50-40 to Mayweather and 10% to the winner?

**** Floyd!

 

Randomly choosing a three year time frame as the most accurate depiction of their drawing power is by nature arbitrary. If that's the case, why don't we just arbitrarily determine the split for the fight, assuming this fall, off of the revenue generated off their respective PPVs this year. Wouldn't that be the most recent and relevate indications of their drawing power by your logic?

To exclude De La Hoya and Hatton (from Floyd's total) while including Hatton for Pacquiao because it happened 18 months after Mayweather-Hatton is completely an attempt to scew numbers for one side.

 

Just $100,000,000 is what they will split...Manny get's his $40,000,000...this will be $15,000,000 more high highest payday and over 5 times Manny's highest guarantee of $7,400,000.

Floyd has a high payday of $50,000,000 with Cotto....So your saying Pac should be guarantee'd to make $15,000,000 more his highest payday, while Floyd would only get what he made for Cotto if he lost, and only $10,000,000 more his highest payday if he won.

60/40 to Floyd is the fair deal...LEAVE NOTHING TO ANY JUDGES EITHER.

 

Exactly..they use this stupid 3 year item..they just pick it out of there ass.

How about looking at common opponents..De La Hoya, Marquez (3), Mosley, Hatton, and Cotto.

Randomly picking a 3 year mark is stupid...Look at everyone for both fighters since De La Hoya OR look at common opponents.

 

Agreed, but I said the past 3 years..ie. the most recent 3 years. Now you think that's arbitrary or random?...or just plain smart accounting?

 

You wouldn't happen to be a certain wacko dui lawyer from san diego would ya?....coz that ****job don't know **** about ****.

 

I live in Seattle and I am far from a lawyer.

So how is it that you just pick out 3 years? That shows bias towards one side.

Common opponents would not show any bias.

 

I didn't come out randomly and arbitrarily picked out three years. The sample size I proposed was 2009-2012, the logic here being that most recent data is the most accurate depiction of their drawing power....do you agree? Where's the bias in that statement?

 

Yes it is because I can say why not the past year, the past 2 years, this current year, and etc. I don't believe that you can't grasp this point. Seeing that Pacquiao fought De La Hoya and Hatton in succession just a year and a half after Mayweather fought those same two fighters in succession, it would appear logical to use that as the starting point for any comparison. Or why don't we use when each fighter began appearing on 24/7 to hype their fights? Hmm, that would respectively start with the De La Hoya fight for each of them, again another common ground.

 

Certainly the past two years would be more recent than that following your logic right? Why not use that then?

 

If you go by the logic that "you're only as good as your last fight"....then maybe you can follow the logic here. And don't take that saying literally as I'm only using it as an example. What I'm proposing isn't "arbitrary" simply because there's logic behind it. Lemme refresh your memory, my whole argument with BigReg was that they should use the most recent data as to reflect a more accurate depiction of drawing power. I said the last 3 years would make more sense. Arbitrary would be me saying, hey let's use numbers from their first 3 fights and determine their relative drawing power thru that. Jeesuss fchrist....I give up.

 

You would want a big enough sample size that's why.

 

You give up because there's no basis to suggest that anything beyond 3 years is not relevant while anything less than three years would not generate a large enough sample size. It's not arbitrary because you choose the past 3 years, I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying that the cutoff you choose of three years to start analyzing data is arbitrary. And by doing so, your analyzing data from only Mayweather's last 4 fights but including data from Pacquiao's last 6 (soon to be 7 fights). So Mayweather's fight with Hatton would be irrelevant even though he's only faced four fighters since, while Hatton is relevant for Manny even though he would've faced 6 fighters since (if you count Bradley).

 

There key difference is there is that Cotto is a proven PPV attraction in his own right. Bradley isn't so it isn't really a good comparison.

 

Luckily, emmanuel too has fought Cotto(e). They are free to make comparisons based on mutual opponents