Tweet
I'm not talking bout the throwback fighters that really fought for their legacy and let the money come with that. I'm talking about the top fighters now that are all about LOW RISK HIGH REWARD. That trend is set and I don't see an end to it especially in todays world thats all about being flashy and money. We all might as well get ready for years of fights not getting made due to overpricing, name not big enough, etc. Its a damn shame but it has become reality to me. SMFH
-
-
I blame DLH, him pushing that "prizefighter" bull***** really took a toll on boxing -
Who should we blame?
SRL, who took the low risk/high reward fights in the form of a prime Wilfredo Benitez, ATG Roberto Duran (who actually proved himself at 147 against HOFer Palomino before the fight), prime Tommy Hearns, and moved up 2 weight classes to fight Hagler?
Tyson fought everyone.
De La Hoya fought pretty much every notable opponent from 135 to 160, win or lose.
Fact is, Floyd will be the predeccesor when fighters do the same in the future. His choices at 147 have been the definition of low risk/high rewardComment
-
No, but as one of the top fighters in the sport, he's been the best example of taking low risk/high reward fights.
For other top fighters in the sport, who were in Floyd's position in the past, it was an exception to fight a low risk/high reward opponent, not a rule. For Floyd it's the opposite.
Most fully expect him not to fight an opponent that is the biggest threat at that moment. Before his 2008 hiatus, what was being scheduled was a De La Hoya rematch and he was talking about a Hatton rematch, while Cotto and Margarito were fighting each other.
At the end of his career, he was fighting Hagler, rematching Hearns, and finishing the trilogy with a Duran that had just won the Middleweight title.
Floyd fights low risk/high reward, SRL fought high risk/high reward. Like I said, you look through past fighters resumes and you can find exceptions, not a rule. Mayweather's has become a rule, where you can find exceptions from his low risk/high reward approach.
You can justifying it to yourself however you want, but real is real.Comment
-
All I have to say is the arc of their careers are the exact same they started out high got soft in the middle then picked back up only to soften more~
You can justify that as being different all you like but really it is the same exact thing, just of varying levels of greatness.Comment
-
Jack Dempsey must have learned his tricks from a guy 90 years in the future~ or that Ray Robinson always wanted more money and would not fight other black fighter would were good but didn't bring in the long green.
Please, thing are the same as they always have been, nothing changes once you make you name your competition goes down hill as you make more for fighting a lesser guy and fighting lesser guys brings in the same amount as fighting real unknown guys.Last edited by The Gambler1981; 01-09-2011, 04:16 PM.Comment
-
What you honestly have to blame is the fact that the culture is different.
Back in the 30s or 40s, losing three times in one year, could still mean that you won 12 times. A boxer fighting 15 times that year wouldn't be the most shocking news. That would never happen at this point in history.
There are several reasons why it wouldn't happen and why it would never work. You can blame medical science for making fighters aware of the dangers of too many fights. You can blame the bigger contracts that keep fighters from HAVING to fight so often. You can blame the networks for requesting more time to build a fight.
But the biggest "problem" is that the sport has more exposure at this point due to cable television.
Back in the 30s or 40s, a fighter could get away with fighting so many times is because he could go from this town to that town, and the fans might not have seen his last few fights. So, watching this next fight was still an event for them. They could face so many different fighters, and make a solid enough living doing it. Might be the only way they can actually make a decent living.
With television, it forces a fighter to do two things. One, you have to put more energy into that televised bout, both for training and building it up.
Also, losing that bout means more, because more fans will have seen the event.
With the advances in technology, fighters have to fight less. When you fight less, you have to lose less. When you have to lose less, you tend to take less risk. Just the way it happens.
Thankfully, throughout history, fighters have continued to buck that trend.Comment
Comment