A question about Mayweather and other fighters who choose "financial sense" fights?

[puga]

Any fight now that would make more money for Mayweather than Pacquiao?

None.....the canelo fight situation was a phenomenon really....that was just a one time deal ...

[Deeznuts]

The most financial sense is Pacquiao and he won't take it. Actually, financially he can fight whoever he wants with his Showtime contract. The only thing he will be cheated out of is the PPV revenue bigger fights can attract. Hell, Maidana didn't even have a big fan base before their first fight, neither did Guerrero. So as far as the most financially attractive fight, this thread fails because he doesn't take them. Does it affect his legacy? Of course it does

[Chuckguy]

Every fighter's team chooses fights that make financial sense. Some posters live in this fantasy world where their fighter goes for the high risk low reward fights. A good example right now is GGG. He would move up to 168 for a big money fight with Chavez but his people say no to Ward because supposedly Ward can't sell. He would love to fight Cotto, Canelo, Mayweather but Lara called him out twice and his team said Lara brings nothing to the table.

So why is it that you can see it so clearly whenit comes to fighters like GGG but you are blinded and full of excuses when it comes to Floyd?

[Chuckguy]

Maidana, Ortiz i have no issue with..both were world champions and a top fighter should fight champions..Guerrero was the interim champ and he fought him for the Ring title(yea that was a joke) but him and Manny should be next if not Cotto at Middleweight

Larry why not GGG at MW? He is a chaml and we both know he would fawk Cotto up

[big_james10]

What does it do to a fighters legacy when they choose the most popular fighters or "financial sense" fights rather than the hardest fights? Does it hinder how deep their resume could be? For example, Floyd Mayweather usually fights fighters with good fan bases and they are good fighters but they are not stylistically the toughest fights out there. For example, if you look like a guy like Lara who has a small fan base but his style is a tough style to look good against but his style would give Floyd trouble compared to a Canelo or Ortiz. I understand fighters want to get paid and I'm all for it but in your opinion does it effect their resume? I know other fighters do it besides Floyd but I just used Floyd as an example since he is a popular fighter, love him or hate him so this thread wasn't intended to bash Floyd. Thoughts?

Fighters who are nothing more than prospects trying to make a name for themselves will fight anyone to build their reputation. Once they get beyond the prospect stage, all fighters, including the ones that people on this page hate -- Mayweather and Broner -- and the ones people on this page love --GGG, Alvarez, and Pacquaio -- choose fights that make financial sense. Boxing is a business and no one gets into boxing to prove how tough they are. They do it to make as much money as they can as quickly as they can. They can only do this when the circumstances favor them in some way.

Everything fighters do is based on the potential for financial gain. How?
1 If a fighters team doesn't think that his fighter will beat a certain opponent, they won't match their fighter with that opponent because a loss could hurt the fighter's chances of getting bigger fights in the future and making more money in the future. Example: every protected fighter that promoters are trying to build a fanbase with, such as Deontay Wilder, Keith Thurman and GGG. If GGG fought and lost to Andre Ward, it could hurt his chances of getting a fight with Chavez Jr., Cotto or Alvarez. If Deontay Wilder had gotten knocked out five or six fights ago by a quality opponent, he wouldn't be fighting for a world championship against Bermaine Stiverne .

2. If a fighter is not popular enough to sell a large amount of tickets or PPV buys, it makes no sense to fight that guy because you are risking losing for a smaller purse and that potential loss would hurt your chances of getting a more lucrative match down the road. Example: if Cotto fights and beats Alvarez, it makes no sense for him to follow that fight with a fight against GGG and risk a potential loss when he could fight a rematch with Mayweather or fight Chavez Jr. and make three to four times the money for a GGG fight.

3. If a fighter is really popular in certain spots and sells a lot of tickets, sponsorships and other revenue sources, it is in the fighter and the promoters best interest to milk that popularity as long as they can and make as much money as they can from fighting in that area. These fighters are usually capapble of beating C and B-class opponents fairly easily and still draw a crowd, so promoters will match them with as many B and C-class opponents that they can get away with because if you can sell out a 20,000 seat arena with a B or C-Class opponent time and time again, it doesn't make sense to pit your fighter against an A-class opponent that he might lose to because his popularity and ticket sales will drop afterwards. Example: Ricky Hatton, who sold out the MEN Arena every time he fought there, even against B and C-class opponents; Lucas Bute, who refuse to participate in the Super 6 tournament, but sold out the arena in Montreal that he fought in everytime he fought against non Super 6 level opposition; and Terrance Crawford, who sold 10,000 tickets in his hometown of Omaha in his last fight and will fight his next fight there also.

IF you can build a great legacy and maximize your income at the same time, that is great. However that is not always the case. So a fighter will choose financial sense over legacy because after he is retired and can no longer fight, legacy will not pay the mortgage, it will not feed your family, it will not drive you back and forth to work and it will not pay for your child's college education.

[Wolfie*]

Fighters who are nothing more than prospects trying to make a name for themselves will fight anyone to build their reputation. Once they get beyond the prospect stage, all fighters, including the ones that people on this page hate -- Mayweather and Broner -- and the ones people on this page love --GGG, Alvarez, and Pacquaio -- choose fights that make financial sense. Boxing is a business and no one gets into boxing to prove how tough they are. They do it to make as much money as they can as quickly as they can. They can only do this when the circumstances favor them in some way.

Everything fighters do is based on the potential for financial gain. How?
1 If a fighters team doesn't think that his fighter will beat a certain opponent, they won't match their fighter with that opponent because a loss could hurt the fighter's chances of getting bigger fights in the future and making more money in the future. Example: every protected fighter that promoters are trying to build a fanbase with, such as Deontay Wilder, Keith Thurman and GGG. If GGG fought and lost to Andre Ward, it could hurt his chances of getting a fight with Chavez Jr., Cotto or Alvarez. If Deontay Wilder had gotten knocked out five or six fights ago by a quality opponent, he wouldn't be fighting for a world championship against Bermaine Stiverne .

2. If a fighter is not popular enough to sell a large amount of tickets or PPV buys, it makes no sense to fight that guy because you are risking losing for a smaller purse and that potential loss would hurt your chances of getting a more lucrative match down the road. Example: if Cotto fights and beats Alvarez, it makes no sense for him to follow that fight with a fight against GGG and risk a potential loss when he could fight a rematch with Mayweather or fight Chavez Jr. and make three to four times the money for a GGG fight.

3. If a fighter is really popular in certain spots and sells a lot of tickets, sponsorships and other revenue sources, it is in the fighter and the promoters best interest to milk that popularity as long as they can and make as much money as they can from fighting in that area. These fighters are usually capapble of beating C and B-class opponents fairly easily and still draw a crowd, so promoters will match them with as many B and C-class opponents that they can get away with because if you can sell out a 20,000 seat arena with a B or C-Class opponent time and time again, it doesn't make sense to pit your fighter against an A-class opponent that he might lose to because his popularity and ticket sales will drop afterwards. Example: Ricky Hatton, who sold out the MEN Arena every time he fought there, even against B and C-class opponents; Lucas Bute, who refuse to participate in the Super 6 tournament, but sold out the arena in Montreal that he fought in everytime he fought against non Super 6 level opposition; and Terrance Crawford, who sold 10,000 tickets in his hometown of Omaha in his last fight and will fight his next fight there also.

IF you can build a great legacy and maximize your income at the same time, that is great. However that is not always the case. So a fighter will choose financial sense over legacy because after he is retired and can no longer fight, legacy will not pay the mortgage, it will not feed your family, it will not drive you back and forth to work and it will not pay for your child's college education.

I see what you are saying and you make a good point. This is how modern boxing is run today but with that being said, should we hold throwback fighters in higher regards? These fighters fought anyone because the money wasn't as big of a factor like it is today as they roughly got the same for either opponent. Does this also mean that todays fighters like Manny or Floyd shouldn't be listed as high because the way boxing is run today?

[big_james10]

I used to have an easy office job making $30.00 per hour and only working 40 hours per week. My friend is a construction laborer and called me a sissy because I was doing wimpy work. I quit the office job and now I dig ditches making $15.00 per hour working 60 hours per week.

If your friend's opinion matters that much to you, congratulations on enhancing your legacy. By working harder and longer hours, you have proven your manhood to your friend and acquaintances who care about that sort of thing.

The people who don't care about that sort of thing, however, are your spouse and children if you have them. They will have to go from a bigger house to a smaller house or an apartment because you needed to prove your legacy. Instead of a 401K plan that would have set you up for retirement, you may have to rely on social security alone (if your construction company doesn't offer a 401K). Instead of taking vacations to Disneyland, the Grand Canyon, a cruise to the Ba***** or a week in Jamaica, your family will have to settle for a drive to the beach for a few days or the all-important vacation at grandma's house. You will have to buy a smaller, older car and may be only able to afford one vehicle instead of two. Because you are doing more intensive labor, your health will decline faster and if you injure yourself, you could end up on Social Security disability.

Giving up the $30 and hour job for $15 hour job is a great way to prove you are not a sissy and prove your legacy. My question is is it worth all that you have to give up?

[big_james10]

I see what you are saying and you make a good point. This is how modern boxing is run today but with that being said, should we hold throwback fighters in higher regards? These fighters fought anyone because the money wasn't as big of a factor like it is today as they roughly got the same for either opponent. Does this also mean that todays fighters like Manny or Floyd shouldn't be listed as high because the way boxing is run today?

I have never been a fan of comparing sports teams or boxers or anyone else across time lines because each era was different and had their own issues. Pacquaio , the Klitchscko brothers and Mayweather are the best of this era; Tyson and Holyfield were the best of the 90s. Leonard, Hearns, Hagler, Duran were the best of the 80; Ali, Frazier, Norton, etc were the best in the division in their era. They are all great. It makes no sense comparing them