand that Haye was alive before he first spoke to Wlad?
Re: "He's in it for the money"
I am reading Hayes book and he loves boxing, the history and as @Fenster pointed out fought for free as a successful amateur. I do think however that Haye does not see himself as a heavyweight which is why is he not as active in the division as he was at cruiser weight. If he was a confident heavyweight he would have taken on Price, Fury and Adamek with ease.
I think he is vulnerable to a big punch so does not want to risk fighting and getting caught with a lucky punch. So instead he raises his profile through other routes outside of boxing with occasional selected fights to get to even bigger fights. In that sense Haye is “only in it for the money”.
Re: "He's in it for the money"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
I am reading Hayes book and he loves boxing, the history and as @
Fenster pointed out fought for free as a successful amateur. I do think however that Haye does not see himself as a heavyweight which is why is he not as active in the division as he was at cruiser weight. If he was a confident heavyweight he would have taken on Price, Fury and Adamek with ease.
I think he is vulnerable to a big punch so does not want to risk fighting and getting caught with a lucky punch. So instead he raises his profile through other routes outside of boxing with occasional selected fights to get to even bigger fights. In that sense Haye is “only in it for the money”.
Then why doesn't he make himself the best cruiserweight ever? Why even think he had a chance vs Wladimir if he's "not sure of himself at heavyweight"?
Heavyweights DO make better money ;)
But then again all you posted adds up to Haye being a chickenshit so I guess I shouldn't argue. He's 6'3 230....solid heavyweight size even for today, but he's "not sure of himself"??? Fucking ridiculous
Re: "He's in it for the money"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
"He's in it for the money"
@
Vendettos
I have deep philosophical problems with that phrase my friend. When I say problems I mean my own. Bit of a love hate relationship after 40 years. It starts with the grey matter that rests in between Archie Moore making literally 50 bucks a fight and his massive pay day of 800 dollars for a title fight against Maxim finally after 160 fights and a man that makes 30 million a fight and only fights once every year or two.
That was a rather long sentence.
Moore had to toil in obscurity to get enough money in order to feed himself to pursue legacy. Same goes for the rest of the Murderers row. They had to fight each other over and over. So I suppose in that sense "he was in it for the money"
My issue deep down is how money has taken over legacy. I mean from a puritan standpoint, the twisted interpretation of another phrase namely "risk and reward" is geared to that end. They have it ass backward.
Do you honestly think those old-timers were pursuing legacy over money? They'd laugh their fucking nuts off today (or possibly cry) looking back at what they went through for virtual peanuts compared with modern fighters. And swap places in a heartbeat.
I suppose that would depend on when you asked them. I'm sure when Moore and the gang were fighting for 10 bucks prior to 50 they were not realistically thinking that they would be world champions in. I suppose there was also a time when basic survival and fighting for ones next meal evolved into something else. Moore was pushing 40 by some records and had fought over 160 times before he got a title shot and for that he was paid 800 bucks to Maxims 100 grand. Something pushed him and it certainly was not the money.
I agree they would laugh hysterically at the state of boxing and its Kazillion titles.
Re: "He's in it for the money"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
"He's in it for the money"
@
Vendettos
I have deep philosophical problems with that phrase my friend. When I say problems I mean my own. Bit of a love hate relationship after 40 years. It starts with the grey matter that rests in between Archie Moore making literally 50 bucks a fight and his massive pay day of 800 dollars for a title fight against Maxim finally after 160 fights and a man that makes 30 million a fight and only fights once every year or two.
That was a rather long sentence.
Moore had to toil in obscurity to get enough money in order to feed himself to pursue legacy. Same goes for the rest of the Murderers row. They had to fight each other over and over. So I suppose in that sense "he was in it for the money"
My issue deep down is how money has taken over legacy. I mean from a puritan standpoint, the twisted interpretation of another phrase namely "risk and reward" is geared to that end. They have it ass backward.
Do you honestly think those old-timers were pursuing legacy over money? They'd laugh their fucking nuts off today (or possibly cry) looking back at what they went through for virtual peanuts compared with modern fighters. And swap places in a heartbeat.
I suppose that would depend on when you asked them. I'm sure when Moore and the gang were fighting for 10 bucks prior to 50 they were not realistically thinking that they would be world champions in. I suppose there was also a time when basic survival and fighting for ones next meal evolved into something else. Moore was pushing 40 by some records and had fought over 160 times before he got a title shot and for that
he was paid 800 bucks to Maxims 100 grand. Something pushed him and it certainly was not the money.
I agree they would laugh hysterically at the state of boxing and its Kazillion titles.
Imagine a manager/agent/adviser that cuts you a deal like that these days? That is some sick shit.
As heroic or naive/mental, depending on your view, as Archie was he sure must have loved fighting.
Re: "He's in it for the money"
It's called prizefighting when you are a pro you try to get as much as you can for the effort you put forth. Whatever attracted one into a position that dictates that they are putting theirs safety in danger starts as a fascination that becomes a job, a task by task effort or love to display your skill in a world of diversified challenges, the gentleman's art if self defense when someone bets or pays to watch is known as prize fighting. The better one is or aspires to being ups the stakes, it is only human and then there are the fans who pay to keep things going.
Re: "He's in it for the money"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bradlee180
Professional prizefighting is mostly about fighting for money, but that's not the whole story: the competitive nature certainly plays a part as dos the drive for personal fame, to be somebody.
Some of these guys really want to prove they're the best, or can at least compete with the best.
Take mixed martial arts: most ufc guys, even the champions, are fighting for peanuts compared to the lion's share of the ppv dollars that goes to dana white and the fertittas. For them, apparently, the money isn't the most important factor.
When a guy's only in it for the money, that's when fight's end up not being on the level, when guy's throw fights and take dives if the money's right, and some prizefighters with real Heart just don't have it in them to lay down for anybody at any price...
UFC guys make peanuts compared to Dana White because he is the only promoter that exists for them. If every boxer had to sign with Bob Arum or else find another career, they would make peanuts as well. Not to mention there aren't many other lucrative options for most fighters of any sort, these UFC guys are still fighting to earn as much as they possibly can, of course it's the most important factor unless they are bonafide mental as Fenster said.
Floyd Mayweather has been woefully inactive in recent years, he wasn't fighting any more than Haye was until recently, do you think he didn't love boxing coming up the ranks? Never mind whether he does now, fighters almost never get to a point where they have the luxury of being inactive and still making a living, unless they put in a lifetime of blood sweat and tears to do so. When you factor in the sentiments of most boxing fans, who the hell can blame them? If a guy takes on murderers every time out and fights for the crowd, he is still criticized for ducking someone or not doing this and that, and he'll probably wind up broke wearing diapers by his 50s to show for it.
