Of course it can and has been done. It plenty of fights the split is 66 1/3 - 33 1/3, as in they both get say $1 to show, and the winner gets another $1 to win
in what fights has that happened ? i dont think in any big ones. it would probably make for better fights tho
Almost all small fights, of course now that I said it I can't think of any big fights off the top of my head, but what I'm saying is its totally contractually possible.
No the winner should not get the most. The champion should get the most, and if it is not for a title, then the person who draws the most should get the most, because he is bringing more to the fight. This is how it already is, and in my opinion, it needs to stay this way.
You could also do where the champion gets a higher show pay, but if he loses the contenders show pay plus win bonus would be higher than just the champs show pay.
A bonus is still going to come out of the total amount of money that the fighters get, and I am against that.
****ing hell, why argue about it? Yes it can be done. Anything legal can be done so long as a contract is signed. Riddick Bowe (or one of his handlers) reportedly once offered to fight Lennox Lewis (after the trash can incident) for a winner take all fight for the purse. Loser gets squat. Lewis accepted after a bit of umming an ahing. Faxed his response. Bowe was never heard from again............ (from a boxing insider article)
And we have WHO'S word on that - oh, yeah, that's right, Frank Maloney, Lewis' manager. This is, at best, an unsubstantiated allegation. More than likely, it's pure propaganda. :nod As to the manner of 60/40 purse splits, I think it's a great idea. I don't get why people are against it, in fact.
Jesus Zak, I swear you search for Lewis's name. You have an insane obsession with hating him. Did he beat your favourite fighter or something? And yes I think the 60/40 splits are a great idea. Might make a dirge like Winky v Hopkins slightly more interesting, if there was a bit more cash on the line for the winner. I mean, why push yourself if your money is guaranteed. It makes zero sense to me why people wouldn't be all for it.
It's not "hate" - it's setting the record straight!! :yep And no, I don't search for these things. But I don't exactly resist the urge to respond either! But we're definitely in agreement on these 60/40 splits. I am not in favor of "winner take all" purses, though - and I don't think any manager/promoter would ever in their right mind agree to one anyway. But for the loser to walk away with 40 percent of the take seems perfectly reasonable to me. I've never quite understood this business of beltholders AUTOMATICALLY getting more - particularly with title proliferation.
So you think the guy who did his job better shouldn't get paid a bonus for doing it? You are whats wrong with the mind of boxing promoters.
