All Fights should be 60/40 splits...???

[IsaL]

Horrible Idea.

[#1Rounder]

Originally Posted by UliUli

Horrible Idea.

Holy shit.... Why bump this thread a year later???

It was just a rant, really a heat of the moment thread not thought out
completly.. It was when every other thread was about who was the bigger draw floyd or pac.. What's sad is all these flomos and pactards are still at it...

[megavolt]

Not good. Consider two situations, both which outline the effectiveness of todays standard

Star vs nobody
one person's star power did all the work on putting the asses in the seats and turning on the TV's while the other person did nothing. If the nobody wins he gets the lion share despite not having done anything. What we do today is fine because if a nobody keeps winning, and in scintillating fashion, he won't be a nobody for long.

Star vs star
A lot of money would be made in such a lucrative fight, and if a winner determines the direction of which a LOT of money will move, well this would be a system that invites CORRUPTION. Fixed fights. Hired judges/refs.

Money talks.

[slantone]

nah, its not about that- its about economics. who s the draw- who brings money in. why should someone who is established and made a good living, been in the sport for a long time, built a fan base- have to compromise his pay because he fights a less popular, unknown challenger?!?! it dosent make sense. its like gettinge everyone in the nba the same money- and the champ getting money, or everyone at your work the same pay- and who work s best for that day- more money. its a socialist concept- which in princiapl sounds perfect- but in actuality , dosent recognise personal value and history.

[megavolt]

Originally Posted by slantone

nah, its not about that- its about economics. who s the draw- who brings money in. why should someone who is established and made a good living, been in the sport for a long time, built a fan base- have to compromise his pay because he fights a less popular, unknown challenger?!?! it dosent make sense. its like gettinge everyone in the nba the same money- and the champ getting money, or everyone at your work the same pay- and who work s best for that day- more money. its a socialist concept- which in princiapl sounds perfect- but in actuality , dosent recognise personal value and history.

and business.. characters, styles and promoters create buildups, which makes a point that those who promoted diligently will receive only a paltry amount if their fighter loses, which reduces the incentive.

[madkillaz692000]

easy for us to say..

[#1Rounder]

Originally Posted by slantone

nah, its not about that- its about economics. who s the draw- who brings money in. why should someone who is established and made a good living, been in the sport for a long time, built a fan base- have to compromise his pay because he fights a less popular, unknown challenger?!?! it dosent make sense. its like gettinge everyone in the nba the same money- and the champ getting money, or everyone at your work the same pay- and who work s best for that day- more money. its a socialist concept- which in princiapl sounds perfect- but in actuality , dosent recognise personal value and history.

Don't the champions from the other major sports recieve a bonus pay for winning the championship??

I think I read it before..

[BoxingFanNo1]

Imagine this scenario with Mayweather.

He moves up in weight and fought Yuri Foreman, can it be justified Foreman gets 40% when it's Mayweather doing all the drawing?

Nice idea but impossible.

[J.E.Cash]

I like the payout Hopkins/Jones had. 50/50, but if it ends by KO, then 60/40 for the winner.

[Beenie]

I agree that the winner should always get the lion's share of the purse. The exact split percentage could still be negotiated pre-fight and it would make for some interesting strategic negotiations.

[bald_head_slick]

Originally Posted by #1Rounder

With all this talk about Pac vs. PBF and what the split should be... I think all fights should be 60/40 with the winner getting the larger cut. If a draw were to occur then it's 50/50 split. We as fans should not get cheated of great fights just because the fighters cant agree on the money....

Makes sense, but it won't happen until we get a boxing league where fighters are taken care of before and after being champ.

The way it is now, I can completely understand if a boxer won't risk his health and legacy against some tough nobody for peanuts or even close to equal money.

[Peppermint]

A 8-15 journeyman fighting a 12-0 prospect for example in a 8 round fight takes the fight for the decent pay most of the time. If you tell him he will get paid less if he loses, then he probably wont sign the contract, because the odds are already against him. Promoters need to take care of the opponents if they want to build their fighters record. All fighters should get paid a set amount reguardless of the outcome. This is how a lot of fighters put food on their table, its not fair to say you can only pay your rent this month if you win.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by Taylex

I prefer 40/40 and the winner takes the other 20.

[Marnoff]

All fights should involve some sort of incentive to win. The fact that guys get the same amount of money no matter the result makes no sense. Even if just 10% of the purse was reserved for the winner would help. So, like a 65/25 split sort of thing if you have someone who is the clear draw getting 65%, 25% going to the lesser draw, then an extra 10% for the winner.

[Broner Da Truth]

I agree 100 percent, would be nice to add extra incentive for KO's 7030 if a win by KO