i dont understand why that isnt the staple for most big fights, a simple, fair concept... in most fights unless its de la hoya its unfair to say one fighter brings more to the table
its crazy how boxing which has been around for so long can get outplayed by UFC who is like 10 years old on the business aspect of the sport
The problem with arrangements like this is that it will make the duckers even worse. Imagine telling a guy who doesn't want to fight for like 80 percent that he is going to get paid bugger all if he loses, it would be crazy. What we really need is for the governing bodies to grow a pair and make the best fight the best!
yea thats true...
imagine someday we might have two warriors though fighting where winner takes all that would be classic
Hatton won't accept winner get 60-40. Because he'll be the loser in the fight.
honestly if you take a fight not expecting to win then you probably should not be taking the fight
i dont understand why that isnt the staple for most big fights, a simple, fair concept... in most fights unless its de la hoya its unfair to say one fighter brings more to the table
its crazy how boxing which has been around for so long can get outplayed by UFC who is like 10 years old on the business aspect of the sport
great post, this is how all fights should be made. make them fight and earn the $$$
I like the idea of a fight bein 40-40 wit the winner gettin the other 20. But given the difference in star power between so many fighters, no way it'd ever happen.
Because sometimes the loser still brings in the money.
I think it should have been 50(Pac)-40(Hatton)-10, the winner getting the last 10.
yea but the winner earns the extra money by winning
how about they just both find someone else to fight.
At this point if I ever even hear the name Pacquiao again it will be too soon.
Shame that a great fighter has pissed me off so much that i don't ever want to see him in the ring again.