Has this ever happened?

[levi#1BoxingFan]

Im not sure if this has ever happened or if its even legal (im not the all knowing of boxing), but why don't big time fights ever go 100/0 or winner takes it all? It may sound ridicoulous but think of the hype that it could create! It would make both fighters fight to the finish creating much more exciting bouts! I know it would never happen but what if Mayweather and Pacquiao did this? You have two of the most confident fighters who both say they will win, so why doesnt anyone put their money where their mouth is and play the game of winner takes it all! Like I said I dont even know if this is legal, but if it isn't, why not?

[Kel]

From a business perspective too many people lose out, not just the fighter but everyone he is involved with be it his promoter, team, trainer.......In an ideal world yes, they would fight much harder and it would be interesting to see just how hard Floyd/Pac would fight for a 100% share lol.

Probably be a fucking crazy fight

[levi#1BoxingFan]

By the way I've learned to accept negative reputation as you can see, so by all means go for it! And I guess the point I was making was when you make millions upon millions like the fighters and the promoters and all do then wouldn't it be worth the risk for one fight?

[Kel]

By the way I've learned to accept negative reputation as you can see, so by all means go for it! And I guess the point I was making was when you make millions upon millions like the fighters and the promoters and all do then wouldn't it be worth the risk for one fight?

I sorted you some pos rep to counter it.

If they could come up with a deal where whatever is left for the fighters goes to the winner of the two, I seriously think it would make for some really competitive fights at the highest level with fighters willing to commit much more to cement a win rather than coast or nick (steal) rounds.

I just could not see many agreeing to it due to all the time spent in camp training your arse off away from your family and all.

[iwng100]

Im not sure if this has ever happened or if its even legal (im not the all knowing of boxing), but why don't big time fights ever go 100/0 or winner takes it all? It may sound ridicoulous but think of the hype that it could create! It would make both fighters fight to the finish creating much more exciting bouts! I know it would never happen but what if Mayweather and Pacquiao did this? You have two of the most confident fighters who both say they will win, so why doesnt anyone put their money where their mouth is and play the game of winner takes it all! Like I said I dont even know if this is legal, but if it isn't, why not?

100/0 is just not possible but I like 60% for the winner idea.
BTW I don't speak about one particular fight but for every boxing match.

[gudnite vienna]

60/40 for the winner sounds good to me. dont see why alot of major fights cant go down this route..

[Spicoli]

Recently I remember a winner takes all in the first Glen Johnson vs.Daniel Judah fight years ago in 03'....think it was for a total of a tiny 10 k and both agreed that after splits and payouts it was a shite take...so they went all or nothing.Crazy thing is it ended in a terrible 'Draw 10' call and dont have any idea how they split it

In February of this year Johnson and Judah had a needed rematch.Johnson proceeded knock Judah down in the 1st round and whip Judahs azz over 10 rounds and won it walking away....this time being payed decent for doing it.

Pretty certain it was fairly common in the early parts of the century but does not seem practical today.Far to many hands in the till these days and politicos,handlers,corners and hangers on want certainty.I think that if more than a few fighters had their way it would be somewhat common.Would be pretty refreshing actually.No way can I see in happening for the major players though,more so at the c and b levels where guys are just trying to pay the rent and keep the family fed.

[OumaFan]

Its not going to happen on any kind of regular basis and most likely not at all cause well its a horrible idea.

This is a business. Nobody's gonna want to spend 8 weeks in training camp or whatever and have the possibility of not getting anything. Of course most fighters aren't going to admit to being scared of losing but even so would you want to leave your paycheck in the hands of three maybe competent judges? No. Hence, bad idea.

Edit-see Spicoli's post about the Johnson-Judah fight where Johnson got screwed out of a win by some horrible judging as a perfect example of why this is such a bad idea.

[Nameless]

Because it could be disastrous for the life of many boxers who are obtaining average purses among other things, imagine, you bust your ass for 3 months of your life and you can't bring bread on the table for your family. Imagine how a very good boxer but unfortunate enough to get 2 loses back to back and nothing to feed his family. Boxing is already a demanding and hard dedication work, if you make it possible to have nothing in return of a hard work, you're just killing the sport and the drift to it.
To give you an example, It's like if you work in, let's say, a cardboard factory. It is shit because it is a factory job but it pays quite good per hour. One day the manager of the shop inform you of a new rules: The team that produces more because they work harder earns the pay of both team (night and day shift) and the others nothing. Would you want to work a full week, busting your ass to earn nothing in return? It would be a bit cruel and insane, especially because you worked really hard for that. NOt being the best man on a day doesn,t mean you do not deserve some kuddos for the work ethics.

[The_Infinite]

If I were a boxer, I wouldn't agree to a 100/0 split favoring the winner. Anything could happen in the ring no matter how confident you are. Losers also deserve a fair share of the pie. After all there are no winners if there are no losers. Does that make sense?

[Dark Lord Al]

Im not sure if this has ever happened or if its even legal (im not the all knowing of boxing), but why don't big time fights ever go 100/0 or winner takes it all? It may sound ridicoulous but think of the hype that it could create! It would make both fighters fight to the finish creating much more exciting bouts! I know it would never happen but what if Mayweather and Pacquiao did this? You have two of the most confident fighters who both say they will win, so why doesnt anyone put their money where their mouth is and play the game of winner takes it all! Like I said I dont even know if this is legal, but if it isn't, why not?

Would you work for nothing , would be my question ?

[robinswe01]

Why don't they have a system of 60/40 for the winner, 70/30 if its a knock out. Why does it have to be arranged before the fight. Every other sport gives the winner more money, why should boxing be different?

[Master]

I know Tyson fought Frazier for nothing which is why he made easy work of him.

[levi#1BoxingFan]

Im not sure if this has ever happened or if its even legal (im not the all knowing of boxing), but why don't big time fights ever go 100/0 or winner takes it all? It may sound ridicoulous but think of the hype that it could create! It would make both fighters fight to the finish creating much more exciting bouts! I know it would never happen but what if Mayweather and Pacquiao did this? You have two of the most confident fighters who both say they will win, so why doesnt anyone put their money where their mouth is and play the game of winner takes it all! Like I said I dont even know if this is legal, but if it isn't, why not?

Would you work for nothing , would be my question ?

I'm mainly talking about the Vegas main eventers, the ones who already make millions a fight. (Mayweather, Pacquiao, cotto, B-hop....ect). To me thats the whole point, its high risk but high reward. Heck they're in vegas, why not act like it! Besides its not like their lives are ruined if they dont get paid for one fight, "I'm sorry jr., but your puppy can't have that rolex like I promised....Im sorry but daddy didn't get paid, but you can still have yours!"

[ElTerribleMorales]

Im not sure if this has ever happened or if its even legal (im not the all knowing of boxing), but why don't big time fights ever go 100/0 or winner takes it all? It may sound ridicoulous but think of the hype that it could create! It would make both fighters fight to the finish creating much more exciting bouts! I know it would never happen but what if Mayweather and Pacquiao did this? You have two of the most confident fighters who both say they will win, so why doesnt anyone put their money where their mouth is and play the game of winner takes it all! Like I said I dont even know if this is legal, but if it isn't, why not?

Would you work for nothing , would be my question ?

I'm mainly talking about the Vegas main eventers, the ones who already make millions a fight. (Mayweather, Pacquiao, cotto, B-hop....ect). To me thats the whole point, its high risk but high reward. Heck they're in vegas, why not act like it! Besides its not like their lives are ruined if they dont get paid for one fight, "I'm sorry jr., but your puppy can't have that rolex like I promised....Im sorry but daddy didn't get paid, but you can still have yours!"

but the people that work for them don't have that luxury, don't think that most cornermen are making millions, cause it isn't the case buddy, all that comes from their fighters purse, so that's why 100/0 winner takes all fights don't make sense and shouldn't be made