At what point are champions entitled to take a safe fight?

**Redeaux** · 09-02-2015, 01:19 PM

One of the few times I find it justifiable is if said champion is from a certain place in the world that doesn't have true exposure to live events and wants to reward them with a live bout for all the years of support. I'd have no problem with Cotto fighting a car salesman in Puerto Rico, or Pacquiao fighting a janitor in the Philippines to finish it all of.

Also, coming back from injury.

**daggum** · 09-02-2015, 01:26 PM

if your name is andre ward it's cool to try and fight caleb truax, dmitri sartison, marco periban, paul smith, and zac dunn. it's just a damn shame the networks don't want to televise these fights. what's the deal? why are they hating?

**soul_survivor** · 09-02-2015, 01:35 PM

All fights should be easy fights, why should fighters have to test themselves?

**Juof** · 09-02-2015, 01:36 PM

i think your entitled to take a safe fight if you've had a long lay off or just coming off a very competitive world class fight. fighters at the top should have one hard fight then an easier one to prevent them from burning out quickly/cleaning out the division too quickly. i dont expect a fighter to take hard fight after hard fight because they will be punch drunk before the age of 30 but i also dont expect someone to call themselves a beast at the weight and are taking on nobodies and are avoiding other top fighters in their division.

i believe floyd has earned the right to fight berto even though i'd of preferred it if he took on khan. just like i dont expect pacquiao to jump straight back in with a beast next year. as for kell brook he better step up his game now hes had 2 easy fights and should be taking on a name and i personally still think chaves is a cherry pick and he needs to look further up the ladder for a more credible opponent.

**MOMENTO MORI** · 09-02-2015, 01:39 PM

I know the business of boxing don't really support it but 2 fights against outmatched opponents is cool as long as those fights are supplemented with 2 fights against strong, credible opponents. Instead of twice a year, dudes should be fight 3-4 times a year.

**vorgaphe** · 09-02-2015, 01:41 PM

It depends entirely on how frequently you are fighting. If you're fighting once or twice a year you should only be fighting top guys. If you're busy and fighting 4, 5 or even more frequently, then you're more that entitled to take a couple of softer touches as long as the other opposition is good quality.

**lefthook2daliva** · 09-02-2015, 01:41 PM

Any time they want.

But there are consequences.

Especially if they want 80 bucks to watch it on tv.

**The Big Dunn** · 09-02-2015, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by Pugilist95

And how often should they be seeking to fight the best possible opposition?

Is Kell Brook entitled to fight a guy that isn't a top 10 fighter and then a guy who has won one of his last 4 fights as long as he gets the Khan fight in the summer?

Is Floyd Mayweather entitled to take a safe fight because he fought Manny Pacquiao?

I'd like to see some opinions on this.

IMO it depends.

If you got it by beating great fighters and you are near the end of your career, an easy set up fight is fine-like ODH/Forbes or Tyson/McNeely.

If on the other hand your whole career is beating up low tiered opposition (like GGG) or 99% bums (like Wilder) I do not think you are entitled to make easy fights just because you can.

**NEETzsche** · 09-02-2015, 01:54 PM

i'd say every third fight, provided he isn't a one-fight-per-year champ

At what point are champions entitled to take a safe fight?