Are there any posters on here willing to admit they had Wilder wrong?

[dibzvincent143]

Not discounting anything. We agree Wilder doesn't deserve 50/50. He is closing the gap though. The offer has gone from 12.5 to 40. Clearly he's doing something right.

By the time he completely closes the gap he’d be past his prime and I guess that’s the fight you’d rather wanna see. Though milking the fight is the smart business move, it hurts the sport, the fans, and in this case the fighter as well, but I can see you’re openly supporting it and I hope it goes for all the other fights we’ve had wanted to see in the past, and presently as well.
Or does it only work for Wilder?
Can’t blame Haymon and showtime for controlling Wilder as they’re only doing what’s best for them. And wilder signing to another banner to make his to history and more importantly get paid is majorly detrimental.

If wilder took that offer, not only would it show that he wants the fight for real, but he’s also getting paid handsomely to fight the same guy he’d fight for less. He’s also gonna get Joshua— even if it’s not guarranteed presently, we both know it’d create an insane amount of pressure for the other side.
Take all his belts. Make history. Finally be the A-side he desperately wants. And he can do whatever he wants after that.

Every A-side superstar has been once the B-side in their lives, they took it like a man and reap their blessings afterwards.

Edit: if all the other underdogs in the past go down to that route you’re suggesting, we would have missed a ton of great fights because their too busy upping their value first lol

[Granath]

Likewise, at times I've given up on his forum due to the sheer volume of trolling but I have enjoyed this discussion.

On the location, I would only say that it may be difficult for US fans to appreciate just how deep the level of suspicion is on both the fairness of scorecards and also other aspects around selection of referee, conditions at the arena etc etc. Most people feel Fury was robbed on just that kind of setup, why would AJ risk that?

Joshua has been fighting in front of 90k in his hometown, he is the number one, unified champion, earns massive revenue outside the ring and has far better alternative options to earn should a Wilder fight not be agreed. Or as US fans have taught us he's the A side. Is a promoter really being short sighted in maintaining this position unless a good reason is provided to abandon it?

So the impetus to move the fight to the US to pursue what was at the time a marginal rise in his purse to accommodate team Wilders desires to maximise return simply wasn't there. AJ makes 60m+ next year without this fight, hes still improving as a fighter, it's not easy to exert leverage on that position. Now of course it looks like they will fight in the US first, but likely on a promotion they control.

On the second point, it's too early to tell if the current bullish activity in US boxing can translate into revenues. Can the PPV model stand alongside the subscription services? Or does something have to give?

Yeah, there is a lot of posturing on this forum and it's refreshing to discuss something with someone without the dick-measuring contest.

Just a couple of thoughts on your excellent post above.

(1) Note that the ringside press on the Wilder/Fury fight was very mixed. The majority of those polled at ringside believed that it was a very close fight. The plurality I believe was for a draw and no fighter got a majority for a win. It is a constant drumbeat here but I chalk it up to sour grapes. I've never seen a fight in my life that went 12 rounds where someone landed 82 punches and was floored twice without knocking down the other guy but was somehow robbed of victory. I'd tell any fighter the same thing - land more punches next time (same goes to Wilder). Yeah, I know that this is a trigger for some people so they ought not to respond on this point. Those are the facts and they're entitled to have their own opinions. But I guarantee if those roles were reversed Fury fans would still be screaming about the decision because the other guy got knocked down twice, the punches were almost even and their guy was moving forward the entire night.

(2) The whole A side / B side presents something in black and white when it's not nearly that clear cut. There's a big difference between fighting Whyte or fighting Schwartz for example and each of those guys will be paid accordingly. It's not just a matter that the "B side" gets the scraps every time. If that fighter increases the interest and the purse significantly, then they have leverage.

In this case, Joshua may earn $60M next year but he will likely exceed that in one fight. Since he is not the unified champion the only way for him to raise his profile in the US is to unify the belts. That means a fight with Wilder. He could take the low-risk road but at this point the big money requires a unification bout.

(3) From Wilder's standpoint, taking $5M or even $15M was insulting when he knew that he was bringing much more to the table than that. It's a high-risk fight for them both (Joshua is the favorite) and that's a lot of risk for him without the corresponding reward. Both promoters aren't going to sign until they believe the money is too good to pass up. So if Joshua loses he can sleep on a bed made up of pounds sterling banknotes. Same for Wilder on a bed made up of C-Bills. Wilder isn't going to take 1/4th of the gate. While I don't think this fight ends up 50/50, Wilder's camp is going to make sure they don't look bad by taking half as much either.

If both guys win their next fight, I believe that the interest will be about as big as it's going to get for a title fight between two undefeated champions. There's more than enough money to go around and it'll get done. Of course, if either loses then all the talk will be how they messed up and should have taken the payday earlier. Wilder, in particular, needs to do something within a relatively short time frame or he'll run the risk of getting too old.

On the second point, I think both can co-exist if carefully balanced. If there's not enough big fights on the subscription model then people won't pay for it. If most of the good fights are there then no one will want to pay for a PPV. But if there's enough compelling content to justify the sub model I can still see boxing fans splurging for a big PPV event.

[P4Pdunny]

I didn't ever think he wanted the fight. I thought it was a PR campaign to raise his profile a little before going back to the previous method.