Fight the best or fight for money?

I don't have a problem with fighters that fight for money- for example I wouldn't give Cotto a hard time if he fought Alvarez rather than Golovkin.

However I have a problem with the likes of Stevenson who continually ducks fighting the best fighters and fights for lower money against B and C level guys.

You mention Mayweather not being held to the same standard but he is going around telling everyone he's 'The Best Ever' while proving it against Devon Alexander victim Marcos Maidana

 

Stop defending the Coward Catchweather, a coward is a coward.

 

I think it's fine to choose fights based on money but when you've been at world level for a while and had big money fights then the big money fights are those usually against the best opposition available

 

"We're not fighting to see who is the best"

 

Look at Kovalev for example right after the. Hopkins fight Kathy Duva said it's now about the money now ..I think you can fight the best than make the best money but you should be fighting the best first !Boxing is about legacy even though it's called prize fighting no one ranks the top earners the highest because of the money they made its about who they fought at the end of the day!

 

I have no problem with a boxer doing either, as long as they state what their intentions are. Eubank is the only one I remember who stated Money always took precedent over achievement.

What I don't like is when fighters pontificate about legacy and challenges, then continually seek out the most lucrative fights at the expense of the ones that will enhance their legacy or are more challenging.

I won't hold Golovkin up as an example, as the Ward fight isn't there to be made anyway and it's still relatively early in his career.

I will Mayweather though, who has continually avoided challenges at almost every stage of the last ten years. It irks especially when he refers to himself as TBE, when he is patently nowhere near and will not take the fights that might put him within that ball park.

 

The Mayweather formula is watering down the sport

 

Isn't Golovkin nearly in his mid 30's, especially with his style, I'd say he has a good 2-3 years max.

 

It existed long before Floyd.

 

Why not? If he says he's the best ever are we suppose to just take his word for it?

As it stands Anthony Joshua has a much right to call himself 'The Best Ever' as he's proved it as much as Mayweather- i.e. not at all.

 

In some divisions you can cherrypick for bigger paydays (like the MW, SMW divisions). But at the top level the biggest fights = the bigger paydays.

Fighting for money means fighting #1 Floyd, #2 Pac, #3 Wladschko, #4 Cotto... etc.

So if Floyd wants to fight for the most money, it means fighting Pac and vice versa. So bullsh|tting about it won't hold up anyway.

 

He's 32, and states he'll fight for another five years. He doesn't have too many miles on the clock, and isn't wearing out his body boiling down.
Throw in the fact he wants four fights a year, and even with 2-3 years he could rack up a decent resume before retiring. I'll see where he is in a year or so before slating him or not.

 

Well I'm a teacher. I wouldn't consider going to a more prestigious school if my current school could match the salary.

Boxing is a profession at the end of the day. We might give fighters grief for not making certain fights but at the end of the day it's their choice and it's then who out food on the table.

We should focus more on applauding those who do tale on the best as opposed to disparaging those who don't.