should Boxing be winner take all
Collapse
-
-
should Boxing be winner take all as apose to both fighters getting paid ?if it were winner takes all i dare say we would not have to suffer Joke fights like Dela Hoya v Pac,Jones v Calz, etc etc
i think fighters would chase the pot of gold and take more risks fighting the best available and we would see more intriguing fights etc
Hell no.
I typed out a long explanation here, but there's no reason for it. If you'd thought that question through at all before you asked it, you'd never have made this thread.Comment
-
what is the point of being such an A hole about it is was just putting it out there as a suggestion i dont see why you have to act like such a -prick it turned out to be a bad idea but it was thought provoking idea to inject some kinda extra insentive etc
i agree with everyone who has disagreed and has suggested a 60/40 split or some kinda bonus for the winner PPV money etcComment
-
agree on bigger slice of the pie..each fighter must be paid on everything (training,hospital etc) but the winner must get the big slice of the pie not the bigger name..
e.g
if mayweather are fighting margarito both of them must get 1-2 million on the training etc, expenses..and since (hypothetically) margarito is no.1 welter contender mayweather shouldnt overprice himself..coz the ranking is more important than anything..then 60 - 40 winner and loser respectively...Comment
-
-
Comment
Comment