Why don't we have "winner takes all'?

[Airtioteclint]

I understand that one fighter feels like they draw in more money so they deserve more but doesn't that mean he's not confident in his ability to win?

And I suspect it would make a lot of more exciting fights. A losing fighter will still try to give it all he's got if he doesn't have the "oh well i still get paid" mentality in the ring.

It would also stop a lot of bs fights where a nobody is calling out a big name just to survive and collect too.

Or am i just not understanding how it all works?

[Joe Beamish]

I doubt anyone would want THAT kind of business. You gotta pay your people, for one thing.

Not the right solution for boxing's ills, which you allude to. Instead, let's have single championships per weight class. Make the best fight against the best.

[Smash]

thats already been done, by ABBA

[SkiPete]

Because then why would anyone put in months of work to fight Canelo and beat him only to lose a split decision on the score cards.

[Joe Beamish]

It WOULD be cool to get MORE of the purse for a KO, though.

[Vegemil]

Because we aren't hillbillies.

[Zaryu]

I think something more realistic would be the winner getting 55% and the loser getting 45% for fights in which people can't seem to agree on who should get the lions share. However, way too many egos involved most times, I don't think it has ever been done.

[Ivansmamma]

Roy Jones wanted to do this for the Bernard Hopkins rematch.

[Richard Hamilton]

We? You mean the fighters? Because they want to be paid for their job.

[4truth]

I think something more realistic would be the winner getting 55% and the loser getting 45% for fights in which people can't seem to agree on who should get the lions share. However, way too many egos involved most times, I don't think it has ever been done.

This seems a lot more doable and probably the way it should be done. What individual sports besides combat sports work any other way?