Manny Pacquiao vs Brandon Rios November 23 2013

First topic message reminder :

Pacquiao vs Rios has been set for the above date in Macua, China.

They will fight at the welterweight limit.

Both Marquez(for a $13m purse) and Bradley($6m non title fight) rejected fighting in Asia.

Should be a competitive fight.

Remains to be seen how much Pacquiao has left.

If Rios loses, I'd like to see him fight Victor Ortiz.

TumblingDice wrote:Back in 2010 Manny & Floyd were much closer to 50/50 for drawing power.... Manny had the free to air build up show through being on Showtime, the same formula Floyd is now using.

If they were negotiating now then of course Floyd would rightly have the lion's share. In 2010 when this debate was valid, 50/50 seemed fair.

I blame both camps for not making it happen.

Thomas Hauser wrote an excellent article (either on secondsout or the sweet science) comparing their world wide appeal. Worth a read if it can be found.

No it didn't. Floyg earns more. He offered a guaranteed $40m. Manny wanted more. 60/40 or 55/45. No way 50/50.

lifted off Wiki

Reported fight earnings [edit ]
Manny Pacquiao guaranteed $22 million vs.
Juan Manuel Márquez $5 million
Timothy Bradley $1,025,000 vs. Joel
Casamayor $100,000
Mike Alvarado $75,000 vs. Breidis Prescott $
35,000
Luis Cruz $35,000 vs. Juan Carlos Burgos $
22,500

Key word is guaranteed. The PPV split comes afterwards.

If you look at Forbes manny got paid 56mil for 2 fights n 2012 http://www.forbes.com/profile/manny-pacquiao/

http://www.forbes.com/profile/floyd-mayweather/

Floyd got 85

Although I see that you are right with regards to the fourth fight.

http://www.sbnation.com/2012/12/5/3733298/pacquiao-marquez-fight-purse-2012-25-million

Pacquiao gareenteed 8.9mil

Hence I said I see you were right about the fourth fight. Although I think Arum robbed Manny blind there, considering the drama with the accountants.

But how did you get Mayweathers splits vs Guerrero? The numbers arent in yet, apparently Show needed to sell a million to break even, so how did they find $17 million

Manny always the victim it seems. The victim of Floyd being unreasonable to offer him $40m which is near on double what he earns. How bad of Floyd.

Plus the additional burden of insisting that he takes the test. Naughty Floyd.

I said it was rumoured! Supposedly they need to do 1.1-1.2 to break even according to dan rafeal

Have to disagree with you there Az.

It was the only fight to be made because of the draws of both fighters. Floyd was well established and Manny was by then (& I don't like the term) a cross over star.

50:50 was fair to me.

It's a business. The bigger draw gets the biggest share. Why should Floyd undersell himself? Why should Manny get the same when Floyd brings in more money to the table?

azania wrote:It's a business. The bigger draw gets the biggest share. Why should Floyd undersell himself? Why should Manny get the same when Floyd brings in more money to the table?

Wladimir bowed to Haye's 50:50 demands, even though they weren't really justifiable, and certainly not as justifiable as Manny asking for that amount against Floyd. Just as Leonard, a far bigger name, draw and earner than Hagler, allowed Marvin the higher end of the purse for their showdown in order to ensure the fight happened. If a fighter really wants a fight then I see no reason why they shouldn't at least be prepared to give some leeway on these kind of issues, if it gets to that stage of course.

Was it really asking for that much to wonder if Floyd might just take 50:50 (and still by far and a way his biggest ever payday) in order to give the sport such an important shot in the arm? PPV numbers are one thing, but in terms of their actual performances in the ring, Pacquiao did just as much as Floyd to make the potential showdown such a mouth-watering prospect. Maybe even more, in fact.

They needed each other in order to make history.

For the simple reason that Floyd needed Manny's input to generate the richest fight in history. Nobody else came close.

Let alone the romantic sporting talk of legacy defining.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:It's a business. The bigger draw gets the biggest share. Why should Floyd undersell himself? Why should Manny get the same when Floyd brings in more money to the table?

Wladimir bowed to Haye's 50:50 demands, even though they weren't really justifiable, and certainly not as justifiable as Manny asking for that amount against Floyd. Just as Leonard, a far bigger name, draw and earner than Hagler, allowed Marvin the higher end of the purse for their showdown in order to ensure the fight happened. If a fighter really wants a fight then I see no reason why they shouldn't at least be prepared to give some leeway on these kind of issues, if it gets to that stage of course.

Was it really asking for that much to wonder if Floyd might just take 50:50 (and still by far and a way his biggest ever payday) in order to give the sport such an important shot in the arm? PPV numbers are one thing, but in terms of their actual performances in the ring, Pacquiao did just as much as Floyd to make the potential showdown such a mouth-watering prospect. Maybe even more, in fact.

They needed each other in order to make history.

Haye was bringing in PPV which Wlad wanted a part of.

Was it really asking for too much to let the champ, bigger earner, bigger draw, better known fighter to get the lions share?

TumblingDice wrote:For the simple reason that Floyd needed Manny's input to generate the richest fight in history. Nobody else came close.

Let alone the romantic sporting talk of legacy defining.

So why didn;t Manny make it happen? Floyd offered double his earnings but it wasn't enough.

Azania, list with Pacquiao's earnings was there to show you that Pacquaio doesnt actually need the money. I mean realistically, how much money does a movie star/ singer/ Baller/ TV exec really need from fighting? In the same way, even though I think Diamonds figures are a little out the ball park (especially The Guerrero one) Floyd really could have fought Manny for free and still have more money than a small nation. The money talk was a machismo matter simples

Neither does Floyd need the money. For the fight to have happened some fairness should have taken place.

1) The purse split should have ben agreed that the bigger draw gets the bigger share.

2) Both fighters subject themselves to randon drug tests.

3) Floyd beats Manny by wide UD.

Well, had they fought any time between May 2009 (when Mayweather announced his comeback) and May 2010, Mayweather wouldn't have been the 'champ', for starters. It's also worth noting that, even after his victories over Marquez and Mosley, many publications, fans, contemporary fighters etc still had Pacquiao sitting at their top of their pound for pound rankings, at least until his fortunate decision against Marquez in late 2011.

Sure, Pacquiao and Arum could have accepted 55:45, 60:40 or whatever you think the split should have been. But as Mayweather readily tells everyone, he's his own boss and all roads lead to him. His deluded idea that Pacquiao has got rich and famous off the back of the Mayweather name is ridiculous. The truth is, they've both piggy-backed on each other's names and have been doing so for a while. Floyd needed Manny as much as Manny needed him and, with no boss to answer to and with no propensity to burn his way through money like wildfire as Manny does, I don't think it was asking a lot for him to at least consider an equal split. He says that money and legacy are of equal importance to him - finding a way to make the Pacquiao fight happen would have ticked both boxes emphatically, don't you agree?

Make no mistake, Mayweather likes to have a say in everything; glove type and size, ring size, venue, date etc. Just like Leonard did, for instance. And just as Leonard gave Hagler a bigger share of the purse in order to receive some other negotiating ground, Mayweather could have done the same had he wanted to.

Look, you've taken it upon yourself to be Mayweather's biggest cheerleader on here all of a sudden so I'll try to get out of this debate before you send me in to meltdown again, but my main gripe is this; you basically seem to be arguing that Mayweather did everything within his power to make a fight against Pacquiao happen. I'm just highlighting that he didn't.

Azania again like yesterday you're not accepting other peoples opinion, instead your spouting dribble and expecting people to change their tune. By the looks of it if none agrees with you, you go ahead and spit your dummy.

As a fan of the sport we all want to see the best fights, we shouldn't justify guys who create stumbling blocks that are preventing fights. In 2010/11 Pacman v Floyd was a 50/50 fight, I believe they were both to blame for the fight not happening and imo 40/40 should have been guaranteed and the winner takes 60.

Don't get me wrong Az, I blame both of them in equal measure, I'm not at all saying it was solelyl Floyd's fault.

Pac offered 45% 45% with the winner getting 10%, but Mayweather despite the world wide concession that he would "school" Floyd, turned it down, didnt wanna know nothing about a winners cut

Neither of the pair wanted the fight enough to make any sacrifice to make it happen. It hurts both of them and I think they should share blame over it.

Since Mayweather is the guy that is generally reaching for the higher placing on the all time lists of the two amongst the stiffer competition and finer margins, the effect of the fight not happening hurts him more because it was such a major fight.

The fact he was unwilling to make any real sacrifice to make the fight happen, and the fact it was against his greatest rival for greatness is a bad stain on his career for alot of people. Did it really matter for Mayweather to just accept taking a few million that he didnt need anyway less. He was getting more than amply compensated for the fight.

He took the short end of the purse against de la Hoya, because he wanted that fight and the money it brough. He wouldnt make anything like the same allowances against Pacquiao because I just dont think he wanted it enough.

I'll say it again...People are judged on record......and not fights that didn't happen.....

Dempsey wouldn't be in top 10 lists otherwise..

Mayweather has nothing to worry about.....

PPV wise Mayweather is the biggest draw....enopugh of the 50/50 nonsense..

Leonard 7.5 million and Duran 1.5 million for Montreal..

88Chris05 wrote:Well, had they fought any time between May 2009 (when Mayweather announced his comeback) and May 2010, Mayweather wouldn't have been the 'champ', for starters. It's also worth noting that, even after his victories over Marquez and Mosley, many publications, fans, contemporary fighters etc still had Pacquiao sitting at their top of their pound for pound rankings, at least until his fortunate decision against Marquez in late 2011.

Sure, Pacquiao and Arum could have accepted 55:45, 60:40 or whatever you think the split should have been. But as Mayweather readily tells everyone, he's his own boss and all roads lead to him. His deluded idea that Pacquiao has got rich and famous off the back of the Mayweather name is ridiculous. The truth is, they've both piggy-backed on each other's names and have been doing so for a while. Floyd needed Manny as much as Manny needed him and, with no boss to answer to and with no propensity to burn his way through money like wildfire as Manny does, I don't think it was asking a lot for him to at least consider an equal split. He says that money and legacy are of equal importance to him - finding a way to make the Pacquiao fight happen would have ticked both boxes emphatically, don't you agree?

Make no mistake, Mayweather likes to have a say in everything; glove type and size, ring size, venue, date etc. Just like Leonard did, for instance. And just as Leonard gave Hagler a bigger share of the purse in order to receive some other negotiating ground, Mayweather could have done the same had he wanted to.

Look, you've taken it upon yourself to be Mayweather's biggest cheerleader on here all of a sudden so I'll try to get out of this debate before you send me in to meltdown again, but my main gripe is this; you basically seem to be arguing that Mayweather did everything within his power to make a fight against Pacquiao happen. I'm just highlighting that he didn't.

I haven't said Mayweather did everything in his power to make the fight happen. In fact I haven't said Mayweather did much to make the fight happen. All I did was state his side of events and justified it. The rest I left to others to decide if it was fair. What is interesting though is that some are defending Pac offering JMM a very low sum in comparison to what he is getting yet attacking Floyd for wanting more that Pac for the reasons they gave for Pac wanting more than JMM. Contradiction? You decide.

Manos' post is correct. If they both wanted it, it would have happened. But egos got in the way. But had Manny agreed to random tests when mooted, Floyd would have boxed himself into a corner and had to take the fight. Manny refused the tests which left all doors open for drug allegations.

"Had to take the fight"? According to who?

Also, Foreman-Ali was a 50/50, as was Frazier-Ali.

They were all Americans..

Ali-Foreman was in the Congo...

Paid for by an African nation that didnt even know Foreman was black

Well I've been critical of both camps over their failure to get the fight signed on the dotted line, Az - it's just that public opinion seems to have swung firmly towards Mayweather on the issue over the past year, which I think is a little odd. He seems to get off a little easier than Pacquiao which doesn't sit well with me.

You know me, I'll apologise if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick and I did say that you arguing that Floyd had done everything possible to make the fight happen was how it "seemed" rather than being fact. If that's not the case then fair enough.

I do think that the circumstances for a potential fifth showdown between Manny and Juan Manuel are very different to the proposed negotiations for just one fight between Floyd and Manny, mind you. And it's just as easy to say that you're contradicting yourself on the issue as it is saying that other people are; after all, Manny is a bigger name so surely he's right to demand more, as per your take on the subject? Swings and roundabouts but, as I said above, I think the scenarios are a little different and, as a result, trying to draw a direct comparison between them is a little pointless.

Again, public opinion on this has swung with Mayweather these days, but I really do think that this additional, so-called 'Olympic' style drug testing was just a barrier he put up to be deliberately awkward. I find it a little too convenient (or inconvenient form a fan's point of view!) that he suddenly only wanted to clear the sport up when a genuine threat emerged to his pound for pound top dog title. I also find it odd that he's routinely said that Pacquiao gets too much credit for winning fights weighing 105-110 as a seventeen / eighteen year old and then winning at 145, 150 a decade later as Floyd scaled the same at those respective ages, the only difference being he wasn't punching for pay until he was nigh-on twenty.....And yet, he then contradicts himself and says that Pacquiao deserves to be shrouded in suspicion because of this.

Which is it? Mayweather's contradictions and sudden, new-found nobility on that front really smacked of delaying tactics, to me.

Both camps deserve criticism as I've said, but Floyd really hasn't made much of a rod for his back and he's left himself open to sterner examination in the future once all the propaganda from either side has died down, for me. Sayings like "yellow midget" and "easy pay day" are really going to get people wondering why he never set out to back those claims up.

kingraf wrote:Ali-Foreman was in the Congo...

Rest assured I know my history....Black US promoter though I gather

kingraf wrote:"Had to take the fight"? According to who?

Also, Foreman-Ali was a 50/50, as was Frazier-Ali.

My opinion.

Ali was the draw. Floyd was the draw AND the one who brought most money and PPV buys. Look for more strawmen to clutch.

Saying things like "Manny is an easy payday" before refusing. 40-40, with 20 to the winner is also odd.

Foreman was a Tyson like figure it has to be remembered....

Many thought he was unbeatable too...

Boxers tend to put down the opposition Kingy..

88Chris05 wrote:Well I've been critical of both camps over their failure to get the fight signed on the dotted line, Az - it's just that public opinion seems to have swung firmly towards Mayweather on the issue over the past year, which I think is a little odd. He seems to get off a little easier than Pacquiao which doesn't sit well with me.

You know me, I'll apologise if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick and I did say that you arguing that Floyd had done everything possible to make the fight happen was how it "seemed" rather than being fact. If that's not the case then fair enough.

I do think that the circumstances for a potential fifth showdown between Manny and Juan Manuel are very different to the proposed negotiations for just one fight between Floyd and Manny, mind you. And it's just as easy to say that you're contradicting yourself on the issue as it is saying that other people are; after all, Manny is a bigger name so surely he's right to demand more, as per your take on the subject? Swings and roundabouts but, as I said above, I think the scenarios are a little different and, as a result, trying to draw a direct comparison between them is a little pointless.

Again, public opinion on this has swung with Mayweather these days, but I really do think that this additional, so-called 'Olympic' style drug testing was just a barrier he put up to be deliberately awkward. I find it a little too convenient (or inconvenient form a fan's point of view!) that he suddenly only wanted to clear the sport up when a genuine threat emerged to his pound for pound top dog title. I also find it odd that he's routinely said that Pacquiao gets too much credit for winning fights weighing 105-110 as a seventeen / eighteen year old and then winning at 145, 150 a decade later as Floyd scaled the same at those respective ages, the only difference being he wasn't punching for pay until he was nigh-on twenty.....And yet, he then contradicts himself and says that Pacquiao deserves to be shrouded in suspicion because of this.

Which is it? Mayweather's contradictions and sudden, new-found nobility on that front really smacked of delaying tactics, to me.

Both camps deserve criticism as I've said, but Floyd really hasn't made much of a rod for his back and he's left himself open to sterner examination in the future once all the propaganda from either side has died down, for me. Sayings like "yellow midget" and "easy pay day" are really going to get people wondering why he never set out to back those claims up.

Being a tad contrary there 88

How was the testing a barrier. Just take the freaking thing. What's the big deal? If he had nothing to hide other than ego, why scupper such a fight by refusing it. Why all the excuses and importantly why insist on a cut off point 3 weeks prior to the fight. Sceptics will say it will give him time to flush out dope from his system. Add more fule to the fire that he was juicing.

Ali was also the one who made more money prior to and after the fights.

kingraf wrote:Paid for by an African nation that didnt even know Foreman was black

They knew who Ali was and that is what was important. Ali could have fought the remains of Rocky and it would have sold. When Ali fought the world paid attention, not just the sports world.

Manny in 2006-2009, was a wunderkid three fighter of the years in four years.

Yes Don King set up the Rumble, but he had to get both men to agree to 50/50

kingraf wrote:Saying things like "Manny is an easy payday" before refusing. 40-40, with 20 to the winner is also odd.

No it isn;t. It's normal for boxers to put down their opponents.

kingraf wrote:Ali was also the one who made more money prior to and after the fights.

Hence he got parity. Floyd was the one who made more prior and after. You seem to be backing uop my argument. Cheers.

kingraf wrote:Manny in 2006-2009, was a wunderkid three fighter of the years in four years.

Yes Don King set up the Rumble, but he had to get both men to agree to 50/50

Floyd brought in the money. Many could have discovered the ability to part water and leap over skyscrapers, it matters not. Floyd brought in the numbers and that is what mattered....plus the test.

There is putting your opponent down, then theres running your mouth, while keeping that signature as far away as possible

Are you a sports psychologist ??

What? How did that even back up your point?
Floyd in 2010 was titleless (Ali in The Jungle, or FOTC), Manny was the champ and three time fighter of the year (Foreman and Frazier), thus 50/50

Why you ask?

Foreman and Ali were both American...........Both huge figures in their own right....

Americans are very patriotic we like to watch our own fighters..we consider ourselves a cut above and rightly so....

Hence Mayweather is a bigger draw...

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Well I've been critical of both camps over their failure to get the fight signed on the dotted line, Az - it's just that public opinion seems to have swung firmly towards Mayweather on the issue over the past year, which I think is a little odd. He seems to get off a little easier than Pacquiao which doesn't sit well with me.

You know me, I'll apologise if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick and I did say that you arguing that Floyd had done everything possible to make the fight happen was how it "seemed" rather than being fact. If that's not the case then fair enough.

I do think that the circumstances for a potential fifth showdown between Manny and Juan Manuel are very different to the proposed negotiations for just one fight between Floyd and Manny, mind you. And it's just as easy to say that you're contradicting yourself on the issue as it is saying that other people are; after all, Manny is a bigger name so surely he's right to demand more, as per your take on the subject? Swings and roundabouts but, as I said above, I think the scenarios are a little different and, as a result, trying to draw a direct comparison between them is a little pointless.

Again, public opinion on this has swung with Mayweather these days, but I really do think that this additional, so-called 'Olympic' style drug testing was just a barrier he put up to be deliberately awkward. I find it a little too convenient (or inconvenient form a fan's point of view!) that he suddenly only wanted to clear the sport up when a genuine threat emerged to his pound for pound top dog title. I also find it odd that he's routinely said that Pacquiao gets too much credit for winning fights weighing 105-110 as a seventeen / eighteen year old and then winning at 145, 150 a decade later as Floyd scaled the same at those respective ages, the only difference being he wasn't punching for pay until he was nigh-on twenty.....And yet, he then contradicts himself and says that Pacquiao deserves to be shrouded in suspicion because of this.

Which is it? Mayweather's contradictions and sudden, new-found nobility on that front really smacked of delaying tactics, to me.

Both camps deserve criticism as I've said, but Floyd really hasn't made much of a rod for his back and he's left himself open to sterner examination in the future once all the propaganda from either side has died down, for me. Sayings like "yellow midget" and "easy pay day" are really going to get people wondering why he never set out to back those claims up.

Being a tad contrary there 88

How was the testing a barrier. Just take the freaking thing. What's the big deal? If he had nothing to hide other than ego, why scupper such a fight by refusing it. Why all the excuses and importantly why insist on a cut off point 3 weeks prior to the fight. Sceptics will say it will give him time to flush out dope from his system. Add more fule to the fire that he was juicing.

Am I? I'd like to think not but hey, nobody's perfect! Except Truss, of course.

It's easy to say "Just take the test" (and I have toyed with that idea of thinking, too) but ultimately, the testing was an issue created by Floyd without anything to really back his slanderous claims up. As I've already said, what I want to know is this - why did Mayweather suddenly only decide, after a decade or more of world title fights, mega pay days and world-wide acclaim, that this additional testing was necessary as soon as Pacquiao emerged as a genuine threat to him? So far nobody has given me a reasoned answer to that.

Nor has anyone addressed Floyd's contradiction on the matter. Which is it? Is Pacquiao's ability to move through the weights one which we should all be suspicious of, or is it indeed an overrated feat which Mayweather himself, for all intents and purposes, has equalled, or at least could have done had he turned professional at the same age as Pacquiao did?

Mayweather went his whole career without making such a demand against any opponent. All of a sudden when his greatest challenge emerges, it becomes an issue. Again, just seems a bit too convenient for my liking. That doesn't necessarily mean that Mayweather was outright scared of facing Pacquiao, but I do think he was trying to play a little game which, he hoped, would give him even more of an upper hand in the negotiations. And if that's the case, it backfired, pretty much.

Cant argue with that, probably the most sensible argument for Mayweather getting majority "Youre in my house now" is a fair enough reason.

Think we should move on from this.....

Me I'd loved to have seen Curry-Hagler, Nelson-Mcguigan and Norris-Whittaker but those fights bought the farm as well........

Unless Mayweather is the first fighter in history to be measured by what's not on his record rather than what is....

It's irrelevant..

Wasnt being sarcastic, I actually do get your previous point, and it is a fair, and narcissistic point

Manny was like a wrecking machine before Floyd brought up the testing. Since then he hasn't stopped anyone. Say what you want about Mosley taking a 'step back' out of range to bewilder Manny and Manny's amazingly quick deterioration but he should have been stopping Mosley and Bradley.
Always thought there was something not right with that chain of events and don't think its coincidence. Could be wrong though.