I dont really like to chew on these fantasies and it is a fantasy Im chewing on , but dont you think it would help boxing getting more excitement and more respectable if it would be a habit to isolate a percentage of the two fighters share and a winner would get that sum? As you could see in the Contender finals, the winner gets a hell lot more money than the loser. And Bika and Codrington went at it as well as Mora and Manfredo (and just think about the difference in motivation in their fixed purse rematch or in any other Mora fights its a really good example I think). Im saying that a much smaller amount, lets say 20-30% of each fighter would be good as the loser wouldnt get ripped and both fighters would like to win more. Nowadays I see in a lot of fights even in some world title fights that the fighters, as they are getting their purse win or lose, exciting or boring, punching or hugging, just dont do everything to win or sitting on a seeming point lead. But + or 30% of their share would be a pretty good motivator to win no matters what. So what do you think? Its just a theory, but in theory, do you think it would change boxing in a better way?
I personally think it's a ridiculous notion. Are you suggesting that most of the time fighters are not giving their all? I don't see how it would stop fighters hugging either. The fighters that do that are normally doing so because they are out of their depth & trying to avoid being knocked out. It could, infact, lead to more clinching because fighters would try to protect their "bonus purse" if they felt they were already winning.
That's a good point, Dan. But protecting their lead with clinching as you said could turn against them. Only a few fights in my suggested system could answer but I think if I just couldn't possibly know what's on the scorecards I'd do MORE not LESS to make my possible win secure. Because there's the threat of losing a lot of money. It would need a few fights to see the effect of that system and of course I'm just talking in theory. And of course it's good to hear other's opinion. :think
And don't forget about my example with The Contender. They really went at it for the bigger purse and how unmotivated was Mora in his fights after that is interesting.
Are you kidding me? There are a lot of fighters who does that. A lot of Tyson's opponents just went in for the money, e.g. Savarese, Ettiene, Seldon, etc. If fighters get incentives for winning, we might have seen e.g. Jones put on a better performance than he did against Tarver, etc. I do not see how this suggestion will hurt the sport. I think it will only make it better.
But they wouldn't have had a chance of winning anyway so I doubt a "bonus purse" would have made much difference to the effort they put in. I actually think it's a little disrespectful to suggest that fighters are not putting in max effort. The only time I think a "bonus purse" may have an effect would be in "smaller" fights between up & coming contenders. I think what BigBone is really getting at here is wanting to see more fighters going for the knock out. Not only would this remove any finesse we have within the sport but it could actually create a dangerous situation where we have non punchers fighting differently because they need that extra cash. At the end of the day, how can you quantify effort? If someone goes twelve rounds & loses they should not be punished for that. I think people are thinking more about their own entertainment than the fighters here. Remember these are real men with real lives.
It's not punishment. It's payment by performance. In most of the sports it works like that. Like tennis. The winner of a tourney gets more than the runnerup. Or the Olympics, the Gold medal winner gets more if the athlete would be just the Silver medal winner no matter how much effort did he put in. Why shouldn't the winner get a sum? And if it's a matchup like Cotto vs. Williams, Cotto would get the bigger purse anyway, win or lose. But! There would be a very important few thousand dollars at stake for the winner. In theory, I think that would be a motivating factor. Maybe an unmotivated fighter wouldn't get motivated by it, but at least it would HELP getting a little more motivation for the sake of our sport. It's not unfair but it's very uncommon in boxing, I agree on that.
You can't really compare our sport to other sports though. The fighters are not fighting in a tournament. It doesn't work as fairly as that as we all know. Do you really see fighter motivation as an issue anyway? We have had a stellar year in boxing. I know some of the fat heavies are a bore but they would be a bore regardless because they are simply limited fighters. I can see where you are coming from with your idea but there are better ways to go about creating competition like a more fair ranking system & not letting the same man get a shot at every alphabet while other fighters, who are not as well promoted, have to wait in line.
Just like open scoring I think the financial incentive idea will give a fighter who feels he's ahead on cards more of a reason to coast and take absolutely no chances.
I used to own and train standarbreds and the split was, for the first 5 places: 50%,25%,12%,8%,5%. I think it varied with tracks. It adds to the intensity, no doubt.
