Originally posted by Endurance
Boxers should only get paid when they win or something
Collapse
-
I don't think fighters should get payed less for losing.
I think they should get paid more for fighting stiffer opposition however, and paydays should be decreased when fighting guys who aren't a threat.
Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!Comment
-
Wow, you guys think this is just one big commision or entity that controls the money and says wow, I enjoyed that fight here's an extra 2 million. No, fighters dont get what there worth they get what they can negotiate and by what they can draw. If a boxer like Gatti can draw huge crowd and get a good amount of PPV sales then he will negotiate for a higher amount that someone like a Winky Wright who is considered better P4P but cant draw that crowd or generate those PPV sales. There is no common pot for fighter to take from one and give to the other.
The most practical thing would be a 60-40 split of the purse with the purse size being negotiated before hand by both parties with the promoters.
Also in Pride Fighting if a fighter gets continuous warnings for stalling or non-action 10% of his purse can be withheld win or lose. I like this idea also since it promotes action and could possibly be overal better for the sport. The penalized amounts could be put into a retirement found for old boxers who have hit hard times.Comment
-
i think they should just fight to the death. and only the winner gets to leave with his life. unless he is boring like winky or hopkins. because they arent really people are they.Originally posted by EnduranceIn my view it really sucks when a great boxer shows up in horrible shape, or when a boxer is just not willing to try to win.
Should they get only paid when they win? Bonus for strong opposition and exciting performances (knockdowns, great offense).
What do you think?
this thread is ******, of course both fighters should get paid.Comment
-
Comment