When/Why did Boxing stop being about proving who is really the Best?
Collapse
-
-
after floyd followed the writing on the walls oscar left behind and perfected it then brought in a bunch of band wagon hate to lose always want to be right fans and the wack azz "****** fabulous" black power fans (money influenced hip hop community)Comment
-
-
****** response, anyone could respond by bringing up a list of credible fights that have happened, he's not even arguing that. That still doesn't change the fact that most fighters will opt for the more lucrative fight regardless of whether a more credible opponent was available.Comment
-
been watching since I was 14... it never was about being the best. it's all about making as much money you can while taking as little punishment as possibleLast edited by joe strong; 12-20-2013, 10:02 PM.Comment
-
Would those fights have happened if no money was involved?Comment
-
Bowe didn't duck Lewis. There was a bad managerial dispute between the two sides impossible to resolve. Lewis turned down two fights because he wasn't getting enough money, he was offended at the low offer. Bowe was the Champion. The casting the belt into the garbage was a publicity stunt which backfired.
Finally, Bowe fought Evander Holyfield 3 times during Holyfield's peak, winning 2 (1 by KO) and losing the 1st fight on a razor-thin maj. dec. One of the fights had the round of the year, can't recall which one. He also fought Golota during HIS peak twice. Remember the "Foul" Pole.....??
So a fighter who'd done all that would not duck a slow moving, safety first, jabbing fighter like Lewis regardless of how strong a puncher Lewis was. Bowe was a killer puncher himself and had been through the fires already.Comment
-
It probably a combo of networks, promoters, and so many weightclasses and belts. It allows good fighters to get lots of belts build a legacy/hype while avoiding other potential threats. It makes little sense to pit two cash cows to fight each other in their primes because one will lose and in today's casual boxing fans media 1 loss equals bum/overrated. It makes economic sense to make two marquee fighters fight each other only when one of them is either on his way out or they both are not producing enough money on their own.Comment
-
Considering it has been about money for the longest time I would say more than a century.
Mobsters, promoters, TV networks and fighters it is always about the money. Always has been, it is a profession. A shitty profession at that when you consider how few really make it.
It is still about proving who is the best though, but it is about proving who is the best on fight night and most of the guys that fight high ends guys are fairly good most of the time.
There was always politics though, even Ray Robinson king ding-a-ling when it comes to talking great fighters, would not fight unless he got paid which is why he fought LaMota 6 times (only losing 1 which there is the story about the mob having an influence on that loss) but would not fight a Charlie Burley because it brought no money for a difficult fight.Comment
Comment