Tyson Fury ‘tour’

50/50 is the fairest deal for two fighters of equal value

Everyone is happy.

When one fighter on that side of the equation is asking for more then they are pricing themselves out

 

How is Fury of equal value to AJ? Boxing is a business and if you held all the belts and you were also going to make the higher percentage of ticket sales then surely you would deserve the higher split. If Fury wanted this fight so much then he would accept a lower percentage. It's the same with Wilder but again he is pricing himself out of the fight because truly neither want to fight AJ.

 

But they're obviously not of equal value.

 

I tried to answer similar question here:

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...says-wbc-champion.620985/page-2#post-19582396

I look at boxrec and think that Wilder's career is a perfect microcosm of what's gone wrong with American boxing, what's killed the sport over there. The careful avoidance of risk or challenge. The hype and the taking fans for fools. The careful choreographing that can see a man take 40 fights and 6 title defences before facing anything close to a genuine world class opponent. The twisting of the rules by the compliant belt organisation. Etc. Etc.

If I can see all that, so can Joshua. He pushed himself when Wilder stayed comfortable. He risked more earlier to get in the leading position. For that matter he stayed disciplined and focussed when fury abandoned the sport and indulged his base desires.

I want good behaviour in boxing to be rewarded and I don't want those who try and fool the fans and game the system to get rewarded. So the reason I care and I think others should too is because it's not good for boxing to let the guys who ,manipulated the system to win so big.

 

He might not want to, but what choice does he have?

 

Choice is the key word. What are the alternatives each guy can pursue if they don't come to an agreement. AJ can continue to make massive amounts of money at lesser risk. The other two, not so much.

 

Why do you think Joshua was such a big success early on?

And I think it's churlish to say he's not taken any risks. If you're saying his opposition was poor what do you think of Wilder's?

 

Exactly. Joshua will end up fighting Whyte/Miller/Usyk for massive money and Tyson will be fighting Charr at Manchester Arena on BT for a comparative pittance.

 

I'd argue that the real reason for Joshua's initial drawing power was winning the biggest prize in amateur boxing at a home Olympics. From thereon in however it's a combination of smart marketing, matchmaking and Joshua's own style, which does involve a greater degree of risk taking than Fury for example.

Of course Breazeale and Molina were the price he had to pay to Haymon to get his shot, so I don't hold those against him. The Martin fight was, whichever way you choose to look at it, against a more experienced unbeaten fighter with a belt. Breazeale was also unbeaten for that matter and at this point remember Joshua is still scarce more than a novice in pro fight terms. Even his 'weaker' defences stack up against the other, older, more experienced belt holder.

The key point is when the chance to step up came he took it, despite many thinking it too early. Since Wlad he's faced a mandatory, unified and then another mandatory against a good opponent in Povektin. Not too shabby for a 28 year old with 22 pro fights.

 

That's a good point about if Joshua had lost. He's undeniably popular and a loss, which some seem to think would derail his career, would just change the narrative.

 

Now Froch has woken up makes me think Flat Mick was in his ear all the time back in the day, planted the flat earth seed now Froch has more time on his hands he's got there by himself.

Fury will be next in my predictive view, guy has an open mind.