why dont we see any fighters with 100 plus wins anymore...

[Azteca]

that's a very good point. i also think because boxing isn't on regular tv anymore, it is suffering.

what i see today - we have made for tv fighters (delahoya), and tv fighters (gatti) but the bouts in which they participate in are not competitive. ask yourself how many times on espn you have seen a good prospect matched up with a tomato can. there is simply bad matchmaking because of the mythical 'undefeated record' which fighters have to keep.

[ROSEWOOD]

that's a very good point. i also think because boxing isn't on regular tv anymore, it is suffering.

what i see today - we have made for tv fighters (delahoya), and tv fighters (gatti) but the bouts in which they participate in are not competitive. ask yourself how many times on espn you have seen a good prospect matched up with a tomato can. there is simply bad matchmaking because of the mythical 'undefeated record' which fighters have to keep.

damn..now i agree with you on that playa..like kfootball said, a commisioner would do the sport some justice...

[IwatchBoxing]

Because you cant have 106 pay per view fights, and today a single loss means you are a bum. Skill means nothing , its only how many people like you, are you good enough to be ranked, or if you lose to this guy your finished. Too much money involed, everyone wants to make money, and get out. Its either fight 60 non televised fights, or fight 20 fights on TV and get money.

[ferocity]

damn..now i agree with you on that playa..like kfootball said, a commisioner would do the sport some justice...

i think boxing is way to big even to have a commisioner, how they even get a fighter ranked is genious

[neils7147933]

Yeah - people lose track of the fact that boxers who are good enough to be considered world-class don't all come to the same country to fight for the same promoters. Boxing is far too big to be regulated like that - why do people think setting boxing up like they do team sports is the answer to corruption? All it does it change who gets to do the corrupting - the promoters have less ability, the "big 4" have less ability, but the new commissioner/single governing body, etc. will simply take over.

People don't amass 100 wins anymore because someone good enough to win a ton of fights doesn't need that many fights to retire with a big stack of money. There are people who end up with over 100 fights - but they're guys driving around and getting beat up every 3 or 4 weeks on an undercard - Reggie Strickland's there, Marteze Logan appears to be heading in that direction - but one would have to make it a point to hit 100 wins - and unless they were so far above the other fighters in their divisions so that they were always fighting good competition - the only way it is likely to be done is someone padding their record intentionally through scheduling for the sake of hitting triple-digits.

[Saint 3:16]

Does anyone know how the UFC PPVs perform in terms of buy rates as opposed to the average of boxing PPVs?

UFC has surpassed the WWE in pay-per-view buys already.

UFC 59(with the return of Tito Ortiz) had 400,000+ buys. The past UFC events have been averaging similiar figures also(UFC 58 had 300k, UFC 57 had 400+K also). UFC 60(Gracie vs Hughes) will probably surpass that.

Still not nearly as much as boxing. DeLahoya-Mayorgo had almost 900,000 buys.

Anybody know how many pvv buys Pacquaio-Morales 2 had?

[jason100x]

That's funny. You answered the question just as I was making a thread for that very topic. Thanks.

[Mishra100]

Does anyone believe that people stay in amatuers a LOT longer than they did before? I'm not really sure if the boxers in the past had a lot of amatuer fights so this is why this is more of a question. Kind of like Thomas Damgaard having over 200 amatuer bouts.