Boxing all bout money!!!!

Before boxing used to be a sport were the best of the best used to face each other no matter the wage every one wanted to prove themselves and the recognition of being the very best now every thing is bout money.The other day Floyd was saying that why fight mosley or Cotto if he can make more money fighting pacman.So another thing hes fighting jmm and seriously can he get more money fighting jmm than fighting mosley or Cotto????so lets say if he gets pacman and beats him then what????is there another big money fight for floyd besides the two top WW????i dnt think so, so there for its all about money nowadays an the prestige of boxing went out the windows and its very sad we cant get the fights us hardcore boxing fans want to see! there is some truth to it... but HBO could tell floyd that they'll pay floyd more to fight mosley and cotto. problem solved.

Boxing has always been about money. SRR, the greatest boxer in history, hated boxing and readily admitted he only fought for cash.

Here's another example of the "purity" of boxing in the "good old days". http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,892677,00.html Mr. Carbo & His Pals Monday, Jun. 15, 1959 In the heyday of the International Boxing Club's strangle hold on U.S. boxing, Millionaire Sportsman James Dougan Norris ran the show in public, and a slim, grey-haired man named Paul John ("Frankie") Carbo ran a lot of it in private. Breaking up the Norris monopoly was relatively easy for the Justice Department. The underworld dominance of Frankie Carbo was something else again. Few figures in the fight game admitted knowing Carbo or dealing with him in any way. But last July the man known as "Mr. Grey" was finally indicted by a New York grand jury for illegal matchmaking and managing fighters under the table. Carbo promptly disappeared, was caught only three weeks ago as he fled from police at his New Jersey hideout. Frankie was the picture of innocence, said he ran because "I thought it was a rubout." As police searched for Carbo last month, a Los Angeles fight promoter named Jackie Leonard went before the California Athletic Commission, put the finger squarely on Mr. Grey and his managerial sidekick, a Philadelphia hoodlum named Frank ("Blinky") Palermo. Leonard had promoted most of the key fights of Welterweight Champion Don Jordan. He told a shady story. Last year, when Jordan was still only a challenger, Leonard got a phone call from Blinky Palermo. Blinky demanded that "we" be cut in for a piece of Jordan as a condition for getting a title fight with Virgil Akins. Leonard, together with Jordan's manager. Don Nesseth, pretended to agree. After the fight Leonard ignored Blinky Palermo's attempts to collect a share of the money. Soon he got a summons to Miami. He flew down, was brought into the presence of Frankie Carbo at a waterfront motel. Carbo "advised" he comply. Leonard continued to stall and the talk got uglier. Blinky visited Leonard in Los Angeles, accompanied by a couple of tough-looking hoodlums with police records who lingered ominously in the background. Leonard got threatening phone calls ("It'll be with a pipe wrapped in a paper sack. You'll never know what hit you"). He testified that Carbo called too. said "something to the effect that 'You're going to get hurt. We're going to make an example of you.' " After the hearing, police were assigned to guard Leonard whenever he left home. One night last week Leonard went out to get a newspaper at the corner, not bothering to call the cops. It was a mistake. He returned, found the garage light out, started to pull the garage door down, got slugged. He fell, was kicked as he lay on the ground. Leonard wound up in the hospital in serious condition. It looked very much as though Carbo, even under arrest, still had pals willing to do him a favor. Here's some more. http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1072109/index.htm Particularly revealing was Carbo's role in the Orlando Zulueta-Joe Brown lightweight title fight several years back. Hymie managed Zulueta, and he asked Lou Viscusi, Brown's manager, if he would agree to a fight. Viscusi said he would if he could get a promoter "with plenty of money." Wallman sought out Joe Dupler, a Denver promoter, who said he would take the match. Wallman then consulted Carbo. Carbo told him: "The furrier wants the fight; I want $5,000 for the fight." Dupler instructed Wallman to withdraw $5,000 from a New York account of Dupler's and give it to Tex Pelte, the bagman. Carbo subsequently told Wallman that Pelte had given him the $5,000. Before the fight, Carbo told Wallman: "I never bothered you until now but if the kid wins the championship... Lou Viscusi gets a piece of the fighter." There was also sworn testimony, included as an exhibit, that Wallman informed Carbo, for betting purposes, whenever Wallman "had a judge or referee who would favor your fighter...."

Maybe that's why he became good friends with Jake LaMotta. I read some of his autobiography and the movie makes him look like a saint compared to some of the stuff LaMotta talked about in the book. Bright Lights Dark Shadows was one of the best boxing documentaries I've seen. Others like When We Were Kings were good, but I've always felt that documentary, like others, downplayed Ali's good work on the ropes even before Foreman tired. That Joe Louis Betrayed on HBO one was nothing new, I'd pretty much heard all of that on the ESPN Sportscentury doc on Louis. The Thrilla in Manila provided a few new details, but not much else I hadn't read or watched before. The Ray Robinson one had a lot more that was new info to me, and provided some insight and details about how troubled he really was. I also liked that doc on Sonny Liston, the Mysterious Life and Death of a Champion. Yea, I watched When we were Kings for a film class in school, so I had to break that documentery down. I liked the Bright Lights Dark Shadows as well, I have just forgotten a lot of it. It came out when i was at school where I didn't have HBO, I caught it when I went home, but once I got back to the real world again HBO was not showing it as much. I have been looking for it since, but have not seen it on HBO in years. The Liston HBO documentery was really good also.

Yea it is, it was always curious to me that people consider him St. Sugar Ray full of virtue and honor. I haven't watched the documentery in years though. Maybe that's why he became good friends with Jake LaMotta. I read some of his autobiography and the movie makes him look like a saint compared to some of the stuff LaMotta talked about in the book. Bright Lights Dark Shadows was one of the best boxing documentaries I've seen. Others like When We Were Kings were good, but I've always felt that documentary, like others, downplayed Ali's good work on the ropes even before Foreman tired. That Joe Louis Betrayed on HBO one was nothing new, I'd pretty much heard all of that on the ESPN Sportscentury doc on Louis. The Thrilla in Manila provided a few new details, but not much else I hadn't read or watched before. The Ray Robinson one had a lot more that was new info to me, and provided some insight and details about how troubled he really was. I also liked that doc on Sonny Liston, the Mysterious Life and Death of a Champion.

Yeah, his son tells of one story about it in that Bright Lights, Dark Shadows documentary. He looked up at Ray after Ray hit him and said "does that make you feel like the champ?" Real sick, his son blamed his mother's 4 miscarriages on Ray's abuse. Yea it is, it was always curious to me that people consider him St. Sugar Ray full of virtue and honor. I haven't watched the documentery in years though.

Child also correct? That is the one bad thing Floyd has done, but strangely enough no one ever brings that up. Yeah, his son tells of one story about it in that Bright Lights, Dark Shadows documentary. He looked up at Ray after Ray hit him and said "does that make you feel like the champ?" Real sick, his son blamed his mother's 4 miscarriages on Ray's abuse.

And a woman beater too. Child also correct? That is the one bad thing Floyd has done, but strangely enough no one ever brings that up.

Please stop with these "they always faced each other back in the days and didn't care about money" crap. Must people always talk about the past without having studied enough of the history and what went on? Please learn more about the past. NUMEROUS fighters did not get title shots, or took forever to get one, regardless of their quality as fighters, because there was not enough money and the risk was too large. Fighters always fought the best and didn't care about $$??? Like the way Jack Dempsey faced the top heavyweight contenders when he was champ? No, Tex Rickard said "no, no" when Dempsey finally agreed to fight Harry Wills, after being quoted (according to this issue of The Ring http://static.boxrec.com/wiki/4/47/RING.2003.Annual2.jpg) as saying he'd "pay no attention to colored fighters". Dempsey did enjoy "proving himself as the best" when he fought in well-paid exhibitions and making films in Hollywood while he sat on his title for 3 years. Like the way the champions gave the legendary Sam Langford to show they were the best? No. Not enough money in a black fighter like the "Boston Tar Baby". The way the heavyweight champions wanted to prove themselves as the best, not carrying about money, by giving title shots to the likes of Sam McVea and George Godfrey? The way Charley Burley, ranked by The Ring as the 39th greatest fighter since 1922, was given title shots by those who wanted to "prove they were the best and didn't care about money?". Fritzie Zivic BOUGHT OUT BURLEY'S CONTRACT and never fought Burley again, while Zivic was champ at welterweight. Burley moved up to middleweight to look for a title shot (no luck). Hell, even the consensus GOAT, Sugar Ray Robinson, priced himself out of a Burley fight. Did the light heavyweight champions in the 1940s care about proving themselves as the best by giving a shot to Ezzard Charles, a light-heavyweight so great, that he is ranked as the greatest 175 lber of them all by many historians? No, he didn't even get a shot at the LHW title. The financial reward was not worth the risk. Did they care enough about being the best and not about money to give Archie Moore a title shot? The guy was consistently ranked as a top 3 contender (per the Ring's ratings) at light-heavyweight from 1945 on, EVERY SINGLE YEAR. When did he get his title shot? 1952. People cared so much about being the best and not about money that it only took a mere SEVEN years for a top 3 contender to get a title shot. What about Lloyd Marshall and Jimmy Bivins? Oh, they get their "Duration" title shots. In other words, "you can be called the champ until Gus Lesenvech gets back from World War 2, then it's back to Palookaville for you". Hell, I'm only naming a few of the fighters who never got their chances at a title, because there wasn't enough money in fighting them. Boxing has always been a shady sport where the powers that be care about money first. Hell, the sport was basically run in the 50s by former Murder Inc member (no not Ja Rule) Frankie Carbo, and Blinky Palermo, and their shady associates in the IBC. Nowadays money still prevails, although the corruption is small compared to the 50s. It's something fans just have to deal with. Okay your post has just gone and shat all over everyone else, nice post! :lol1: Green karma... :fing02:

It always makes me laugh to think about how would Ray Robinson be thought of in the internet age, a money hungry fighter known to be the most arrogent man alive (sounds like someone kind of familar). And a woman beater too. Another similarity. (sorry, couldn't resist the cheap joke).

This post should be a sticky since these threads come up once every few days. Let's not forget how Mr.P4P himself Sugar Ray Robinson would always pull out of fights if he wasn't getting the type of money he thought he deserved. Yeah, there's a belief that the draw in Robinson-Fullmer 3 was "payback" for all the sh!t Ray did, as most observers had Ray winning. He would've been a 6 time MW champ if he'd gotten the decision.

This post should be a sticky since these threads come up once every few days. Let's not forget how Mr.P4P himself Sugar Ray Robinson would always pull out of fights if he wasn't getting the type of money he thought he deserved. Yea I don't understand why people seem to think that greed is a recent invention. Or that people did not want to earn the most money possible, in the past. It always makes me laugh to think about how would Ray Robinson be thought of in the internet age, a money hungry fighter known to be the most arrogent man alive (sounds like someone kind of familar).

Every sport is all about the money now, Football (Soccer), American Football, Rugby, MMA, Boxing, Baseball, whatever there all about the money. All of the sports team are there for the finances and do you think the players would play for a team without being paid a good amount? All sports are about the money, at higher levels you become more popular and more money comes in... and then it is more important, it will always be like this.

Please stop with these "they always faced each other back in the days and didn't care about money" crap. Must people always talk about the past without having studied enough of the history and what went on? Please learn more about the past. NUMEROUS fighters did not get title shots, or took forever to get one, regardless of their quality as fighters, because there was not enough money and the risk was too large. Fighters always fought the best and didn't care about $$??? Like the way Jack Dempsey faced the top heavyweight contenders when he was champ? No, Tex Rickard said "no, no" when Dempsey finally agreed to fight Harry Wills, after being quoted (according to this issue of The Ring http://static.boxrec.com/wiki/4/47/RING.2003.Annual2.jpg) as saying he'd "pay no attention to colored fighters". Dempsey did enjoy "proving himself as the best" when he fought in well-paid exhibitions and making films in Hollywood while he sat on his title for 3 years. Like the way the champions gave the legendary Sam Langford to show they were the best? No. Not enough money in a black fighter like the "Boston Tar Baby". The way the heavyweight champions wanted to prove themselves as the best, not carrying about money, by giving title shots to the likes of Sam McVea and George Godfrey? The way Charley Burley, ranked by The Ring as the 39th greatest fighter since 1922, was given title shots by those who wanted to "prove they were the best and didn't care about money?". Fritzie Zivic BOUGHT OUT BURLEY'S CONTRACT and never fought Burley again, while Zivic was champ at welterweight. Burley moved up to middleweight to look for a title shot (no luck). Hell, even the consensus GOAT, Sugar Ray Robinson, priced himself out of a Burley fight. Did the light heavyweight champions in the 1940s care about proving themselves as the best by giving a shot to Ezzard Charles, a light-heavyweight so great, that he is ranked as the greatest 175 lber of them all by many historians? No, he didn't even get a shot at the LHW title. The financial reward was not worth the risk. Did they care enough about being the best and not about money to give Archie Moore a title shot? The guy was consistently ranked as a top 3 contender (per the Ring's ratings) at light-heavyweight from 1945 on, EVERY SINGLE YEAR. When did he get his title shot? 1952. People cared so much about being the best and not about money that it only took a mere SEVEN years for a top 3 contender to get a title shot. What about Lloyd Marshall and Jimmy Bivins? Oh, they get their "Duration" title shots. In other words, "you can be called the champ until Gus Lesenvech gets back from World War 2, then it's back to Palookaville for you". Hell, I'm only naming a few of the fighters who never got their chances at a title, because there wasn't enough money in fighting them. Boxing has always been a shady sport where the powers that be care about money first. Hell, the sport was basically run in the 50s by former Murder Inc member (no not Ja Rule) Frankie Carbo, and Blinky Palermo, and their shady associates in the IBC. Nowadays money still prevails, although the corruption is small compared to the 50s. It's something fans just have to deal with. This post should be a sticky since these threads come up once every few days. Let's not forget how Mr.P4P himself Sugar Ray Robinson would always pull out of fights if he wasn't getting the type of money he thought he deserved.

Please stop with these "they always faced each other back in the days and didn't care about money" crap. Must people always talk about the past without having studied enough of the history and what went on? Please learn more about the past. NUMEROUS fighters did not get title shots, or took forever to get one, regardless of their quality as fighters, because there was not enough money and the risk was too large. Fighters always fought the best and didn't care about $$??? Like the way Jack Dempsey faced the top heavyweight contenders when he was champ? No, Tex Rickard said "no, no" when Dempsey finally agreed to fight Harry Wills, after being quoted (according to this issue of The Ring http://static.boxrec.com/wiki/4/47/RING.2003.Annual2.jpg) as saying he'd "pay no attention to colored fighters". Dempsey did enjoy "proving himself as the best" when he fought in well-paid exhibitions and making films in Hollywood while he sat on his title for 3 years. Like the way the champions gave the legendary Sam Langford to show they were the best? No. Not enough money in a black fighter like the "Boston Tar Baby". The way the heavyweight champions wanted to prove themselves as the best, not carrying about money, by giving title shots to the likes of Sam McVea and George Godfrey? The way Charley Burley, ranked by The Ring as the 39th greatest fighter since 1922, was given title shots by those who wanted to "prove they were the best and didn't care about money?". Fritzie Zivic BOUGHT OUT BURLEY'S CONTRACT and never fought Burley again, while Zivic was champ at welterweight. Burley moved up to middleweight to look for a title shot (no luck). Hell, even the consensus GOAT, Sugar Ray Robinson, priced himself out of a Burley fight. Did the light heavyweight champions in the 1940s care about proving themselves as the best by giving a shot to Ezzard Charles, a light-heavyweight so great, that he is ranked as the greatest 175 lber of them all by many historians? No, he didn't even get a shot at the LHW title. The financial reward was not worth the risk. Did they care enough about being the best and not about money to give Archie Moore a title shot? The guy was consistently ranked as a top 3 contender (per the Ring's ratings) at light-heavyweight from 1945 on, EVERY SINGLE YEAR. When did he get his title shot? 1952. People cared so much about being the best and not about money that it only took a mere SEVEN years for a top 3 contender to get a title shot. What about Lloyd Marshall and Jimmy Bivins? Oh, they get their "Duration" title shots. In other words, "you can be called the champ until Gus Lesenvech gets back from World War 2, then it's back to Palookaville for you". Hell, I'm only naming a few of the fighters who never got their chances at a title, because there wasn't enough money in fighting them. Boxing has always been a shady sport where the powers that be care about money first. Hell, the sport was basically run in the 50s by former Murder Inc member (no not Ja Rule) Frankie Carbo, and Blinky Palermo, and their shady associates in the IBC. Nowadays money still prevails, although the corruption is small compared to the 50s. It's something fans just have to deal with. A much more complete responce then mine, putting me to shame :damnit:

Boxing has always been about money.

Please stop with these "they always faced each other back in the days and didn't care about money" crap. Must people always talk about the past without having studied enough of the history and what went on? Please learn more about the past. NUMEROUS fighters did not get title shots, or took forever to get one, regardless of their quality as fighters, because there was not enough money and the risk was too large. Fighters always fought the best and didn't care about $$??? Like the way Jack Dempsey faced the top heavyweight contenders when he was champ? No, Tex Rickard said "no, no" when Dempsey finally agreed to fight Harry Wills, after being quoted (according to this issue of The Ring http://static.boxrec.com/wiki/4/47/RING.2003.Annual2.jpg) as saying he'd "pay no attention to colored fighters". Dempsey did enjoy "proving himself as the best" when he fought in well-paid exhibitions and making films in Hollywood while he sat on his title for 3 years. Like the way the champions gave the legendary Sam Langford to show they were the best? No. Not enough money in a black fighter like the "Boston Tar Baby". The way the heavyweight champions wanted to prove themselves as the best, not carrying about money, by giving title shots to the likes of Sam McVea and George Godfrey? The way Charley Burley, ranked by The Ring as the 39th greatest fighter since 1922, was given title shots by those who wanted to "prove they were the best and didn't care about money?". Fritzie Zivic BOUGHT OUT BURLEY'S CONTRACT and never fought Burley again, while Zivic was champ at welterweight. Burley moved up to middleweight to look for a title shot (no luck). Hell, even the consensus GOAT, Sugar Ray Robinson, priced himself out of a Burley fight. Did the light heavyweight champions in the 1940s care about proving themselves as the best by giving a shot to Ezzard Charles, a light-heavyweight so great, that he is ranked as the greatest 175 lber of them all by many historians? No, he didn't even get a shot at the LHW title. The financial reward was not worth the risk. Did they care enough about being the best and not about money to give Archie Moore a title shot? The guy was consistently ranked as a top 3 contender (per the Ring's ratings) at light-heavyweight from 1945 on, EVERY SINGLE YEAR. When did he get his title shot? 1952. People cared so much about being the best and not about money that it only took a mere SEVEN years for a top 3 contender to get a title shot. What about Lloyd Marshall and Jimmy Bivins? Oh, they get their "Duration" title shots. In other words, "you can be called the champ until Gus Lesenvech gets back from World War 2". Then it's back to Palookaville for you. Hell, I'm only naming a few of the fighters who never got their chances at a title, because there wasn't enough money in fighting them. Boxing has always been a shady sport where the powers that be care about money first. Hell, the sport was basically run in the 50s by former Murder Inc member (no not Ja Rule) Frankie Carbo, and Blinky Palermo, and their shady associates in the IBC. Nowadays money still prevails, although the corruption is small compared to the 50s. It's something fans just have to deal with. WOW...very good post :boxing:

Please stop with these "they always faced each other back in the days and didn't care about money" crap. Must people always talk about the past without having studied enough of the history and what went on? Please learn more about the past. NUMEROUS fighters did not get title shots, or took forever to get one, regardless of their quality as fighters, because there was not enough money and the risk was too large. Fighters always fought the best and didn't care about $$??? Like the way Jack Dempsey faced the top heavyweight contenders when he was champ? No, Tex Rickard said "no, no" when Dempsey finally agreed to fight Harry Wills, after being quoted (according to this issue of The Ring http://static.boxrec.com/wiki/4/47/RING.2003.Annual2.jpg) as saying he'd "pay no attention to colored fighters". Dempsey did enjoy "proving himself as the best" when he fought in well-paid exhibitions and making films in Hollywood while he sat on his title for 3 years. Like the way the champions gave the legendary Sam Langford to show they were the best? No. Not enough money in a black fighter like the "Boston Tar Baby". The way the heavyweight champions wanted to prove themselves as the best, not carrying about money, by giving title shots to the likes of Sam McVea and George Godfrey? The way Charley Burley, ranked by The Ring as the 39th greatest fighter since 1922, was given title shots by those who wanted to "prove they were the best and didn't care about money?". Fritzie Zivic BOUGHT OUT BURLEY'S CONTRACT and never fought Burley again, while Zivic was champ at welterweight. Burley moved up to middleweight to look for a title shot (no luck). Hell, even the consensus GOAT, Sugar Ray Robinson, priced himself out of a Burley fight. Did the light heavyweight champions in the 1940s care about proving themselves as the best by giving a shot to Ezzard Charles, a light-heavyweight so great, that he is ranked as the greatest 175 lber of them all by many historians? No, he didn't even get a shot at the LHW title. The financial reward was not worth the risk. Did they care enough about being the best and not about money to give Archie Moore a title shot? The guy was consistently ranked as a top 3 contender (per the Ring's ratings) at light-heavyweight from 1945 on, EVERY SINGLE YEAR. When did he get his title shot? 1952. People cared so much about being the best and not about money that it only took a mere SEVEN years for a top 3 contender to get a title shot. What about Lloyd Marshall and Jimmy Bivins? Oh, they get their "Duration" title shots. In other words, "you can be called the champ until Gus Lesenvech gets back from World War 2, then it's back to Palookaville for you". Hell, I'm only naming a few of the fighters who never got their chances at a title, because there wasn't enough money in fighting them. Boxing has always been a shady sport where the powers that be care about money first. Hell, the sport was basically run in the 50s by former Murder Inc member (no not Ja Rule) Frankie Carbo, and Blinky Palermo, and their shady associates in the IBC. Nowadays money still prevails, although the corruption is small compared to the 50s. It's something fans just have to deal with.

It is all about money and thats whats killing the sport

lol. sorry but you haven't thought it through.... EVERY PROFESSIONAL SPORT ON THIS PLANET IS FOR MONEY... think of all the advertisements, sponsorships etc. it's all about money. so so trying to singularize boxing as a money hungry sport. so is basketball, soccer, football etc. my man im talking bout boxing only an what im trying to emphesize is that before all the great ones faced each other now every one wants to cherry pick an dnt want to face the best becuz"they dnt bring enough money to the table" and imo i think its unfair for some guys are one of the best but dnt want to give him a chance!!!!!