A side and B side - your definition

[IamInuit]

I hate the term since Floyd come up with it but it exists.

Floyd A side to Khan B side
Khan A side to Brooks B side

A side fighters command more money, status, political power and rights because they have earned it.

I like that definition because I cant stand the phrase either and the implications. Now you got guys crying about who's name is first in the promos. Picking the opponents gloves, catchweights, ring size who the ref is and most likely a say on the judges. Muddies the A-side.

[Ron Swanson]

I hate the term since Floyd come up with it but it exists.

Floyd A side to Khan B side
Khan A side to Brooks B side

A side fighters command more money, status, political power and rights because they have earned it.

I like that definition because I cant stand the phrase either and the implications. Now you got guys crying about who's name is first in the promos. Picking the opponents gloves, catchweights, ring size who the ref is and most likely a say on the judges. Muddies the A-side.

I know there times before where fighters made some choices but when I think of this I think of how Leonard bent over Hagler. Is there a previous case? I know fighters have given up percentages of all future earnings and various other crazy demands. But Leonard was the first I know of to pick and choose all things that would effect the outcome.(from ring since to number of rounds)Am I wrong on this?

[IamInuit]

I hate the term since Floyd come up with it but it exists.

Floyd A side to Khan B side
Khan A side to Brooks B side

A side fighters command more money, status, political power and rights because they have earned it.

I like that definition because I cant stand the phrase either and the implications. Now you got guys crying about who's name is first in the promos. Picking the opponents gloves, catchweights, ring size who the ref is and most likely a say on the judges. Muddies the A-side.

I know there times before where fighters made some choices but when I think of this I think of how Leonard bent over Hagler. Is there a previous case? I know fighters have given up percentages of all future earnings and various other crazy demands. But Leonard was the first I know of to pick and choose all things that would effect the outcome.(from ring since to number of rounds)Am I wrong on this?

Spot on and gloves also but here is the thing. People will say well Hagler didn't have to take it or the cheque but that misses the point. Thee "A-side" looks more like the B-side by trying to tilt the fight in their favour instead of just beating the B-side. Leonard probably could have had Hagler remove a limb.
Had that fight been 15, there is little doubt in my mind who would have won. I've never been able to score that fight for Leonard as it is.

Leonard is a great example because the Lalonde travesty also fits. Those kinds of things should never be expected and accepted just because one fighter draws more or is viewed as better. If you are really the A fighter then you dont need that shit.