Do Fights REALLY Need To SIMMER?

[Tony Trick-Pony]

great for boxing fans yes but general public no.

and morales barrera wasnt a big hit with the causals.

see you guys are too ignorant sometime, you guys only look at it from the pov of a die hard boxing fan you dont see it from the point of money makers.

of course if it happens now they will try their best to sell it, but their wont be no real drama behind it. you think pac vs mayweather would have dont that much in 2010? HELL NO.

the casuals need a story line to buy into.

But as a hardcore boxing fan, don't you think it's right to demand that? Why should the promoters and fighters even try to make the fights we want right now happen if we are so lax in saying we want them? Give them time? For what? Ward's had tons of experience and Kovalev seems more than ready. This dragging it out to "Showcase" them against guys with seventeen fights and guys they've already knocked out is ludicrous. Come on, man. Don't you want to see it ASAP? You've got no money interest. We're on the same side here. Haha.

[-PBP-]

The other sports do have a championship every year which is true. However, we don't have to wait to see the best players versus the other best players. They play against each other often. And in boxing, a big fight can take years to get made, but in the meantime we get BS fights that are pointless to watch and have no high risk/high reward value for the boxers.

All of this simmering/marinating is costing us time. By the time a lot of these fights happen, the boxers will be ready to hang them up afterward with little accomplishment to show for it.

The problem is we turn are nose up at the ranked contenders. The way it's supposed to work is 2 fighters clean a division out until they stand alone. But when fighters do that we get angry because we think so little of all but one or two fighters in every division.

[Razcal26]

And in the mean time, we get one mismatch piece of garbage after another?

We know the belt prestige thing doesn't hold as you point out by saying "SHOULD"

It may make the fights more important, but rarely does it give us the fights we want.

If Leonard-Hagler, Mayweather-Pacquiao and Chavez-Randall III and Chavez-Taylor II and Leonard-Duran III and many others had happened sooner, we would have gotten better fights.

Mismatches? I think you need to look at a lot of these boxers resumes, mismatches have been around since the beginning of boxing, rarely (if ever) did the best fight the best back to back to back to back etc. Just doesn't happen.

Those belts don't hold as much weight as they should because of the amount of garbage boxers that have held them. The belts are no longer held by the just the best in the division (ex Jesse Vargas). When boxers fight for a belt, it should be between the best (WBA WBC, IBF). That doesn't happen anymore (for a while actually).

The fights we want? I don't get that line. You mean the fight YOU expected to happen, right?

I don't think most of those fights you named would have been much better imo. The outcomes are really what have determined whether the fights were great or not. If a certain fighter had won, it would have been a great fight etc..... seen that too often.

Fights need to marinate.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

I agree. Simmering or marinating is often just an excuse for a fighter (or fighters) who just don't want to take a risk. Most of the time nothing is gained from it. Far more often one of them gets derailed or moves up and the fight dies.

More has been lost from this than gained in any way. You can hype a fight for a hundred years and the money won't go up that much. The best way to get people interested is when the best fight the best, period.

[Tom Cruise]

great for boxing fans yes but general public no.

and morales barrera wasnt a big hit with the causals.

see you guys are too ignorant sometime, you guys only look at it from the pov of a die hard boxing fan you dont see it from the point of money makers.

of course if it happens now they will try their best to sell it, but their wont be no real drama behind it. you think pac vs mayweather would have dont that much in 2010? HELL NO.

the casuals need a story line to buy into.

lol do you remember 2010? Manny was just coming off his career best wins at the higher weights, Mayweather had just beaten JMM easily and beat up Shane Mosley. Fight would have been huge. Both were at their maximum exposure getting 1 million + PPV's every single fight

Plus they would have had time for a rematch when the loser inevitably regained their momentum in the next few years.

They could have made stacks of cash fighting each other a few times.

[Tom Cruise]

More has been lost from this than gained in any way. You can hype a fight for a hundred years and the money won't go up that much. The best way to get people interested is when the best fight the best, period.

Exactly.

More likely a fight loses momentum than gains it during the marination process, either because it ends up that one of the fighters wasn't good enough (say, David Price vs Tyson Fury), or because one or both get old (eg, JML vs Gamboa).

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Mismatches? I think you need to look at a lot of these boxers resumes, mismatches have been around since the beginning of boxing, rarely (if ever) did the best fight the best back to back to back to back etc. Just doesn't happen.

Those belts don't hold as much weight as they should because of the amount of garbage boxers that have held them. The belts are no longer held by the just the best in the division (ex Jesse Vargas). When boxers fight for a belt, it should be between the best (WBA WBC, IBF). That doesn't happen anymore (for a while actually).

The fights we want? I don't get that line. You mean the fight YOU expected to happen, right?

I don't think most of those fights you named would have been much better imo. The outcomes are really what have determined whether the fights were great or not. If a certain fighter had won, it would have been a great fight etc..... seen that too often.

Fights need to marinate.

I agree to disagree, but I don't really understand the lax attitude toward getting the real fights made. Yes, mismatches have always happened but have you always enjoyed them? Why not say that they happen but you'd rather they didn't and see the best in with the best? It's not anything about being realistic. You are right about how it is, but obviously you have some idealism by the way you speak about the belts, which IMO, will not be changing now or maybe ever. I know these mismatches will always happen, I but I have to say that they really shouldn't. The best become the best by fighting the best- not sitting around and letting things marinate. I mean, if you're happy with that, okay. I guess I just don't understand the mindset.

[-PBP-]

Perfect example. Tim Bradley vs Devon Alexander. 2 prime undefeated American champions in a highly anticipated unification showdown.

It was a box office bomb because neither guy was a known commodity.

Fights need to be built properly.

[Dr Rumack]

lol do you remember 2010? Manny was just coming off his career best wins at the higher weights, Mayweather had just beaten JMM easily and beat up Shane Mosley. Fight would have been huge. Both were at their maximum exposure getting 1 million + PPV's every single fight

Plus they would have had time for a rematch when the loser inevitably regained their momentum in the next few years.

They could have made stacks of cash fighting each other a few times.

100% man. The greatest myth of our time is that Manny and Floyd waiting 5 years was some stroke of genius. The hype was way bigger back in 2010 than it was when the eventually fought. I don't know how much better it would have done but there was no way it did worse.

Goes back to my other point. It was all about avoiding an 'L', not building the fight.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

lol do you remember 2010? Manny was just coming off his career best wins at the higher weights, Mayweather had just beaten JMM easily and beat up Shane Mosley. Fight would have been huge. Both were at their maximum exposure getting 1 million + PPV's every single fight

Plus they would have had time for a rematch when the loser inevitably regained their momentum in the next few years.

They could have made stacks of cash fighting each other a few times.

That is so true. More money would have been made from fights that would have been more fun and with rematches afterward. Great point.