Why don't Pac and May agree that the winner gets 60% the loser 40%?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Stovepipe, Jun 22, 2010.


  1. Stovepipe

    Stovepipe Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,873
    60
    Feb 1, 2007
    Or 30%? Now is the perfect time for this. It isn't even being brought up. Well, Roach brings it up, even saying winner take all, but he isn't calling the shots. Seriously, this would end all of this bull****. Pac's team needs to bring this up.

    Each man gets 40%. Winner gets 20% extra. Draw they go 50/50. This whole split stall could be avoided. Pac could even say I'll take 35% if I lose and you can still get 40% if you lose.

    Team Arum has to offer this because it will blow all this bull**** out of the water. How could Mayweather refuse a 65% split assuming he wins, if Pac is so easy to beat?

    Both these guys are already multi multi millionaires so the excuse that the loser will suffer greatly is bull****. The excuse that it can cause more corruption is bull**** too, because winners of these fights even in an even split stand to make a lot more down the line, so that "influence" is already there and we all damn sure know that from watching all the nonsense that goes on with refs and judges already.

    Winner 60
    Loser 40

    Done deal.

    ............of course then it will go back to 14 days not being good enough :rofl
     
  2. LukeO

    LukeO Erik Morales is God Full Member

    37,866
    45
    Jun 30, 2007
    Because floyd feels like he is selling his 0, so he wants a bigger cut.
     
  3. PH|LLA

    PH|LLA VIP Member Full Member

    79,438
    2,646
    Feb 1, 2007
    Because if there's 15-20 million $ riding on who the winner will be, you are just begging for corruption.
     
  4. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    269
    Jul 22, 2004
    Because then their would be a real reason to bribe officials ;)
     
  5. Stovepipe

    Stovepipe Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,873
    60
    Feb 1, 2007
    65% isn't enough?
     
  6. Stovepipe

    Stovepipe Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,873
    60
    Feb 1, 2007
    But even in an even split that potential is there, because there is 20 million, or more, riding on who the winner will be in future potential earnings.
     
  7. Kel1981

    Kel1981 P4P No.1 Full Member

    9,561
    9
    Oct 19, 2008
    That's a ****ing good point actually!!!
     
  8. PH|LLA

    PH|LLA VIP Member Full Member

    79,438
    2,646
    Feb 1, 2007
    Not the same. If Pacquiao beats the crap out of Floyd, but the judges give it to Mayweather anyways, then Pacquiao would not really lose 20M$ or more in future potential earnings. Or if there's some kind of bull**** DQ or something of the sort.

    However if the split is 60/40 to the winner, he would get ****ed
     
  9. LukeO

    LukeO Erik Morales is God Full Member

    37,866
    45
    Jun 30, 2007
    Yeah, I didn't think about that. It is a good point.
     
  10. Jared

    Jared Active Member Full Member

    1,428
    1
    Apr 17, 2010
    Don't see how that makes any difference.
     
  11. Just let LukeO score the fight. I'm sure he will be nothing short of fair and impartial.
     
  12. LukeO

    LukeO Erik Morales is God Full Member

    37,866
    45
    Jun 30, 2007
    Of course.

    If I was scoring pacquiao fights he would have more losses and I would have more money.
     
  13. ecdrm15

    ecdrm15 Boxing Addict Full Member

    7,274
    98
    Apr 30, 2008
    :good

    Just have fair judges.
     
  14. He'll be a slight betting underdog in this one, you'll have more to gain if he wins.
     
  15. Stovepipe

    Stovepipe Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,873
    60
    Feb 1, 2007
    But the potential for corruption is already extremely significant even in a fight where the winner doesn't get something extra. Even bull**** decisions damage a fighter's career. If Pac wins 9 rounds to 3 you know damn well the *****s are going to claim Floyd still won and sight the fact that judges saw it that way too. People rationalize bull**** decisions all the time to fit their own bias.

    I agree that it adds to a potential corruption, however, it also puts the spotlight even more on that potential, which is good.

    In the end, we the fans the millions watching will know by what we see from the refs and the judges and it will blow this bull**** excuse out of the water.

    I wish they would do this in every negotiation stall and get rid of this bull**** fight stopping excuse once and for all.

    How many fights have been stopped because of this excuse, when we all know damn well its more often than not just a way to duck a real fight?