Tweet
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!
-
-
Welcome to 2009. -
true, back in the day it was about being the greatest, now its all about $$$$$$$$Comment
-
Boxing has always been about the money, back in the day the mob ran it and they were not out to find the greatest, they were out to control the ******** on the sport ($$$$$$$). Jack Dempsy was about getting paid, Sugar Ray Robinson was about getting paid.
Now it is just the fighters that are getting the dollars instead of the people running the sport (legit, semi-legit or crook). I think it is better the way it is now.Comment
-
At the top level that's unfortunately how it is.Comment
-
lol. sorry but you haven't thought it through....
EVERY PROFESSIONAL SPORT ON THIS PLANET IS FOR MONEY... think of all the advertisements, sponsorships etc. it's all about money. so so trying to singularize boxing as a money hungry sport. so is basketball, soccer, football etc.Comment
-
my man im talking bout boxing only an what im trying to emphesize is that before all the great ones faced each other now every one wants to cherry pick an dnt want to face the best becuz"they dnt bring enough money to the table" and imo i think its unfair for some guys are one of the best but dnt want to give him a chance!!!!!Comment
-
It is all about money and thats whats killing the sportComment
-
Please stop with these "they always faced each other back in the days and didn't care about money" crap.
Must people always talk about the past without having studied enough of the history and what went on? Please learn more about the past. NUMEROUS fighters did not get title shots, or took forever to get one, regardless of their quality as fighters, because there was not enough money and the risk was too large.
Fighters always fought the best and didn't care about $$??? 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/R...03.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.Last edited by Thread Stealer; 05-27-2009, 01:57 AM.Comment
Comment