Boxers should only get paid when they win or something

I think this opens the door to corruption (as if there wasn't enough already).

In my view it really sucks when a great boxer shows up in horrible shape, or when a boxer is just not willing to try to win. Should they get only paid when they win? Bonus for strong opposition and exciting performances (knockdowns, great offense). What do you think? :) i think they should just fight to the death. and only the winner gets to leave with his life. unless he is boring like winky or hopkins. because they arent really people are they. :rolleyes: this thread is stupid, of course both fighters should get paid.

Wow, you guys think this is just one big commision or entity that controls the money and says wow, I enjoyed that fight here's an extra 2 million. No, fighters dont get what there worth they get what they can negotiate and by what they can draw. If a boxer like Gatti can draw huge crowd and get a good amount of PPV sales then he will negotiate for a higher amount that someone like a Winky Wright who is considered better P4P but cant draw that crowd or generate those PPV sales. There is no common pot for fighter to take from one and give to the other. The most practical thing would be a 60-40 split of the purse with the purse size being negotiated before hand by both parties with the promoters. Also in Pride Fighting if a fighter gets continuous warnings for stalling or non-action 10% of his purse can be withheld win or lose. I like this idea also since it promotes action and could possibly be overal better for the sport. The penalized amounts could be put into a retirement found for old boxers who have hit hard times.

I think it all comes down to the fans, if they stop watching fights where fighters come to lose or boring fights and not buy the ppv's, the promoters will get the message.

I don't think fighters should get payed less for losing. I think they should get paid more for fighting stiffer opposition however, and paydays should be decreased when fighting guys who aren't a threat. Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

Don't know what I was thinking. :( :confused: Sorry. But I hate it when boxers come to lose, you know. i definitly know what your saying, but theres a better system out there

Well I see where you are going with this but I think better systems would probably be: 70% to winnner, 30% to loser Or maybe KO bonuses. But not paying a boxer completely will eliminate journey man and probably more than 70% of boxers out there would find other jobs. Very good post, thanks for the input. :)

One thing i'd like to see is 15 round fights when a rematch is taken place.

thats a pretty bad idea. hearns shouldnt get paid for hagler hearns? ward shouldnt get paid for the second and third gatti fights? zoo shouldnt get paid for the hatton fight? doesnt make sense, man Don't know what I was thinking. :( :confused: Sorry. But I hate it when boxers come to lose, you know.

Well I see where you are going with this but I think better systems would probably be: 70% to winnner, 30% to loser Or maybe KO bonuses. But not paying a boxer completely will eliminate journey man and probably more than 70% of boxers out there would find other jobs.

In my view it really sucks when a great boxer shows up in horrible shape, or when a boxer is just not willing to try to win. Should they get only paid when they win? Bonus for strong opposition and exciting performances (knockdowns, great offense). What do you think? :) thats a pretty bad idea. hearns shouldnt get paid for hagler hearns? ward shouldnt get paid for the second and third gatti fights? zoo shouldnt get paid for the hatton fight? doesnt make sense, man

I think the winner should get the larger portion of the purse there should be no guarantees thats all.

It's how they make their living so no, not only if they win or show up in shape. They pay in the long run for those things when they become no longer marketable. It all evens out in the end...the rear end