Every Boxers Should Fight 4 Times a Year... Right?

how awesome would 4 Molina fights be every year? we would be so blessed PPV would be heading in the direction of those damn dinosaurs from 100000yrs ago!

I have. So what's the problem? I don't remember every detail. robinson, like virtually every other championship level fighter of the day, took "stay busy" fights to earn money. fighters today don't need that. they wouldn't even get onto the networks fighting these cans, so why bother? fights in robinson's day didn't depend on TV money. almost all of their purses came from live gates. to answer the question in the original post, they current rate of figthing is what gets them paid the best in the long term in the current climate of network driven purses.

I've always wondered why fighters fights infrequently, I get Pac and May doing it as they make heaps but the non Ppv fighters who make 1mil a fight max should be fighting 4-5 a Times a year while they are on their prime and them get out data decent age. CChris Eubank defended his title 17 Times in 3 years in his prime.

3-4 for guys who are big names or are close to being a big name but aren't on PPV 2 is fine for guys who are on PPV.

you should actaully look at robinson's resume before you talk about it, doggie. I have. So what's the problem? I don't remember every detail.

3 times minimum should be the standard for elite/higher echelon fighters. Especially considering the amount of money they make for themselves and the network. Networks don't have as big a budget as they used to for their boxing programs because the activity of their most popular fighters. Nowadays too many things prevent fights, and once some of the bigger fighters get a taste of the bigger money, they won't settle for less, so they don't fight as often. In turn, decreasing the networks revenue. I honestly believe the biggest downfall of today's stars in boxing is their activity level. Notice how all the "hype-jobs" drop like flies in comparison to the past? As soon as they get a feel of the big money, their ability stops improving, and complacency begins to hinder their progression. Today's fighters get overpaid way too soon in their careers, lowering their incentive to be the best that they can be. Let's also remember that a training camp on average is about 2 months. I'm no genius, but that essentially means they work 6 months out of the year for the incredible money they make on top of that. Some notable fighters who stay on top with activity: Alvarez, Golovkin, Matthysse, Donaire, Carlos Molina, Adamek

instead of 2 PPV's at $50 each or whatever, have 4 at $25 each. The guy buying 1 of the 2 fights at $50, likely still spends $50 on 2 very slightly lesser cards...instead. This was purely an example I don't think your taking at least a slight point on. The US has pushed towards quite a high price for PPV's, whereas slightly more PPV's for a lesser price, and a slightly lesser card...could likely pull in similar earnings. In any case, the UK and other countries have much less PPV's, so why is the activity rate similar? That to me indicates the PPV don't/needn't dictate the sport so much, and the other 3 bullet points are also key in-activity reasonings. Novel idea, but a promoter has to have a marketable fight and fighters to even do that. I think that is a point you are not seeing. 1.5 million people may have watched Golovkin, but not many of them are going to pay 25 bucks in addition to their HBO sub with other major PPV events happening during the year. Then there is the effort of putting on a PPV...since promoters get over half of the buy revenue ripped by cable companies...they have to charge a higher price to make a profit.

\ This isnt an opinion, there are only so many PPV events that people will pay for, hence why most cards are on regular TV and not PPV. a great example is GB making the Broner card a regular tv event. Its always been a balancing act Networks dont put on PPVs, promoters do. instead of 2 PPV's at $50 each or whatever, have 4 at $25 each. The guy buying 1 of the 2 fights at $50, likely still spends $50 on 2 very slightly lesser cards...instead. This was purely an example I don't think your taking at least a slight point on. The US has pushed towards quite a high price for PPV's, whereas slightly more PPV's for a lesser price, and a slightly lesser card...could likely pull in similar earnings overall. In any case, the UK and other countries have much less PPV's, so why is the activity rate similar? That to me indicates the PPV doesn't &/or needn't dictate the sport so much, and the other 3 bullet points are also key in-activity reasonings.

at the top level it's hard to sustain that activity promoters, managers, and networks gotta put the fights together fighters gotta heal injuries, rest, make weight properly, etc this kinda activity would be great for boxing but it's not realistic if a guy can reel off quick KO's without taking damage, maybe but not many ranked guys can get relevant fights so often

To the PPV reasoning why should that be an excuse? It's a landscape that should be able to accomodate 3-4 fights per year. Heck, instead of 2 PPV's at $50 each or whatever, have 4 at $25 each. The guy buying 1 of the 2 fights at $50, likely still spends $50 on 2 very slightly lesser cards...instead. There's less of a PPV focus in the UK and some other countries and it's still roughly the same. I think the progessively worsening issues for all to see are: -Injuries; both genuine and fake. -Promoters; jockeying, delaying, protecting, prolonged bargaining. -Boxers; All of the above, but increasingly doing it just for the longterm £'s and not the love of the sport. -Networks; not being willing to put on more fights even if it could be done by spreading out the PPV costs.\ This isnt an opinion, there are only so many PPV events that people will pay for, hence why most cards are on regular TV and not PPV. a great example is GB making the Broner card a regular tv event. Its always been a balancing act Networks dont put on PPVs, promoters do.

To the PPV reasoning why should that be an excuse? It's a landscape that should be able to accomodate 3-4 fights per year. Heck, instead of 2 PPV's at $50 each or whatever, have 4 at $25 each. The guy buying 1 of the 2 fights at $50, likely still spends $50 on 2 very slightly lesser cards...instead. There's less of a PPV focus in the UK and some other countries and it's still roughly the same. I think the progessively worsening issues for all to see are: -Injuries; both genuine and fake. -Promoters; jockeying, delaying, protecting, prolonged bargaining. -Boxers; All of the above, but increasingly doing it just for the longterm £'s and not the love of the sport. -Networks; not being willing to put on more fights even if it could be done by spreading out the PPV costs.

would you want to go work or would u rather be on a light schedule n be on vacation most of the year

if you're still fighting 10 rounders, yes. still fighting 4 rounders? you should be fighting a minimum of 4 times a year. 12 rounds a fight? a maximum of 3 a year. i just pulled those numbers out of my ass but i think they make sense. :dunno:

No. Injuries, promotion, scheduling and money would prevent those things from happening. As things stand there's enough boxing events on a monthly basis, so I do not really see the need of seeing certain fighters fight 4 times a year; if anything them doing so would detract from the exposure of less known fighters.

No. Why? Nowadays boxers are hitting way less than 100 fights before they retire. SRR has over 100 fights I think, he's a GOAT. So what your point that have to 'reach certain levels'. you should actaully look at robinson's resume before you talk about it, doggie.

No. Why? Nowadays boxers are hitting way less than 100 fights before they retire. SRR has over 100 fights I think, he's a GOAT. So what your point that have to 'reach certain levels'. Once you are at a level where you have network exposure are making 750K-1mm+ per fight, the fighters of today would rather reduce the amount of punishment they endure and extend their careers. A boxing year can only serve so many PPV fights, and you arent going to fight on regular HBO or showtime for 10 cents on the dollar.

you really dont understand why fighters dont fight more than twice once they reach a certain level? most of them, no.

Depends on who.

you really dont understand why fighters dont fight more than twice once they reach a certain level? No. Why? Nowadays boxers are hitting way less than 100 fights before they retire. SRR has over 100 fights I think, he's a GOAT. So what your point that have to 'reach certain levels'.

3-4 would be great. Donaire, Golovkin, and Klitschko do it, and in my opinion it's the activity that's made Golovkin rise so fast here in America. Dude is from Borat Land and people were cheering his name in Brooklyn! Thing is, networks don't have the budget to let everyone fight four times even if they wanted to. Back in the day, a fighter would be on HBO and then on USA or ESPN or KOTV a few times before his next HBO or Showtime date, but these days promoters are too afraid of risking the big date to let their fighter fight a tuneup in a small event.