Money fight vs Title fight, which one should fighters take?

[rickJen]

This is confusing to many, may as well settle this in this thread.

Of course, there are fights where title and money go together. They are rare.

What is strange is when posters defend money over title when it suits their agenda,
but back flips overnight without shame and defend the exact opposite.

[Yoozook9]

If you're a young fighter, go for title fight and set yourself up for big money fights innthe future. If you're an older fighter, go for the big money fight while you still can

[rickJen]

I don't have any preference. Winning title fights makes your stock increase in value,
therefore money will come eventually, definitely two-fold, even higher.

[BoxingIsGreat]

With belts a dime a dozen, fighters should go for the money exclusively. Not many know who the champ is anymore anyway. Every division has 40 belts.

[Toffee]

Money is usually driven by demand. That's how they get the money.

So the money fight is the popular demand fight.

[maguirre]

There are cases where money and title are offered. They are still turned down. Jermell Charlo for Andrade, for example. There are so many variables in this sport. It's unfathomable.

[ShoulderRoll]

I will rarely fault a fighter for taking the money fight.

[The Big Dunn]

How many of you have used a title belt or trophy to pay the mortgage, tuition, bills, groceries, gas etc etc?

Look no further than Dustin Porier, who let a title shot go to instead make what he said was 7 or 8 times his biggest payday ever to fight Conor.

why did he make that choice, he has a family.

If you’re a young guy with no family, I would suggest choosing the title because you’re fighting for yourself. If you have responsibilities- wife and kids-then you take the money.

But can we please stop the insane NSB ******ity where we act like poster opinion on legacy has any value in the real world.

[sicko]

PRIZE FIGHTING! Take the Money whenever you can make it in a Brutal Sport like that