Why don't boxing fans support 1 vs 2?

[crimsonfalcon07]

Probably because this jabroni industry keeps 1 and 2 a mystery?

Who is one and two? Who Ring says? Who TBRB says? Who the bodies says? Do y'all really pretend like the WBO = WBC? Do y'all really pretend like Ring or TBRB ratings, champions, and lack of mandatories matter?

Great post.

To further illustrate the point, in recent times, Bam v Sunny wasn't for the Ring belt because some of the Ring writers didn't want to acknowledge Bam's accomplishments in the division above. I could understand that for someone moving up, but for someone who had just beaten two of the 4 kings at 115 to have those wins not count at all for ranking him at 112 is just absurd.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

I genuinely have no idea what the splits were for Lewis - Tyson, B-Hop - Oscar or Jones - Tarver. No one cared, they were just fights people needed to see.

Everyone knows Mayweather - Pacquiao was 60/40. Mayweather never stopped bleating on about his PPV numbers.

Me too. I don’t ever remember purse splits ever really being a thing too. The “Money” Mayweather character brought all that sort of stuff to the forefront.

That’s one thing I do like about the Saudi’s, it’s just fighter A is getting paid this and fighter B is getting paid that. No drama about splits and A side, B side nonsense.

[dan-b]

Got ImDominicanLipz arguing against 1 vs 2 as well now.

You can talk about Canelo's money, position, right to "cash out" (despite his existing fortune) all you like. I still want 1 vs 2.

[_Rexy_]

Got ImDominicanLipz arguing against 1 vs 2 as well now.

You can talk about Canelo's money, position, right to "cash out" (despite his existing fortune) all you like. I still want 1 vs 2.

They rather count money that they’ll never even see

[ImDominicanLipz]

Got ImDominicanLipz arguing against 1 vs 2 as well now.

You can talk about Canelo's money, position, right to "cash out" (despite his existing fortune) all you like. I still want 1 vs 2.

This a joke?

[BustedKnuckles]

When there was more boxing on TV you could see the #1 contender get to the mandatory position. Now it is a soup of sanctioning bodies, fighting on networks that you have to pay to see and a lot of careful matchmaking.

The politics of boxing just aids the cash cows since they are consistently change the rules to accommodate those champs. I know it is prize fighting but its rules should be enforced.

There is a lot of discrepancy between different sanctioning bodies' rankings. But all 1 and 2 guys should fight. In fact, guys in the top 5 shouldn't even be fighting opponents who aren't at least top 10 in somebody's rankings.

AND 1 and 2 should always fight for a vacated or stripped belt. No email.

[El_Maldito_Rey]

People are scared that their fighter might lose,and get called a bum by the rest of this toxic site. Instead of praising fighters for taking risks,they get **** on when they lose,and they're told to retire. That's why you have fighters protecting their 0 until it's time to cash out.(See the canelo sweepstakes,and how you have dudes willing to jump 2-3 weight classes just to lose and get paid).

Then you have cowards like Beterbiev and Bivol who blame their promoters for not making that fight happen, and when it finally got made one of them is too over the hill to even make it the fight.

[Eff Pandas]

I'd question if someone is anti-#1 vs #2 fights they are THAT big of a fan of boxing. 1 vs 2 in most divisions is always a fight worth watching even if its not necessarily some big ppv kinda fight.

[Basco]

Because they are fanatics, not fans! Any real fan wants to see the 2 best of each division go at it, hell I love eliminatiin tournaments but those are a thing of the past with today's pansies worring about their "0".