"He's in it for the money"

[IamInuit]

"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.

[Vendettos]

"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.

[IamInuit]

"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

[Fenster]

"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.

[Onetime]

"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.

Honestly I don't think boxing is a money grab, this isn't basketball or other sports where guys are making huge paychecks by 22 if they are talented, I've seen Texas fighters go from gyms were they weren't making 2,000 to top 10 rankings and it took years, most boxers don't get huge paydays it's 1 percent at the most.

[IamInuit]

"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.

[Fenster]

"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.

[johnsebastianmiran]

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.