"He's in it for the money"

[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