The casual fans got it right, while "Hardcore fans" act like their ***** dont stink.

[Deevel916]

I think one of the problems is that the purse size is not dependant on winning the fight. If you want the big bucks in other sports, you have to be a winner. You need championships and titles under your belt and to get them you have to have beaten the best in your sport. In boxing, you can duck and avoid the top fighters and if you have a good promo team and know how to self promote, you will still clean up financially. I think all purses should be based on the combined success of the TWO boxers in the fight and the winner should always walk away with the larger purse.

You would see a drastic change in how someone fights if the purse split for a fight was 30-30 with the remaining 40 determined by how many rounds a fighter wins and whether he wins the fight or not. Say 24 percent - 2% per round for a 12 rounder, and the final 16 to the winner. If a fight does not go the distance, the remaining round percentage also goes to the winner.

I don't think we would see too many fighters content to go the 12 rounds and walk away with a loss in that case or many quitting on their stool in the corner. When there would be that kind of money on the line, you would really give your best out there. Imagine someone getting into the ring with Floyd and knowing that they have a chance to win a chunk of that 32 million instead of whatever pittance they were paid to show up? You'd have a much more interesting fight and fighters would be out there to win, not simply for a payday.

Very true. Nowaday's there's little incentive to give your all when even as a loser you're guaranteed millions.

UFC has it right. Fight bonus for the fight of the night and KO bonuses. It gives the fighters a bit more motivation to go out their and leave it all on the line.

[The Big Dunn]

Very true. Nowaday's there's little incentive to give your all when even as a loser you're guaranteed millions.

UFC has it right. Fight bonus for the fight of the night and KO bonuses. It gives the fighters a bit more motivation to go out their and leave it all on the line.

If you can understand this than you can understand my points.

[Puya]

I enjoy watching Rigo as well as I recognize the great talent that he is. His criticism comes from being too conservative when he has his opponent completely outclassed and has the ability to step on the gas and close the show yet chooses not to.

SRL said it during a recent fight (cant remember which one). As a fighter you must close the show if you're way ahead and have your opponent outclassed.

Nobody wants to see a fighter play it safe in the championship rounds when he has 9-10 rounds in the bag and has his opponent totally outclassed. Give the fans a little something to reward them for spending their hard earned cash to come see you fight and be entertained.

Actually I enjoy that but if it doesn't happen is because of the risk involved. For example Donaire still had the punchers chance to change the outcome of that fight so he (Rigo) had to be careful.


Usually I say to people if they want to see ******ed man brawl just go to UFC. But I won't say it to you because I know that you understand my point.

That attitude of "I die in the Ring" is pure bull$h!t

[Deevel916]

If you can understand this than you can understand my points.

This has nothing to do with the points you're trying to make.

You've basically stated that you have no problem with Floyd NOT going the extra mile to entertain because he has a winning formula that works for him despite the fact that many find it "boring".

Move along now.....

[The Big Dunn]

This has nothing to do with the points you're trying to make.

You've basically stated that you have no problem with Floyd NOT going the extra mile to entertain because he has a winning formula that works for him despite the fact that many find it "boring".

Move along now.....

No I didn't dude. I said the emphasis is on the fighter losing to go all out to try and win, no matter what style they employ. I just used Floyd/Manny as an example.

[Deevel916]

Actually I enjoy that but if it doesn't happen is because of the risk involved. For example Donaire still had the punchers chance to change the outcome of that fight so he (Rigo) had to be careful.


Usually I say to people if they want to see ******ed man brawl just go to UFC. But I won't say it to you because I know that you understand my point.

That attitude of "I die in the Ring" is pure bull$h!t

The example I would give would be Rigo/Agbeko. Not Rigo/Nonito. Rigo had Agbeko frozen and scared to throw anything yet Rigo refused to kick it up a gear and go for the stoppage when he very well could have. There was no risk coming from Agbeko.

[Barcham]

Anything that incentivizes or rewards winning is a good thin IMO.

I don't think you do away with guaranteed purses.

Good post.

With my idea there is still a guaranteed purse of 30%. Anything above that, you have to earn in the ring. That was just a quick post to get things started. It can always be refined to include bonus points for knockdowns and could be combined with a revised scoring system where rounds can be scored lower than 10-9 when one fighter is extremely dominant over the other.

I just think there are many improvements that can be made to the sport. From scoring to the use of replay technology for judging to revamping the scoring system to a purse scheme where the winner is rewarded for his efforts and losers don't walk out of the ring making 10 times what the guy who just beat them is taking home. If we want fighters to take risks, they have to be given a reason to do so.

[The Big Dunn]

With my idea there is still a guaranteed purse of 30%. Anything above that, you have to earn in the ring. That was just a quick post to get things started. It can always be refined to include bonus points for knockdowns and could be combined with a revised scoring system where rounds can be scored lower than 10-9 when one fighter is extremely dominant over the other.

I just think there are many improvements that can be made to the sport. From scoring to the use of replay technology for judging to revamping the scoring system to a purse scheme where the winner is rewarded for his efforts and losers don't walk out of the ring making 10 times what the guy who just beat them is taking home. If we want fighters to take risks, they have to be given a reason to do so.

I agree. I would add adjusting the weight classes as well.

Incentivizing winning is the key IMO. You have made very good points.

[brettWall]

Forget it doe. Gone are the SRL vs Hearns/Duran/Hagler type of fights like someone mentioned in another thread. Exchanges in those fights are spectacular.

However, I like watching slugfests. I also like chessmatches. I can tolerate running and hugging, but when it becomes excessive and engagement is no longer possible, man these guys should change careers. Excessive huggers and runners are a menace to the sport. They should be called what they really are, one-dimensional. They don't have inside game, thus 1D. Excessive huggers, in particular, are cheaters aided by the ref. They are doomed without the ref's aid.

[Deevel916]

Forget it doe. Gone are the SRL vs Hearns/Duran/Hagler type of fights like someone mentioned in another thread. Exchanges in those fights are spectacular.

However, I like watching slugfests. I also like chessmatches. I can tolerate running and hugging, but when it becomes excessive and engagement is no longer possible, man these guys should change careers. Excessive huggers and runners are a menace to the sport. They should be called what they really are, one-dimensional. They don't have inside game, thus 1D. Excessive huggers, in particular, are cheaters aided by the ref. They are doomed without the ref's aid.

Then you'll have so-called "fight fans" place blame on the opponent by saying things like ...."well its up to the opponent to not let him hold or run" when the fact of the matter is, one fighter is doing everything in his power to avoid engaging rather than fighting.