Would this produce more action in fights?

[Snakey]

What if boxers were only guarenteed a certain amount of money for a fight and the winner would get extra. So basically the winner earns more then the loser and they are both guarenteed the same amount just for showing up. Do you think this would make fights more interesting and do you think it would motivate guys who just turn up and only show an interest to survive the fight to actually have a go?

[Galaxy]

What if boxers were only guarenteed a certain amount of money for a fight and the winner would get extra. So basically the winner earns more then the loser and they are both guarenteed the same amount just for showing up. Do you think this would make fights more interesting and do you think it would motivate guys who just turn up and only show an interest to survive the fight to actually have a go?

I was actually thinking about this today, something like Hopkins/ Jones 2 has got with the KO thing.

Winner should get 55%, loser get 45%. If the winner wins by KO then its 60%.

I think it would be good for the game!

[HattonTheHammer]

not particularly

the extra incentive to win would just be cancelled out by you losing an extra 5-10% if you were knocked out.

Lets say for instance this was used when floyd and hatton fought. Instead of ricky coming out in the 10th and trying his upmost to knock his man out knowing it was his only chance of victory he might of just decided that it wasnt worth losing the extra money for and completely going into his shell for 3rounds!!

[Snakey]

not particularly

the extra incentive to win would just be cancelled out by you losing an extra 5-10% if you were knocked out.

Lets say for instance this was used when floyd and hatton fought. Instead of ricky coming out in the 10th and trying his upmost to knock his man out knowing it was his only chance of victory he might of just decided that it wasnt worth losing the extra money for and completely going into his shell for 3rounds!!

No no no, youve got my idea wrong. They dont lose money, they have to win to gain money. They are only guarenteed say for example 100 000 to turn up and fight, if they win they get 250 000 total so an extra 150 000 for winning. This would make them want to win so they can get the extra money, otherwise they are stuck with the 100 000.

[Fenster]

Without doubt it would make more exciting fights.

Imagine winner takes all matches. It would be awesome.

[Spicoli]

Winner take all....save for cab fare back to the hotel.Fewer TV dates for defeated,less cushy network contracts.

[killersheep]

I know Jones has pushed for this in negotiations before, I think it's a great idea. Another thing that I really like in that MMA does is offer a "fight of the night bonus". I think if the "Fight of the Night" bonus went to both the winner and loser of the most exciting fight, you could possibly have fewer skating to the finish situations

[HattonTheHammer]

Without doubt it would make more exciting fights.

Imagine winner takes all matches. It would be awesome.

never happen in a million years

at domestic level a fighters purse is his income and way of continuing in the sport. At world level theres too much at stake for the fighters entire team both training and promotional for anyone to ever agree to a winner takes all contest.

I like the idea i really do, just isnt viable is it?

[Snakey]

I know Jones has pushed for this in negotiations before, I think it's a great idea. Another thing that I really like in that MMA does is offer a "fight of the night bonus". I think if the "Fight of the Night" bonus went to both the winner and loser of the most exciting fight, you could possibly have fewer skating to the finish situations

I originally started thinking about this when I heard about the UFC bonuses. I think they have the same policy where the winner gets extra. I guess it wouldnt even matter if they were on equal money or not, they could have that the winner gets 50% extra or something which would be enough to make anyone want to try their ass off to win instead of coasting.

[awdleyfuturehalloffamer]

don't forget about the corrupt judging if ever a fight went to decision.

[Andre]

Winner takes all could be very viable in any fight, if the fighters themselves make a side bet against each others purses and sign their own legal document with two witnesses.

Do that out in front of the cameras and everyone is into it there would be no backing out either.

I cant make out fighters who mouth off to everyone about this and that and how they want extra cause they reckon they are the better fighter and the better draw card; yet they wont back their own words and put their own purse up to the fighter they are bagging on.

[Dizaster]

I would love that and absolutely think it would add more action..

1. Winner takes a bigger purse... Say Mayweather vs Marquez was 60/40 split, Marquez win would make it 60/40 the other way.. Or Mayweather win would make it 70/30... OR, just have a set bonus that goes to the winner.

2. Additionally, a bonus for winning by knockout or TKO... I think this one would add huge excitement to boxing.. The only downside I would see is if someone was dominating a fight, think Winky vs Tito, Winky might fight a perfect fight, then in the last round or two just go for the KO, mixing up his winning recipe, and get himself KO'd by a lucky Tito punch..... That sort of thing would be a shame to see, purely for money's sake...
But I mean, there is nothing wrong with anyone who is dominating a fight trying to go for the knock out...

But seriously, I don't see why there isn't room for some sort of extra incentive for getting a favourable result in a fight..

[JonesJrMayweather]

I think its a great idea, but if it were the case we would never see the big fights made. The egos are way too large for it.

Look at hatton-pacman blasted in two rounds, nobody associated with boxing could have predicted that. That's what scares them the same with rematch clauses by champs. They all want a little insurance because deep down they know on any night they could be on the wrong side of of classics such as lewis-rahman, jones-tarver II, douglass-tyson, or the oldies turning back the clock like HOP-pavlik, foreman-moorer.

Floyd already cries about splitting 50/50 with pacman, imagine if he stood to lose not only his "0" in the loss column, but his coveted money as well. There would be even more posturing and avoiding each other. You would think that the so called best would come out of the woods for the opportunity to take all of the money seeing as how they each claim to be the best. But i think winner take all is too much and would like to see each fighter go home with enough money to survive as they did show up for the job and competed.

[Dizaster]

Yeah that would be one thing that would frustrate me about extra rewards for winners, as certain fighters like Floyd could run their way to a victory and the extra spoilts while doing very little to improve the excitement of boxing, while other fighters/fights will go a gruelling 12 rounds of hell with both fighters leaving blood sweat and tears in the ring, and one have to leave a chunk of his pay packet in there as well...

You would never want to take money away from a fighter who loses as gloriously as many fighters have in the past... But on the flip side, there are many fighters out there who would leave more in the ring if they had the extra incentive...


Hmm, I just realised this thread relates to my other thread...

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...own-money.html