Wilder to AJ: Just say Yes and the Meeting is On

[N/A]

If not that you are not thinking straight yourself or maybe because you are wilder fan boy.

I'm not even a fan, let alone a fan boy. I think the sport of boxing is fairly boring. It's just a way to make a living honestly.

Offer made from wilder official twitter page which was swiftly replied by "let's roll". You took that as an offer? I thought you were more experienced than this.

Offer was made via email from Deontay to Hearn and when Hearn asked Finkel if the offer was legitimate, Finkel confirmed that Deontay was authorized to make the offer by Finkel and their side was ready to provide proof of funds if Hearn confirmed that 50 million would be enough to make him want the fight.

If wilder is the most known HW in America, boxing is dead in America

You can label it whatever you want. Boxing is dead in America, yet even Hearn admits AJ vs. Wilder would generate more in America.

that's the only conclusion because nobody knows him to watch him on ppv.

America only has one PPV star and he's not even American. If not being a PPV star means nobody knows you, then that means nobody knows any fighter here. Yet even Hearn admits AJ vs. Wilder would generate more here. Interesting.

Since wilder turned professional, he he made up to $50mil in all his garbage fights?

Since AJ turned professional, has he ever eaten fish five Thursdays in a row? What does that have to do with anything?

Give me a list of active American fighters more well known than Wilder. Since he's so unknown, you should be able to post a giant list. Let's see it.

[Laligalaliga]

I'm not even a fan, let alone a fan boy. I think the sport of boxing is fairly boring. It's just a way to make a living honestly.




Offer was made via email from Deontay to Hearn and when Hearn asked Finkel if the offer was legitimate, Finkel confirmed that Deontay was authorized to make the offer by Finkel and their side was ready to provide proof of funds if Hearn confirmed that 50 million would be enough to make him want the fight.




You can label it whatever you want. Boxing is dead in America, yet even Hearn admits AJ vs. Wilder would generate more in America.




America only has one PPV star and he's not even American. If not being a PPV star means nobody knows you, then that means nobody knows any fighter here. Yet even Hearn admits AJ vs. Wilder would generate more here. Interesting.




Since AJ turned professional, has he ever eaten fish five Thursdays in a row? What does that have to do with anything?

Give me a list of active American fighters more well known than Wilder. Since he's so unknown, you should be able to post a giant list. Let's see it.

I insist wilder made that offer via twitter. I saw the twit and its reply, so don't tell me what I know.
I don't care if the bum squad go fight breazeale, kownaski or Ruiz Jr. It's his business.
Let them continue padding him like a brazier.

[Sid-Knee]

Hahahaha you want me to list hundreds of fighters? The TV networks and promoters take the WBC the most seriously, always have, and that leads to WBC champions getting opportunities WBO champions wouldn't get.

Obviously once you're already a star, which belt you hold is far less important. So no, big name fighters don't really benefit greatly by having one title over another.

Arum had an army of WBO champions and could barely get HBO to give him the time of day. He had to go the Haymon route with hedge fund money to get a lower paying deal with ESPN.

Several recent WBO heavyweight title fights were largely ignored in the US. Shown on tape delay or not shown at all. You don't see that happen with the WBC heavyweight title.

The WBO isn't as sought after, so of course the champion is going to have less leverage. The WBO is essentially the Bob Arum/Frank Warren in house belt. What was the last big WBO purse bid you saw? Pretty much never happens.

Parker vs. Fury had a 3 million purse bid. Wilder vs. Povetkin was over 7 million dollars. You clearly haven't been paying attention to purse bids if you think all the belts have equal value.

It's not that the networks would pay less for Demetrius Andrade because he was WBO champion, it's that they really didn't want him at all. If he'd been WBC champion, he would have had more value and credibility and would have been able to get dates.

If Billie Joe Saunders had been WBC middleweight champion instead of WBO middleweight champion, he would have been on US TV every fight instead of largely ignored until Golden Boy tried to buy his belt.

A TV exec doesn't say, "oh, he's WBC champion instead of WBO champion? let's pay him more." That's not how it works. It's that being WBC champion gives you so much more credibility than being WBO champion that you're more likely to get an opportunity to begin with.

If Chocolatito had been WBO champion instead of WBC champion, HBO wouldn't have gotten behind him in such a major way.

Haymon is by far the most powerful man in US boxing. Hearn is by far the most powerful man in UK boxing. The US & UK are by far the most lucrative markets in world boxing.

Both of them covet the WBC title the most and both of them largely ignore the WBO title. This is not a coincidence. Arum & Warren are the second rate guys in those countries and they are the WBO guys. The guys with the most leverage go with the WBC because they know it's the most valuable.

I love how you keep on mentioning the WBO belt but not the IBF or WBA. You're clearly playing slight of hand here but it's obvious. Your bull**** may work on an idiot, but I just laugh at what you're saying.

US Networks wouldn't have had BJS on TV because they weren't interested in the match-up. It has nothing to do with him having the WBO belt. When he fought Lemeiux, HBO were interested so they showed the fight. Not once did they claim they were paying BJS less because he had the WBO title. So stop talking crap.

Wilder/Povetkin had a bigger purse bid than Fury/Parker? No!!! Do you think it has something to do with Povetkin being a big star in Russia and his side wanted to make sure they won the purse-bid so they could have the fight in Russia? Do you think that has something to do with it? Save your nonsense for somebody else because i'm actually laughing right now at how absurd your post is. Haha.

[N/A]

I love how you keep on mentioning the WBO belt but not the IBF or WBA. You're clearly playing slight of hand here but it's obvious. Your bull**** may work on an idiot, but I just laugh at what you're saying.

You're the one claiming all the belts are equal, so I'm obviously going to focus on the most valuable (WBC) and least valuable (WBO) to illustrate my point. The fact that you're complaining that I'm not mentioning the IBF and WBA shows that even you know they're not all equal because you realize the difference in value between the WBC and WBO is larger than the difference between the WBC and WBA/IBF.

US Networks wouldn't have had BJS on TV because they weren't interested in the match-up. It has nothing to do with him having the WBO belt.

WBO champions are not taken as seriously by networks. Always been that way. Had BJS been WBC champion, he would have gotten a big fight sooner and US interest would have been higher.

When he fought Lemeiux, HBO were interested so they showed the fight. Not once did they claim they were paying BJS less because he had the WBO title. So stop talking crap.

HBO was interested because their lead promoter (Golden Boy) was trying to buy the belt. BJS had to go to enemy territory as the B-side to try to get some US exposure. He wouldn't have had to be so desperate if he'd held a more valuable title.

Wilder/Povetkin had a bigger purse bid than Fury/Parker? No!!!

Um, yes. It's easily verifiable public information. If you're going to deny indisputable fact, I'm not sure what the point is of having a discussion.

[Sid-Knee]

You're the one claiming all the belts are equal, so I'm obviously going to focus on the most valuable (WBC) and least valuable (WBO) to illustrate my point. The fact that you're complaining that I'm not mentioning the IBF and WBA shows that even you know they're not all equal because you realize the difference in value between the WBC and WBO is larger than the difference between the WBC and WBA/IBF.




WBO champions are not taken as seriously by networks. Always been that way. Had BJS been WBC champion, he would have gotten a big fight sooner and US interest would have been higher.




HBO was interested because their lead promoter (Golden Boy) was trying to buy the belt. BJS had to go to enemy territory as the B-side to try to get some US exposure. He wouldn't have had to be so desperate if he'd held a more valuable title.




Um, yes. It's easily verifiable public information. If you're going to deny indisputable fact, I'm not sure what the point is of having a discussion.

Give me examples of WBC champs getting paid more money because of the belt over fighters holding the WBA and the IBF?

No, BJS would have had the same fights on offer to him that he does have with holding the WBO. To say otherwise is clearly crazy. What fights are not on offer because he holds the WBO that would be open if he held the WBC?

HBO were interested in Golden Boy buying the belt? You mean the belt that they're not interested in according to you? Saunders would have had to travel regardless of what title he held because Golden Boy were willing to pay more money for the fight than Warren. To suggest Warren would have put up more money for Saunders if he held the WBC is nothing short of preposterous.

I was obviously being sarcastic with the Povetkin/Wilder and Fury/Parker fights you fool. I wasn't denying Wilder/Povetkin had more money. But you're clearly playing silly beggars because you know what you're saying is nothing but pure madness. You don't believe for one second the ****e that you spew. You're clearly a propaganda tool for Haymon to try and sway public opinion through your bull****.

Wilder/Povetkin was just a much bigger fight than Fury/Parker. Povetkin is the only star out of all 4 fighters so Povetkin's side were able to get a ton of money together to make sure the fight was held in Russia. It had nothing to do with the WBC being more prestigious. If Wilder would have held the IBF or the WBA, the same bid would have come through. They wouldn't have bid lower because they thought the titles were less worthy. That's just bull****.

[N/A]

Give me examples of WBC champs getting paid more money because of the belt over fighters holding the WBA and the IBF?

I shouldn't have to. Your position is that all four belts are equal. If I prove the WBC is more valuable than the WBO, then your position is proven to be faulty. Why should I let you move the goal posts?

No, BJS would have had the same fights on offer to him that he does have with holding the WBO. To say otherwise is clearly crazy. What fights are not on offer because he holds the WBO that would be open if he held the WBC?

What qualifies you to say that? How much experience do you have negotiating with television networks? How much experience do you have negotiating with promoters? How would you have any idea what goes on behind the scenes, what the networks value, what the promoters value, etc?

Here is your statement:

"BJS would have had the same fights on offer to him that he does have with holding the WBO."

You couldn't possibly know if that's true or not and it's amazing that you even think you could know that.

Let's look at the WBC and WBO middleweight champions from the last 10 years:

WBC
Kelly Pavlik
Sergio Martinez
Sebastian Zbik
Julio Cesar Chavez Jr
Sergio Martinez
Miguel Cotto
Canelo Alvarez
Gennady Golovkin


WBO
Kelly Pavlik
Sergio Martinez
Dmitry Pirog
Hassan N'Dam N'Jikam
Peter Quillin
Andy Lee
Billy Joe Saunders


Which of the two belts do you think generated the largest sanctioning fees in the last decade? Which belt was involved in the biggest fights the last decade? Which belt was held by the biggest names the last decade? Which belt was most prominently featured by the largest television networks the last decade? Which belt garnered more attention with the public the last decade? Last three WBC champs: Cotto, Alvarez, Golovkin. Last three WBO champs: Quillin, Lee, Saunders. You don't see a big difference?

HBO were interested in Golden Boy buying the belt? You mean the belt that they're not interested in according to you?

Never said not interested in. Said less interested in. Big difference. HBO was interested in Golden Boy buying the belt as an insurance policy if Canelo lost to GGG. Would have allowed Canelo to get an easy belt from Lemieux and when you're as big a star as Canelo is, the belts become a lot more interchangeable.

Saunders would have had to travel regardless of what title he held because Golden Boy were willing to pay more money for the fight than Warren. To suggest Warren would have put up more money for Saunders if he held the WBC is nothing short of preposterous.

If Saunders had the WBC, GGG would have been far more aggressive in pursuing a fight with him, as would have Canelo and others. A WBO champion hiding in Europe is often out of sight out of mind. You have to remember that for decades the WBO was not even a recognized title and was essentially a fake belt Warren tricked the UK into considering a world title. In the rest of the world, it's still not thought of as being fully equal to the others and the purse bids for the various belts bear that out time and time again.

[Sid-Knee]

I shouldn't have to. Your position is that all four belts are equal. If I prove the WBC is more valuable than the WBO, then your position is proven to be faulty. Why should I let you move the goal posts?




What qualifies you to say that? How much experience do you have negotiating with television networks? How much experience do you have negotiating with promoters? How would you have any idea what goes on behind the scenes, what the networks value, what the promoters value, etc?

Here is your statement:

"BJS would have had the same fights on offer to him that he does have with holding the WBO."

You couldn't possibly know if that's true or not and it's amazing that you even think you could know that.

Let's look at the WBC and WBO middleweight champions from the last 10 years:

WBC
Kelly Pavlik
Sergio Martinez
Sebastian Zbik
Julio Cesar Chavez Jr
Sergio Martinez
Miguel Cotto
Canelo Alvarez
Gennady Golovkin


WBO
Kelly Pavlik
Sergio Martinez
Dmitry Pirog
Hassan N'Dam N'Jikam
Peter Quillin
Andy Lee
Billy Joe Saunders


Which of the two belts do you think generated the largest sanctioning fees in the last decade? Which belt was involved in the biggest fights the last decade? Which belt was held by the biggest names the last decade? Which belt was most prominently featured by the largest television networks the last decade? Which belt garnered more attention with the public the last decade? Last three WBC champs: Cotto, Alvarez, Golovkin. Last three WBO champs: Quillin, Lee, Saunders. You don't see a big difference?




Never said not interested in. Said less interested in. Big difference. HBO was interested in Golden Boy buying the belt as an insurance policy if Canelo lost to GGG. Would have allowed Canelo to get an easy belt from Lemieux and when you're as big a star as Canelo is, the belts become a lot more interchangeable.




If Saunders had the WBC, GGG would have been far more aggressive in pursuing a fight with him, as would have Canelo and others. A WBO champion hiding in Europe is often out of sight out of mind. You have to remember that for decades the WBO was not even a recognized title and was essentially a fake belt Warren tricked the UK into considering a world title. In the rest of the world, it's still not thought of as being fully equal to the others and the purse bids for the various belts bear that out time and time again.

You keep sticking to the WBO title. I asked you to do the same with the IBF and the WBA. Give me these fights where they would have earned more holding the WBC over the other 2.

What qualifies me to say that? Then give me the fights that are not open to BJS due to him having the WBO? I've not seen any promoter, fighter or TV company say that BJS is a fight they are not interested in because of the WBO title he owns, and that they would be if he owned the WBC. You're the one making these outrageous claims, not me.

The list of fighters for the WBC are just bigger names to the ones for the WBO. If those bigger names had the WBO, they would still be big names getting the big fights. Trying to tell me otherwise is silly. It's like me saying the WBO is bigger than any other title because HBO had big interest in Naseem Hamed over the other world champs. Naz was a star regardless of what title he had, and the others were never going to be stars regardless of what title they had either.

If BJS is hiding out in Europe, wouldn't he be still hiding out in Europe with the WBC title? You claiming other fighters would have pursued BJS if he had another title is nothing more than opinion with zero substance. None of those fighters have said anything of the sort to make what you're saying valuable.

[EnglishOxide]

WBCWBAIBF

What are your thoughts on WBC champion Adonis Stevenson not having a mandatory fight since 2013?

[N/A]

You keep sticking to the WBO title. I asked you to do the same with the IBF and the WBA. Give me these fights where they would have earned more holding the WBC over the other 2.

I'm not willing to do that as long as you continue to maintain the position that all four belts are equal. As long as that's your position, I'm going to continue to point out the most glaring inaccuracies. Since the WBC is the most valuable and the WBO is the least valuable, comparing them is the easiest way to prove the four belts aren't of equal value. If you want to change your position and concede that they aren't all equal, let me know and then I can offer you my thoughts on your new position.

The list of fighters for the WBC are just bigger names to the ones for the WBO. If those bigger names had the WBO, they would still be big names getting the big fights.

And if all the big names had the IBA or WBU instead of the WBO, the IBA and WBU would quickly become more valuable than the WBO. If your position is that the WBC is more valuable because they more consistently get bigger names to fight for them, I'd actually agree with you. But that doesn't change the fact that the WBC is more valuable, it just explains why. As long as your position is that all four are of equal value, you can't simultaneously try to argue what the reasons are for why they're not of equal value. You're destroying your own argument.

[Sid-Knee]

I'm not willing to do that as long as you continue to maintain the position that all four belts are equal. As long as that's your position, I'm going to continue to point out the most glaring inaccuracies. Since the WBC is the most valuable and the WBO is the least valuable, comparing them is the easiest way to prove the four belts aren't of equal value. If you want to change your position and concede that they aren't all equal, let me know and then I can offer you my thoughts on your new position.




And if all the big names had the IBA or WBU instead of the WBO, the IBA and WBU would quickly become more valuable than the WBO. If your position is that the WBC is more valuable because they more consistently get bigger names to fight for them, I'd actually agree with you. But that doesn't change the fact that the WBC is more valuable, it just explains why. As long as your position is that all four are of equal value, you can't simultaneously try to argue what the reasons are for why they're not of equal value. You're destroying your own argument.

OK, the WBO is not seen as being as valuable as the WBC.

Now give me these fighters who were paid less money on the basis of them having the IBF or the WBA over that of the WBC?