
Originally Posted by
Dizaster
I was just reading the Cotto/Martinez thread regarding talks being off now because Arum couldn't make as much money as he wanted out of the fight...
Whether that is correct or not is not really my point.... Really, so much stuff at the top of boxing right now is all determined by money..
I'm not really that old, and didn't follow boxing the day I was born, so I don't have much experience of boxing in the 80's, 70's, 60's, 50's, aside from the classics that I have watched.... So some of you guys who know a lot more about those era's of boxing may be a little better equipped to judge this situation that I was wondering about..
Do you think this is probably the worst time for boxing in regards to fights only being made if the money is right? Or has that really been going on in boxing for as long as Prize Fighting has been around

or was it as relevant right through as it is now

I actually reckon it's better now than in the best as regarding the best fighting each other.
Barring a few much hyped rivalries, the Ali, Foreman, Frazier and Leonard, Duran, Hagler, Hearns eras top fighters getting into the ring has always been difficult to accomplish.
I actually the last two or three years has been very good in terms of the best fights being made. Aside from Floyd against Manny and Haye against a Klitschko nobody has really been avoiding each other.
Certainly it's better than 15, 20 years ago I think. Look at the careers of guys like Eubank and Nigel Benn, or Cazlaghe in his prime. Very rarely were there any big transatlantic fights. I think that seems to be changing now. Even in Australia Danny Green has branched out and fought some foreign competition.
I don't remember it happening as much a decade or more ago.
I think one of the upsides to the UFC bursting onto the scene is that fight cards have improved in the last 3 or 4 years, in my opinion at least.
Bookmarks