Comments Thread For: Tim Bradley Talks Khan-Malignaggi, Alexander, Marriage

[LeadUppercut]

spoken like a business man, not a boxing fan.

Nah bro, I love this sport, and I definitely wanna see the best fights.

You just don't seem to be aware that boxing is business first, sport second.....
even in spite of your strong personal feelings on the subject

You have actually paid for a PPV right ?

[Dave Rado]

Could it be true to suggest that the ridiculous money offered to hundreds of athletes competing in the other major US sporting codes, has contributed to the decline of the Heavyweight division, at least in the US always, which has subsequently contributed to the lack of interest in boxing that you are referring to ?

They are able to offer such ridiculous money because their sport is so popular with fans. It's become a vicious circle - the more boxing loses credibility as a sport, the fewer fans it has, which means it has less money it can offer to fighters, except for a handful of mega-stars.

I AM NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOU when you say that if the best-fight-the-best, then that often makes for a great fight, which will generate more interest from the fans, which will in turn strengthen the sport that we love.

The best fighting the best is what generates fan interest even when it's not a great fight. May-De La Hoya wasn't a great fight except to purists, but it generated massive fan interest. Same with May-Mosley to some extent, and even Pac-Clottey. Bradley-Alexander would generate a lot of fan interest as well, and would be a great style match-up and therefore probably a great fight as well. There's absolutely no need for it to simmer unless Bradley approaches HBO and they low-ball him. If that happened I'd be on Bradley's side, but he hasn't even approached them, but instead has been making Mayweather-like excuses for not doing so, and that's what sucks.

I am just saying that the decline of boxing cannot be blamed on Bradley for ducking Alexander, just because a fight that you wanna see, doesnt happen the moment you decide that you want to see it.

Obviously a single fight only plays a small part in the big picture, but the best not fighting the best has contributed to the decline of boxing as a mainstream sport - all boxing historians agree on that.

Boxing history confirms that you sometimes only get one chance, lets not jump to conclusions until this thing plays out.

That's very, very rare. Khan lost badly but got another chance and is a very well-paid star now. And he's a much better fighter now as a direct result of the lessons learnt from that defeat (primarily, because of the change of trainer that resulted). And he'd have been a better fighter back then if he hadn't been so over-protected before that fight.

Mosley and de La Hoya both lost many times and got many more chances. One of the main reasons that De La Hoya became such a huge star is that people felt he was always willing to fight the best possible opponents. And that is what was making Bradley into a star, which is why his sudden change to "Money" Mayweather-like talk is very counter-productive - it's damaging his image and therefore, his earning potential.

Almost all of the all time greats lost many fights. And great rivalries where great fighters fight each other multiple times are what makes for boxing legend. That's why Zale-Graziano and Robinson-La Motta and Pep-Saddler are still talked about more than 50 years after they happened.

[aristotlemoses]

This is a fight that needs to happen sooner rather than later. I do believe they are the best in the division. But the division is so deep.They should fight now before one of them loses. This is actually a fight that is close, real close. Although, I think Bradley wins UD, but he doesn't leave unscathed. Alexander will score a knockdown. I can see this fight resulting in a rematch taking place maybe even a trilogy which would be nice if it lived up to hype.
But the division is so deep they need to fight first though. They are a handful of good matchups that could be made after.

[Dave Rado]

You just don't seem to be aware that boxing is business first, sport second.....

No, there's no first and second. The business only exists because of the sport, and the sport only exists because of the business. And the success of the business depends completely on the credibility of the sport, and the success of the sport depends on the success of the business. The two things are inseparable, there is no first and second.

[Dave Rado]

If you take money out of the equation you're living in a fantasy world. I'm a realist and I'm not going to critisize fighters for wanting to make money. It's prize fighting not street fighting.

The issue isn't whether fighters should want to make money, it's whether that should be the only thing that matters to them.

And in the long term, fighters who love to fight the best possible opponents usually make a lot of money in any case, because that's what fans admire, so it's a win-win for them. A fighter who doesn't like to fight but only does it for the money will usually not get as many fans as someone who loves to fight and to test themselves against the best. That's why Holyfield made so many millions, because he loved to fight, and loved to test himself. Bradley was becoming a big star precisely because everyone thought he wanted to fight the best regardless of money, and his new attitude will lose him a lot of fans and therefore a lot of money, in the long run.

[LeadUppercut]

You're missing the point. All major sports are businesses. But boxing is a successful business only to the extent that it's a successful sport. The moment it becomes nothing more than entertainment, and stops being a sport, it will fail as a business, and that's a huge part of the reason it's a far less successful business than it used to be, and has become a niche sport, because there are too many titlists who never fight each other, and too many mismatches. If you really think the situation hasn't got worse in that respect, you know nothing about the history of boxing.

Nah bro, I'm not missing the point.....

You are simply wrong to state that boxing originated as a sport.

Boxing originated as a business that could generate money by providing entertainment, just like any other "act" within the entertainment industry.

A fighter would bet his own personal money that he could defeat his opponent. A decision would be made, an offer proposed, details would be confirmed..... and all business decisions / discussions made by the two fighters themselves, maybe on occasion accompanied by a trusted second.

Do you know where the poker term "stake-money" originated ?

The purse that each fighter had wagered was tied to a big stake and hoisted up high right next to the ring, so that both fighters could always see it no matter where the action was happening

Than along came the "backers", which evolved into the first boxing promoters. A fighter, especially a champion, would want to make the most money that he could from a fight, and by now a top purse would have exceeded the personal fortune of the average contender. So a fighter would attempt to fight the very best opposition that was out there (I KNOW THAT YOU CAN SEE WHERE I AM GOING WITH THIS ) and the richest financiers would back the best fighters, as they did not want to lose such a large investment.

GET MY POINT ?

I AM NOT DISAGREEING that if the best-fight-the-best, the standard of match-ups will generate more interest, which will in turn develop the sport.

See below.....

You're missing the point. All major sports are businesses. But boxing is a successful business only to the extent that it's a successful sport. The moment it becomes nothing more than entertainment, and stops being a sport, it will fail as a business, and that's a huge part of the reason it's a far less successful business than it used to be, and has become a niche sport, because there are too many titlists who never fight each other, and too many mismatches. If you really think the situation hasn't got worse in that respect, you know nothing about the history of boxing.

Now you have missed the point..... and in the same breath insinuated that I know nothing about boxing.

There are not too many titlists that never fight each other.....
THERE ARE TOO MANY TITLES..... PERIOD !

The "money" fights, used to be title fights.

As I said earlier..... the world has changed, boxing (and everything else) needs to change with it. Boxing has not necessarily helped itself in more ways than one.

Dont blame the decline of boxing on Bradley, just coz your favourite fight didnt conveniently show in-between CSI and a re-run of Friends, so that you could still be in bed by 9.30pm.

There is still no offer on the table from Alexander ?

[LeadUppercut]

The best fighting the best is what generates fan interest even when it's not a great fight. May-De La Hoya wasn't a great fight except to purists, but it generated massive fan interest. Same with May-Mosley to some extent, and even Pac-Clottey. Bradley-Alexander would generate a lot of fan interest as well, and would be a great style match-up and therefore probably a great fight as well. There's absolutely no need for it to simmer unless Bradley approaches HBO and they low-ball him. If that happened I'd be on Bradley's side, but he hasn't even approached them, but instead has been making Mayweather-like excuses for not doing so, and that's what sucks.

You shot yourself in the foot here bro.....

The Mayweather fight was NOT the best-fighting-the-best. De La Hoya was not the best at 154, and neither is/was Mayweather.

But, it WAS the best entertainment on offer !!

Neither Pac nor Clottey were the best at 147.

[Dave Rado]

There is still no offer on the table from Alexander ?

Alexander doesn't have the money and you know it. HBO holds the purse strings, and all Bradley has to do in order to find out how much they would offer is to ask them - as I've said over and over again, so why you make me repeat myself if beyond me.

Regarding the rest of what you said, you make some good points about its origins, but boxing would never have become a huge worldwide business if it had not first become a credible sport, and its continued success as a business depends completely on its credibility as a sport. So the two things are interlinked and inseparable now, and have been ever since boxing became a mainstream sport, in the early 20th century. Therefore to say it's now a business first and sport second is wrong. They simply can't be separated like you're attempting to do, and if they ever are, it'll go back to just being prizefighting for entertainment, that most sports fans don't care a damn about. If that ever happens, boxing historians will go out of business, and sites like this one will cease to exist.

[LeadUppercut]

That's very, very rare. Khan lost badly but got another chance and is a very well-paid star now. And he's a much better fighter now as a direct result of the lessons learnt from that defeat (primarily, because of the change of trainer that resulted). And he'd have been a better fighter back then if he hadn't been so over-protected before that fight.

Mosley and de La Hoya both lost many times and got many more chances. One of the main reasons that De La Hoya became such a huge star is that people felt he was always willing to fight the best possible opponents. And that is what was making Bradley into a star, which is why his sudden change to "Money" Mayweather-like talk is very counter-productive - it's damaging his image and therefore, his earning potential.

Almost all of the all time greats lost many fights. And great rivalries where great fighters fight each other multiple times are what makes for boxing legend. That's why Zale-Graziano and Robinson-La Motta and Pep-Saddler are still talked about more than 50 years after they happened.

Khan is the exception, not the rule. But otherwise I agree entirely.

No, De La Hoya became a big star because he won (the golden boy thing, remember). He was a big star before his loss to Trinidad..... but again, other than that I entirely agree.

Good post.

[Dave Rado]

You shot yourself in the foot here bro.....

The Mayweather fight was NOT the best-fighting-the-best. De La Hoya was not the best at 154, and neither is/was Mayweather.

Mayweather was P4P #1, De La Hoya was quite high on the P4P lists and from a higher weight class, and was a former P4P #1. Plus Mayweather had been trying to get a fight against De La Hoya for years, which added interest. And most considered it to be a risky fight for Mayweather.

But, it WAS the best entertainment on offer !!

The fight ****** in the opinion of most non-purists because of the style match-up, and it was predictable that it would a fairly dull fight for non-purists.

Neither Pac nor Clottey were the best at 147.

Pac was rated #1 at Welterweight, and Clottey was rated #4 (and the #2 and #3 weren't available at the time so Clottey was easily the highest ranked available opponent for Pac); and because Clottey was considered to be a very large Welterweight, it was considered to be a good test of whether Pac could really cut it at the weight, without a catchweight. And almost no one expected it to be a particularly entertaining fight, because of the style match-up.