Fight the best or fight for money?

Money. Fans don't pay your medical bills.

But I'm sure the keyboard warriors on here donate monthly to guys like Gerald McClellan who left it all in the ring... :roll:

The "fans" is the last thing I'd be worried about. A fickle bunch to say the least. You could be the greatest warrior on the planet, but when it is all said and done: You are on your own and the fans won't do jack. Make sure you have enough money and don't destroy your body in the process.

It's a "sport." It's not a "death match." You should have something left (physically and monetarily) after your sporting career is over. Having a broken body and an empty bank account isn't glorious, I don't care if you're considered the GOAT.

 

agree with most of what you said (especially re: Stevenson). However, the Maidana fight due to Maidana's win over Broner (for better or worse), became large because at the time, Broner was "Mayweather lite". And seeing Broner's "poor man's Mayweather style" dominated created demand to see how he would actually perform against the real deal. Right now, Floyd needs to get Pac in the ring. There is really no tomorrow beyond that, regardless of money.

 

When fighters fight only for money and not glory, and the fans are happy with that, then the sport is ****ed.

 

Fans do pay their bills though. That's where the money in the sport comes from.

 

Aside from Pacman,
who would you have preferred Mayweather to fight over his last , lets say 5 fights?
Same for Pac?

 

I can think of two fighter who can legitimately say they've fought the best in this era---Cotto and Mosley. Anyone else is fooling themselves.

 

On the way up a fighter should fight the best, that's how he would get his name out there and get the popularity, fame, money, he is looking for. After that, it's a game of calculations, balances, the opponents have to be good enough that the public would consider them worthy challenge so as to sell but, not so good as they could shorten your career or beat you. That's on the fighters end.

On the fans end it's not much different. Either get educated enough to know what a competitive fight would be for a fighter in question or get fooled. We have all the power we need in our wallet, we just need to know when to use it by refusing pay. There have been many Floyd and Pac fights I have passed on, problem is, others didn't. Does it bother me, yes, because odds are now there'll be another waste of time fight down the road but, at least I won't be the one paying for it. Fan education is the real problem, a fighter should not be faulted for doing what any of us would do, taking the highest value work for the least risk.

 

when you earn the right for the money it doens't matter who you fight..

perfect example is miguel cotto.

Cleared out 140 - 147 for the most part. So he can get away with fighting someone like yuri foreman or ricardo mayorga in yankee stadium or msg because he's a great champion.



someone like thurman on the other hand hasn't beaten anyone at 147. He doesn't deserve anything

 

Excellent Post.:good

 

I can only think of a pro few fights that were fought for charity. Everyone else fights for money.

 

you've got a point if youre talking about guys that fight 6 rounders and get a hundred bucks a round, but those fights are safer anway.

you have no point if you are talking about someone like mayweather who makes hundreds of millions of dollars PAID for by the FANS !!!!

and hes super defensive anyways

 

Usually fighting the best is the best financial option like mayweather pacman.

as for your cotto example, well cotto is a bigger money fight than GGG, and you left out one thing


cotto is the no 1 ranked middleweight in the world ahead of Golovkin

we cant just give GGG that honour he has to earn it

I am aware that Miguel literally beat a one legged man in an ass kicking contest (again)

but hes lineal champ now:blood

 

Fight the best or fight for money?

Why not fight both ?

Pac = the best

Pac = for most money