is the purse bud. I wouldn’t change the purpose, just where the fight should be. I don’t think that the champion who loses the purse bid should ever have to travel to the challengers home town, or home country. Now you might say “but the promoter bought the fight, he can have the fight wherever he wants. My question is, “is that fair to the champion”? The champion IS getting top dollar, but why should a fight come to a purse bid in the first place? One last stupid question. Should boxing do away with purse bids?
Decent post. It's never really bothered me. I dont see why champions should be guaranteed to get everything their own way. It never bothered Wlad, for example, when he lost the purse bid to Povetkin and travelled to Russia to beat him like a red headed stepchild.
Holy, this is a fair minded post by blizzy????? New meds?? Anyways, i kinda agree with the peanut headed prolapsing fella, its a bit weird that the champ can be forced to travel if he looses the bid.
I want clinching done away with. I watched Okolie Chamberlain and it nearly killed my love of the sport. This isn't wrestling, clinching should be treated the same as other fouls like low blows or headbutts
A champion should have everything his own way and it’s up to the challenger to take that away. Headvetkin...had he not tried to cheat would’ve had two title chances in his own back yard against Wlad and then Wilder.
Every fight should be winner take all (except for expenses like trainers, cutmen, hotels, and hookers).
I think the op has a good point. What I would say is if the challenger has a massive following or a superstar that has moved up to fight a guy who has won a vacant belt. The champion needs the superstar more in a weird way. The more money they make the better the terms are, or more in there favour.
Why are posters complaining about purses? I don't even carry a wallet, I guess the FEMS have to find something to complain about ?