Anyone who thinks that boxing isnt a buisness first game is living in a fantasy land of a typical fan who has no true understanding that its ALWAYS been a buisness.
I love when people bring up ray robinson and talk about how "he fought the best and didint care about anything but legacy" like R.A Rugged man said, when Robinson was known for giving rediculous excuses not to take someone on, on top of demanding higher purses THE NIGHT BEFORE a fight or would threaten to pull out.
Anyone who thinks that pac is fighting for just legacy, or that his opponents are chosen by him for the sake of being great is again, looking at it from the perspective of a fan. Each fight, oscar/hatton/cotto etc has not only been looked at from a risk/reward status, but also factoring fanbase and ppv revenue and where they are in their careers to pose a threat. Not to mention, cotto/pac having the same promoter and keeping the money in house.
So many "fans" claim to know so much about boxing history and have no idea that even back in this glory age they talk about, it was always about who had a fanbase, who could draw, who could be avoided while still maintaining the title. Rigging the rankings to milk a draw.
Guys like Jack Dempsey holding the title hostage to go on exhibition tours. James Braddock holding the heavyweight title and not defending it and then cashing out to joe louis.
I swear, some of you have so much psuedo intellect its hilarious to me. Alot of you have been watching boxing for 10 or 20 or 30 years, but never look beyond the fact that outside of the soap opera, the he said she said and the who ducked who, is the fact that ducking, robbing, risk/reward over legacy has ALWAYS been around and always will be. As time goes on, history gets more gloss and often times more glorious.
I think this thread is evidence how boxing fans can be almost feminine with this fantasy that fighters are fighting for them and not for the most money with the least amount of risk at a point in their careers.
I love when people bring up ray robinson and talk about how "he fought the best and didint care about anything but legacy" like R.A Rugged man said, when Robinson was known for giving rediculous excuses not to take someone on, on top of demanding higher purses THE NIGHT BEFORE a fight or would threaten to pull out.
Anyone who thinks that pac is fighting for just legacy, or that his opponents are chosen by him for the sake of being great is again, looking at it from the perspective of a fan. Each fight, oscar/hatton/cotto etc has not only been looked at from a risk/reward status, but also factoring fanbase and ppv revenue and where they are in their careers to pose a threat. Not to mention, cotto/pac having the same promoter and keeping the money in house.
So many "fans" claim to know so much about boxing history and have no idea that even back in this glory age they talk about, it was always about who had a fanbase, who could draw, who could be avoided while still maintaining the title. Rigging the rankings to milk a draw.
Guys like Jack Dempsey holding the title hostage to go on exhibition tours. James Braddock holding the heavyweight title and not defending it and then cashing out to joe louis.
I swear, some of you have so much psuedo intellect its hilarious to me. Alot of you have been watching boxing for 10 or 20 or 30 years, but never look beyond the fact that outside of the soap opera, the he said she said and the who ducked who, is the fact that ducking, robbing, risk/reward over legacy has ALWAYS been around and always will be. As time goes on, history gets more gloss and often times more glorious.
I think this thread is evidence how boxing fans can be almost feminine with this fantasy that fighters are fighting for them and not for the most money with the least amount of risk at a point in their careers.
Comment