The Problem: There's Just No Percentage in That

First topic message reminder :

Hi Guys,

So, after a few sterling debates this week, one particular topic has sprung up and stimulated interesting debate. Promoters, and the notion of percentages when taking a fight, and whether they are in fact the problem.

It's a topic that hasn't so much as caused ripples but waves on Boxing V2. Many respected posters have defended Promoters like Frank Warren, Arum and Golden Boy for grooming fighters like Nathan Cleverly and Chavez Jr. While other posters have argued that they are weak champions, incapable of achieving at world level, despite occupying world titles.

A few fight fans have argued (in good debate fashion) that it is fine for Warren, Di Bella, Arum and alike to hype up fighters, name drop top opposition, even if these fights don't materialize, many see it as part of the game. Verbal business, promotion, hype.

I've been trying to sum it all up; the debates about promoters, how they bleed a fighter or sell us a poor fight for the short game, while talking long on big names and huge venues. World dominance, another avenue for a promoter, Las Vegas, MSG selling out Wembley. It is part of the game, i do sense and see and understand that.

But... and this is a big but... are promoters simply not seeing the percentage in pushing their fighters into the fights that their titles (Chavez, Cleverly, Cloud) talk (Degale, Degale, Degale) and talent (Berto, LUCIAN BUTE, Donaire, Bradley) demand? And are they responsible for creating a scenario that leaves fans frustrated? World champions without world will or talent? Is this the dawn of a new type of Champion?

Is the percentage of a fighter, risk versus reward, what is holding the sport back in 2012? And if you think so, who is responsible and why?

rowley wrote:Difference is Manos the UFC is the promotional company and governing body. Personally do not see any problem with one governing body, if a champion is fighting a mandatory there is a set split such as 65-35 as I believe is the case now for voluntary defences they can be negotiated differently.

Think to bear in mind is currently mandatory defences have become a euphamism for getting someone rubbish out of the way, with only one set of rankings and governing body becoming mandatory contender would actually be difficult and as such the chances are the champion would be fighting someone, who people had heard of and who had fought enough decent fighters to have a solid reputation, hence the money the fight would generate would be in proportion to the risk to the champion.

If you could implement this, then yes. But part of the reason I think boxing has ended up like it has is simply because this kind of concept failed in practice. The more power boxers and their promoters have, the less they need to answer to a governing body. If a champion doesnt want to fight his mandatory because he can get a higher split or make more money against someone else then after a while I think they will do this. Fighters will break away, alternative bodies will be set up and you end up graduating back to what we have now in some shape or form. I see it being a case if the governing body doesnt have a strong handle on the financial aspect of the sport then ultimately it has little power and its only a matter of time before it breaks down.

I think in order to have a real shot at working it you need some kind of central authority like the UFC has which both provides the money and makes the rules. Unless both come as a package then I think failure will occur. I quite like the UFC model I have to say and if boxing had a similar system it would be good. But it would require such a major overhall and such drastic change that I dont think its feasible.

The more simpler solution I envisage is that titles simply become meaningless in the future. Both in terms of recognition and financial gain and independant ranking systems are used to determine who the best fighters are. As it stands now I am far more likely to take stock of rankings done by the ring magazine than any governing body and its got to the stage where I think its easier just to withdraw all recognition of tiles rather than go back to one singular belt system. If the major commissions worldwide such as California, New York, Nevada, U.K, Germany and Japan simply stopped recognising titles altogether it would be beneficial. As it stands now the UK for example recognise 5 different sanctioning bodies which is a bit of a joke. Just ignore them all and take it from there I say.

HumanWindmill wrote:If we take the ' original eight ' between 1938 to 1950, only the lightweight and middleweight divisions fell into temporary disarray at any time and, in both cases, it was due to the reigning champion vacating the title.

If it was workable then it should be workable now. Fighters fight less often, nowadays, but the financial rewards, both in the absolute and the relative, are considerably higher than they were then.

During this period there was the infamous freeze out of the murderers row though and you had guys like Cochrane, Mills, Lesnevich, Graziano and Zale all reigning as champions systematically avoiding the best. It may have only been one champion per weight class, but it was still no garauntee it was the best man.

Manos would never argue it would be easy and would in fact go as far as to say it will never happen, but maintain something has to give, when you have the example I cited earlier of a governing body listing 37 champions for what should be 17 belts (which is too many to start with) and a situation whereby hardcore fans such as us cannot keep track with the world champions something has to give.

Have said it before but for me it has to be TV driven, as they hold the true power, showed in this country how soon promoters stopped promoting WBU, IBO nonsense when Sky said enough was enough, would only take HBO and Showtime to take some sort of stance stateside for some change to happen.

So boxing is corrupt and full of money men? Judges are bribed and as we have seen recently, following the money when decisions, clear decisions need to be made?

manos de piedra wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:If we take the ' original eight ' between 1938 to 1950, only the lightweight and middleweight divisions fell into temporary disarray at any time and, in both cases, it was due to the reigning champion vacating the title.

If it was workable then it should be workable now. Fighters fight less often, nowadays, but the financial rewards, both in the absolute and the relative, are considerably higher than they were then.

During this period there was the infamous freeze out of the murderers row though and you had guys like Cochrane, Mills, Lesnevich, Graziano and Zale all reigning as champions systematically avoiding the best. It may have only been one champion per weight class, but it was still no garauntee it was the best man.

That wasn't a boxing problem, though. It was a sociological one.

rowley wrote:Manos would never argue it would be easy and would in fact go as far as to say it will never happen, but maintain something has to give, when you have the example I cited earlier of a governing body listing 37 champions for what should be 17 belts (which is too many to start with) and a situation whereby hardcore fans such as us cannot keep track with the world champions something has to give.

Have said it before but for me it has to be TV driven, as they hold the true power, showed in this country how soon promoters stopped promoting WBU, IBO nonsense when Sky said enough was enough, would only take HBO and Showtime to take some sort of stance stateside for some change to happen.

This is why I think the simplest solution is just to stop recognising titles altogether. If you remove them from the equation then theres nowhere for the paper champions to hide. Just have a seperate ranking index that is not overly complicated like golf or tennis.

Theres never going to perfect system and I suspect you will always have guys like Bute or Sturm who can get away with making alot of good money without ever really having to take on the best due to the following they have. But if you take away the pointless titles they hide behind then it forces them that little bit more to up their competition if they want to be seen as the top guys in the division.

HumanWindmill wrote:If we take the ' original eight ' between 1938 to 1950, only the lightweight and middleweight divisions fell into temporary disarray at any time and, in both cases, it was due to the reigning champion vacating the title.

If it was workable then it should be workable now. Fighters fight less often, nowadays, but the financial rewards, both in the absolute and the relative, are considerably higher than they were then.

The financial rewards for contenders would be higher if they were fighting for a world title belt. Even for an inter-continental belt.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:If we take the ' original eight ' between 1938 to 1950, only the lightweight and middleweight divisions fell into temporary disarray at any time and, in both cases, it was due to the reigning champion vacating the title.

If it was workable then it should be workable now. Fighters fight less often, nowadays, but the financial rewards, both in the absolute and the relative, are considerably higher than they were then.

The financial rewards for contenders would be higher if they were fighting for a world title belt. Even for an inter-continental belt.

Not so.

Elimination bouts used to yield great box office receipts. Watching a fighter inch closer to a world title fight was all part of the fun.

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:If we take the ' original eight ' between 1938 to 1950, only the lightweight and middleweight divisions fell into temporary disarray at any time and, in both cases, it was due to the reigning champion vacating the title.

If it was workable then it should be workable now. Fighters fight less often, nowadays, but the financial rewards, both in the absolute and the relative, are considerably higher than they were then.

During this period there was the infamous freeze out of the murderers row though and you had guys like Cochrane, Mills, Lesnevich, Graziano and Zale all reigning as champions systematically avoiding the best. It may have only been one champion per weight class, but it was still no garauntee it was the best man.

That wasn't a boxing problem, though. It was a sociological one.

Well partially I would say, but the promoters that effectively ran boxing as well as the commisisions in charge of ensuring the best fight the best have to take much of the blame so I would see it as a boxing problem also. The promters, managers, commissions back then were just as exploiting of the system then as they are now. Some champions of those days were being protected as they are now. I dont think you blame it totally on just sociological issues. It was also a problem within boxing itself and the best not fighting the best or the right man not being champion I think indicates a failure in the system somewhere.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:If we take the ' original eight ' between 1938 to 1950, only the lightweight and middleweight divisions fell into temporary disarray at any time and, in both cases, it was due to the reigning champion vacating the title.

If it was workable then it should be workable now. Fighters fight less often, nowadays, but the financial rewards, both in the absolute and the relative, are considerably higher than they were then.

The financial rewards for contenders would be higher if they were fighting for a world title belt. Even for an inter-continental belt.

Not so.

Elimination bouts used to yield great box office receipts. Watching a fighter inch closer to a world title fight was all part of the fun.

From a boxing fan point of view you are correct. I'm not so sure from a commercial point of view. Why risk a zero and huge profits when you can legitimately call yourself a world champ with all the riches if you go down the alphabet route.

Personally for me, I dont hold much stock on belts. I just want to see good fighters fightng each other. Yes fighter A will avoid Fighter B, but that has always gone on.

azania wrote:

The financial rewards for contenders would be higher if they were fighting for a world title belt. Even for an inter-continental belt.

That is only because fans and TV companies have been conditioned to believe a fight is meaningless unless there is a belt on the line, hence the emergence of inter continental belts, with only one champion per weight and one top ten a fight between the number two and three in a weight would be between two quality fighters, if we accept Ward as number one at super middle would we really need a belt on the line to get excited about seeing Kessler and Bute fight to see who he fights next? (appreciate this may be a poor example as he has already beat one but you get the point.)

I wasn't suggesting it was perfect, manos, but simply that it was a darned sight better than it is today. For the most part, we had credible champions and a healthy group of contenders who were scrapping it out for a chance to get a title shot.

i think four things need to change if the current system (ie four world champions per divison) is to stay in place and still be satisfying to fans.

1. unifaction fights need to happen, and not just two belts but all four.

2. mandatory challenges need to be given there shot, and no jumping over fighters in rankings without fighting each other.

3. champions need to be forced to fight at least 4-5 times a year, so the divisions dont become stagnent.

4. champions need to be stripped if they refuse to fight anyone whos either a champion or mandatory.

azania wrote:
Personally for me, I dont hold much stock on belts. I just want to see good fighters fightng each other.

As I have argued countless times we don't matter so much, we are hardcore fans and follow the sport closely enough to understand the nonsense and unpick it and decide for ourselves who is the man at a weight and largely ignore the alphabet soup drivel, casual fans do not invest this kind of time and a system such as we have at the minute discourages them from ever becoming proper fans as the complexity of it does not appear to justify the effort. Sports survive by attracting new fans, the simpler the sport to understand the better chance of doing this.

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

The financial rewards for contenders would be higher if they were fighting for a world title belt. Even for an inter-continental belt.

That is only because fans and TV companies have been conditioned to believe a fight is meaningless unless there is a belt on the line, hence the emergence of inter continental belts, with only one champion per weight and one top ten a fight between the number two and three in a weight would be between two quality fighters, if we accept Ward as number one at super middle would we really need a belt on the line to get excited about seeing Kessler and Bute fight to see who he fights next? (appreciate this may be a poor example as he has already beat one but you get the point.)

Absolutely. But TV is now the driving force behind the money. Gate receipts are neglible. Sponsors, casinos, hotels all pay a premium to get a big name. If that big name has a belt, then they're quids in.

I'd like to see a UFC style covering boxing, with all major boxers alligned under one umbrella. Every MMA fan knows the world HW champ all the way down to their lightest weight.

One example about belts is Haye. He went after the easiest option in Val to get a legit belt. He used that belt to boost his bargaining power for the Wlad fight. The TV companies bought into the fight with Haye being a legit World HW champ when in essence Wlad was always the real champ. That WBA bauble put a few hundred thousand pounts into Haye's bank account. Good business decision to go after Val as opposed to Wlad as he initially signed for.

azania wrote:
From a boxing fan point of view you are correct. I'm not so sure from a commercial point of view. Why risk a zero and huge profits when you can legitimately call yourself a world champ with all the riches if you go down the alphabet route.

Just indulge me for a second.

Let's suppose that Mayweather and Pacquiao genuinely want to get it on, but that their sanctioning bodies place obstacles in the way. Each vacates his title and the fight is made. In the meantime, whichever fighters hold the WBA and IBF welterweight titles at the time agree terms for a unification fight during the same month.

Which fight will we all be discussing?

Now, you might argue that Mayweather and Pacquiao don't want to get it on and you may be right. However, if titles equate to riches - which you claim is the case - and Mayweather and Pacquiao are rising stars, each sporting an unblemished record, then each is going to want a title. If there is only one title up for grabs then they must eventually meet, either in an elimination bout or as champion v challenger.

eddyfightfan wrote:i think four things need to change if the current system (ie four world champions per divison) is to stay in place and still be satisfying to fans.

1. unifaction fights need to happen, and not just two belts but all four.

2. mandatory challenges need to be given there shot, and no jumping over fighters in rankings without fighting each other.

3. champions need to be forced to fight at least 4-5 times a year, so the divisions dont become stagnent.

4. champions need to be stripped if they refuse to fight anyone whos either a champion or mandatory.

You need the right system in place for that to work though.

For example Pacquaio v Senchenko would be a unification fight. But its not one anyone wants to see and it would be a mismatch.

Also, mandatories are often poor selections. Michael Jennings was a mandatory challenger for Cotto. Would anyone have blamed Cotto for choosing a better opponent?

The last point also is also overcomplicated by fighters needing to establish terms. If Mayweather offers Pacquiao a 40% split with additional testing stipualtions should Pacquiao be stripped for refusing? Or for demanding 60% with no aditional testing? How do you decide?

it could work, granted manny vs senchenko wouldn't be much of a challenge, but it would then unify the division further, also making it clearer that manny is true champion. as for mandatorys, they may not be great but they (should) have earned the right to be there, beating other ranked names.

i do agree that the terms are the hardest to solve, there is so much ego involved that won't go away. i dont actually know what you could do, because there is not overall authority, like fifa in football.

i did miss a final point, get rid of all diamond, silver, super, interim, and whatever else titles. they are nothing but money makers for the governing bodys.

Boxing needs to learn from UFC the best fight the best and there is no ducking if boxing does not sort itself out it will die out and sports like UFC will take over because they are better run. Most people I know prefer UFC now because of the stuff that goes on in boxing too much ducking, robberies and far too many belts. Boxing needs to change imo.

Some excellent points and ideas on this thread fella's, Unfortunately the most prominent one is Manos's "I think in a sport driven primarily by money, belts will always be secondary".
This is where were at now and the promoters must take a huge proportion of the flack for this. Money is so much more powerful than a belt nowadays and its money and greed that has damaged this sport immensely with so many belts and silly catchweights, etc etc.

I also think the governing bodies who hold the belts are responsible for the demise of them. For one they manage the belt and the rankings that go with them. Also, how many times have we heard of sanctioning fees meaning that a fighter passes on holding the belt? I know Floyd happily refused to pay it, and he is the sports biggest talent. Not only this but they are allowing certain fighters to remain champion, while taking the belt of others.

Brandon Rios coming in way overweight for his fight with John Murray was just another example of what a Champion thinks is more important, the fight (purse) or the belt (status). Status us now in the hands of the money men.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:
From a boxing fan point of view you are correct. I'm not so sure from a commercial point of view. Why risk a zero and huge profits when you can legitimately call yourself a world champ with all the riches if you go down the alphabet route.

Just indulge me for a second.

Let's suppose that Mayweather and Pacquiao genuinely want to get it on, but that their sanctioning bodies place obstacles in the way. Each vacates his title and the fight is made. In the meantime, whichever fighters hold the WBA and IBF welterweight titles at the time agree terms for a unification fight during the same month.

Which fight will we all be discussing?

Now, you might argue that Mayweather and Pacquiao don't want to get it on and you may be right. However, if titles equate to riches - which you claim is the case - and Mayweather and Pacquiao are rising stars, each sporting an unblemished record, then each is going to want a title. If there is only one title up for grabs then they must eventually meet, either in an elimination bout or as champion v challenger.

Its obvious windy. But it reminds me of Spinks/tyson. Spinks was the linear champ, but everyone and their dog knew who the real champ was. Spinks being the linear champ became an irrelevance and got less than the belt holder.

Guys like May/Pac are bigger than any sanctioning body. Does anyone genuinly see Pov as the WBA champ? Does anyone see JCC Jnr as the WBC MW champ? These titles are whored so Joe Public who has a passing interest in boxing will watch what he believes is a world title fight whenever those 2 jokers climb between the ropes. The sanctioning bodies get a fee, the promoters makes more money, the boxer gets a few thousands more and Joe Public gets decieved through this slight of hand. It is a con imo, but I love boxing that I'll watch it (on an illegal stream)

Boxng is very corrupt as you know. But I love the sport and have tremendous respect for boxers (even though I'll call some jokers). The promoters et al can take a running jump or a high cliff. They dont do what the fans want (or the boxers) but do what they want and sell it to us. If they weren't promoters, they'd be selling snake oil and calling it the elixir of youth.

Apologies for the rant and going off tangent, but I have contempt for promoters and most managers.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:
From a boxing fan point of view you are correct. I'm not so sure from a commercial point of view. Why risk a zero and huge profits when you can legitimately call yourself a world champ with all the riches if you go down the alphabet route.

Just indulge me for a second.

Let's suppose that Mayweather and Pacquiao genuinely want to get it on, but that their sanctioning bodies place obstacles in the way. Each vacates his title and the fight is made. In the meantime, whichever fighters hold the WBA and IBF welterweight titles at the time agree terms for a unification fight during the same month.

Which fight will we all be discussing?

Now, you might argue that Mayweather and Pacquiao don't want to get it on and you may be right. However, if titles equate to riches - which you claim is the case - and Mayweather and Pacquiao are rising stars, each sporting an unblemished record, then each is going to want a title. If there is only one title up for grabs then they must eventually meet, either in an elimination bout or as champion v challenger.

Its obvious windy. But it reminds me of Spinks/tyson. Spinks was the linear champ, but everyone and their dog knew who the real champ was. Spinks being the linear champ became an irrelevance and got less than the belt holder.

Guys like May/Pac are bigger than any sanctioning body. Does anyone genuinly see Pov as the WBA champ? Does anyone see JCC Jnr as the WBC MW champ? These titles are whored so Joe Public who has a passing interest in boxing will watch what he believes is a world title fight whenever those 2 jokers climb between the ropes. The sanctioning bodies get a fee, the promoters makes more money, the boxer gets a few thousands more and Joe Public gets decieved through this slight of hand. It is a con imo, but I love boxing that I'll watch it (on an illegal stream)

Boxng is very corrupt as you know. But I love the sport and have tremendous respect for boxers (even though I'll call some jokers). The promoters et al can take a running jump or a high cliff. They dont do what the fans want (or the boxers) but do what they want and sell it to us. If they weren't promoters, they'd be selling snake oil and calling it the elixir of youth.

Apologies for the rant and going off tangent, but I have contempt for promoters and most managers.

TERRY MARSH??!!!

ShahenshahG wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:
From a boxing fan point of view you are correct. I'm not so sure from a commercial point of view. Why risk a zero and huge profits when you can legitimately call yourself a world champ with all the riches if you go down the alphabet route.

Just indulge me for a second.

Let's suppose that Mayweather and Pacquiao genuinely want to get it on, but that their sanctioning bodies place obstacles in the way. Each vacates his title and the fight is made. In the meantime, whichever fighters hold the WBA and IBF welterweight titles at the time agree terms for a unification fight during the same month.

Which fight will we all be discussing?

Now, you might argue that Mayweather and Pacquiao don't want to get it on and you may be right. However, if titles equate to riches - which you claim is the case - and Mayweather and Pacquiao are rising stars, each sporting an unblemished record, then each is going to want a title. If there is only one title up for grabs then they must eventually meet, either in an elimination bout or as champion v challenger.

Its obvious windy. But it reminds me of Spinks/tyson. Spinks was the linear champ, but everyone and their dog knew who the real champ was. Spinks being the linear champ became an irrelevance and got less than the belt holder.

Guys like May/Pac are bigger than any sanctioning body. Does anyone genuinly see Pov as the WBA champ? Does anyone see JCC Jnr as the WBC MW champ? These titles are whored so Joe Public who has a passing interest in boxing will watch what he believes is a world title fight whenever those 2 jokers climb between the ropes. The sanctioning bodies get a fee, the promoters makes more money, the boxer gets a few thousands more and Joe Public gets decieved through this slight of hand. It is a con imo, but I love boxing that I'll watch it (on an illegal stream)

Boxng is very corrupt as you know. But I love the sport and have tremendous respect for boxers (even though I'll call some jokers). The promoters et al can take a running jump or a high cliff. They dont do what the fans want (or the boxers) but do what they want and sell it to us. If they weren't promoters, they'd be selling snake oil and calling it the elixir of youth.

Apologies for the rant and going off tangent, but I have contempt for promoters and most managers.

TERRY MARSH??!!!

That clown couldn't even do one thing properly.

azania wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:
From a boxing fan point of view you are correct. I'm not so sure from a commercial point of view. Why risk a zero and huge profits when you can legitimately call yourself a world champ with all the riches if you go down the alphabet route.

Just indulge me for a second.

Let's suppose that Mayweather and Pacquiao genuinely want to get it on, but that their sanctioning bodies place obstacles in the way. Each vacates his title and the fight is made. In the meantime, whichever fighters hold the WBA and IBF welterweight titles at the time agree terms for a unification fight during the same month.

Which fight will we all be discussing?

Now, you might argue that Mayweather and Pacquiao don't want to get it on and you may be right. However, if titles equate to riches - which you claim is the case - and Mayweather and Pacquiao are rising stars, each sporting an unblemished record, then each is going to want a title. If there is only one title up for grabs then they must eventually meet, either in an elimination bout or as champion v challenger.

Its obvious windy. But it reminds me of Spinks/tyson. Spinks was the linear champ, but everyone and their dog knew who the real champ was. Spinks being the linear champ became an irrelevance and got less than the belt holder.

Guys like May/Pac are bigger than any sanctioning body. Does anyone genuinly see Pov as the WBA champ? Does anyone see JCC Jnr as the WBC MW champ? These titles are whored so Joe Public who has a passing interest in boxing will watch what he believes is a world title fight whenever those 2 jokers climb between the ropes. The sanctioning bodies get a fee, the promoters makes more money, the boxer gets a few thousands more and Joe Public gets decieved through this slight of hand. It is a con imo, but I love boxing that I'll watch it (on an illegal stream)

Boxng is very corrupt as you know. But I love the sport and have tremendous respect for boxers (even though I'll call some jokers). The promoters et al can take a running jump or a high cliff. They dont do what the fans want (or the boxers) but do what they want and sell it to us. If they weren't promoters, they'd be selling snake oil and calling it the elixir of youth.

Apologies for the rant and going off tangent, but I have contempt for promoters and most managers.

TERRY MARSH??!!!

That clown couldn't even do one thing properly.

You see my point.