Shear "Bullshit", dam Pac fans cry because the 2nd JMM fight did not materialize so soon because JMM wanted a larger percentage. No difference here except Pac just turned down an even larger load of money, (well, he gets to remain at 135) Same argument, ODLH is the vehicle behind the money as Pac was vs JMM ...
There is no $$$ @ 135 and I personally do not see a Hatton fight selling well in the USA. He will have to return to !30 to get decent purses vs Valero, Soto and Guzman.combined = a 30% cut vs ODLH.
Now we will see if he suffers JMM's same fate and loses against a lesser opponent.
Last edited by Addicted to_boxing; 08-15-2008 at 06:01 AM.
After PAC dumped Hoya the second time around we will see what Hoya will do... Maybe Hoya will cry "Waaa, this is getting too personal" ...
.
30% is good for PBF since he was the challenger and Oscar was the champ at that time. Since then Oscar is on a steady decline. Oscar got beaten by PBF and marked heavily by Forbes in a sleeper fight plus Oscar got no more belt.
On the other hand PAC on steady rise, belt at 130, most exciting boxer, belt at 135, no. 1 P4P best boxer, etc. So IMO seriously PAC deserves 35 to 40 percent of the purse... Get it?
Last edited by XaduBoxer; 08-15-2008 at 07:10 AM.
Every fight Oscar is in gets flack from us hardcores it seems, I even hated the idea of PBF-Mayweather at first, yet it's not us who makes the PPV buys.
This is a joke, if Mayweather got a 70/30 split, then what makes anyone believe Manny should get anymore then that? In the mainstream press, the ESPN crowd, Mayweather has more of a name then Pacquiao anyways.
The belt had absolutely zero importance in that fight. That fight was about having the biggest star in the sport against the #1 PFP fighter in the world. The belt at 154 was meaningless. Most belts are meaningless. Oscar didn't get 70% against Floyd because he was a beltholder. He got 70% because he was the draw. That's why Oscar feels he deserves 70% against Pacquiao as well, because he would be the draw, not Manny.
If you're saying "nobody would buy that" about a fight involving Oscar De La Hoya, then I question how much attention you've been paying to PPV totals over the last 15 years or so. Oscar is the biggest non-heavyweight PPV draw in the history of boxing. He could fight Danny G and do more PPV buys than Pacquiao could against Marquez.
I also considered belts meaningless but mind you, belts has some bearing in purse negotiations...
You conveniently omitted these factors. Can you give opposing thoughts on this?
"Since then Oscar is on a steady decline. Oscar got beaten by PBF and marked heavily by Forbes in a sleeper fight.
On the other hand PAC on steady rise, belt at 130, most exciting boxer, belt at 135, no. 1 P4P best boxer, etc. So IMO seriously PAC deserves 35 to 40 percent of the purse... "
Oscar is the draw, it's a fact and giving 60% or 65% to Oscar is a clear indication that he's the draw otherwise Oscar gets 50% or less...
.
Last edited by XaduBoxer; 08-16-2008 at 04:23 AM.
Losing to Floyd didn't indicate that Oscar was on a steady decline. In fact, I think most people thought Floyd would win in more convincing fashion than he actually did. Oscar was very competitive in that fight, more competitive than most experts thought he would be."Since then Oscar is on a steady decline. Oscar got beaten by PBF and marked heavily by Forbes in a sleeper fight.
More importantly, Oscar's popularity (which is what effects purse splits) is not in decline. Oscar-Floyd broke all records, and then Oscar sold out a soccer stadium against a no-name in Forbes. And because this is being billed as Oscar's last fight, he will draw a huge audience again.
And how does this make Pacquiao any different than Floyd at the time of the Oscar fight last year? Floyd had risen thru 4 weight classes and was considered the #1 PFP fighter in the world. You label Pacquiao as the "most exciting boxer," yet that exciting style has not translated into PPV buys, because there are other factors that effect marketability besides a fighter's exciting style.On the other hand PAC on steady rise, belt at 130, most exciting boxer, belt at 135, no. 1 P4P best boxer, etc. So IMO seriously PAC deserves 35 to 40 percent of the purse... "
For example, a fighter like Floyd gets labeled as "boring", especially compared to someone like Pacquiao, but Floyd is still more marketable than Manny in a megafight because Floyd can do a much better job of promoting the fight to a US audience.
But Oscar isn't just 60 or 65% of the draw, he's more than that. Look at the history of what Oscar has done in terms of PPV buys, and look at Pacquiao's history. Those numbers will show you that in an Oscar-Pacquiao fight, Oscar would be responsible for at least 70% of the people paying $50 to order the fight on PPV.Oscar is the draw, it's a fact and giving 60% or 65% to Oscar is a clear indication that he's the draw otherwise Oscar gets 50% or less...
Why subjective when it's all facts:
- Hoya got beat by PBF
- Hoya marked by Forbes in a sleeper fight
- PAC got a 130 belt
- PAC considered as one of the most exciting boxers around
- PAC got a 135 belt
- PAC considered as no.1 P4P best boxer
Hoya is on the decline while PAC still on the rise. It's all fact.
.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks