If Tyson actually decided, during his prime, to masturbate in MSG and put it on PPV and it did numbers, would you defend it as a reasonable alternative to him fighting an unpopular contender?
nah not bragging. but just giving a unbiased opinion. as some of the joy boi whisch is very few have some valid points. and that you also have some . but in all this is not a perfect world and if you have a plan rather then the normal whinning by most poster please let me know and i'll be you #1 supporter. if not please address the pros and cons not just the cons
uh no but i bet you Tyson VS WLAD would sell better then WALD vs Peteror chageves. just like i can garuntee you THat if peter beat tyson in his next fight and then fought wlad the rematch would sell better then it would now at this point. to make a star you have to beat a star
Yea, we know it would sell great, thats not the question. The question is "can you defend it instead of a fight that should so obviously be happening?" Do you want to watch it? If not, then why are you defending it? Of course you can defend it from a financial standpoint, but that doesn't mean you can defend it from a sporting standpoint. You personally don't gain anything from a fight you don't want to see, as a customer in a free market you should demand the product you want, and not just accept what is good for the seller. No, your single voice won't make a difference, but if enough people wise up and start demanding good fights, thats what we will get. In fact thats what has started happening lately, boxing has been getting competition for the fight fans dollar, and has finally realized people want good fights. If you can make the sport bigger than the fighter, then you will get better fights, thats already been proven.
not defending it but think about how much more attention the winner would get after the fight. and in future fights it would bring them more attention especially in more menaingful fights. lets say wlad beats tyson 2(x) just to make sure . then fights peter that mena the more meaning ful fight gets better coverage then it would of had wlad not destroyed tyson. so in the bigger picture it's better for boxing in a whole as long as the meaningful fight happens then it's good if it never happens then in this case pbf should be roasted. but i can tell you pbf will fight COTTo in his next 2 fights after DLH at the most 3 if he doesn't then he is jsut tring to milk us fans
not defending it but think about how much more attention the winner would get after the fight. and in future fights it would bring them more attention especially in more menaingful fights. lets say wlad beats tyson 2(x) just to make sure . then fights peter that mena the more meaning ful fight gets better coverage then it would of had wlad not destroyed tyson. so in the bigger picture it's better for boxing in a whole as long as the meaningful fight happens then it's good if it never happens then in this case pbf should be roasted. but i can tell you pbf will fight COTTo in his next 2 fights after DLH at the most 3 if he doesn't then he is jsut tring to milk us fans
not defending it but think about how much more attention the winner would get after the fight. and in future fights it would bring them more attention especially in more menaingful fights. lets say wlad beats tyson 2(x) just to make sure . then fights peter that mena the more meaning ful fight gets better coverage then it would of had wlad not destroyed tyson. so in the bigger picture it's better for boxing in a whole as long as the meaningful fight happens then it's good if it never happens then in this case pbf should be roasted. but i can tell you pbf will fight COTTo in his next 2 fights after DLH at the most 3 if he doesn't then he is jsut tring to milk us fans