These
so called hardcore, avid boxing fans that claim to know so much about
the sport and the politics that are involved really know nothing. The
first thing that people tend to forget is that professional boxing is
a business. Everyone involved is there to do a job the promoter, the
judges, the referee, the trainers, the ring girls, the managers and
last but least the fighters who put their bodies through weeks of
sacrifice and torture in training camps for your entertainment. As
much as I’m sure they love the sport and want to win titles I can
assure you they're fighting to earn a living and put food on the
table for their families.
When
so called boxing fans question why an upcoming prospect is fighting
what is known as a journeyman, a tough, durable boxer who comes to
trick their way through fights and survive and earn their money and
give the prospect rounds and experience for 4 and 6 round fights
before gradually stepping them up the rounds and level of opposition
it does my head in as if these people knew anything about boxing
business and how it works then they wouldn't slag off boxers and
promoters behind the computer.
I
believe this is a learning process that every fighter should go
through, no matter the expectations surrounding them coming from
their amateur experience as professional boxing is a whole different
game and fighters shouldn't be made to run before they can walk.
This
was shown when Vasyl Lomachenko took on Salido for the WBO world
title last night in only his 2nd professional outing
and came up short on a split decision. There was a massive
expectation that the Ukrainian fighter who had an exceptional amateur
record of 396-1 and everyone thought he would go on to make history,
even the bookmakers had him 1/7 on to beat Salido but he got old
manned and Salido's experience showed although he didn't make the
weight and couldn't retain his title.
This
is proof that every fighter regardless of their amateur record should
have a number of learning fights building up the rounds and
experience before being thrown in the deep end. This why I respect
promoters like Eddie Hearn who has a number of exceptional fighters
in his stable that came through our London Olympic squad that include
gold medalist Luke Campbell and Anthony Joshua and he is moving them
along at the right rate in terms of opposition and rounds, even if
Anthony Joshua has been making easy work of the opponents put in
front of him people shouldn't slag off Eddie Hearn for this as
Joshua's opponent last night went 9 rounds with Dereck Chisora under
a year ago and is an experienced pro.
You
expect question marks over opponents from deluded boxing fans but it
really bugged me last weekend whilst watching the show in Hull where
Luke Campbell boxed Scott Moises over 8 rounds and the experienced
commentator Jim Watt claimed that Luke Campbell was better off having
world class sparring rather than his fight with Moises. Baring in
mind this was only Campbell's fifth professional contest and he was
in an eight rounder against Moises who is quick on his feet and
recently lost a close decision to Mitchell Smith and was there to
give Campbell some rounds and earn his money but it annoyed because
Campbell has had world class sparring with the likes of Ricky Burns
and Kevin Mitchell leading up to the fight with Moises but this was
an opportunity for him to put what he's learnt into action under the
lights and build up the rounds against a durable opponent although he
did stop Moises in the final round I just thought someone that's so
involved in the sport would know better.
Why's
that fight pay per view? Why should I pay another £15 on top of my
Sky Sports subscription for one night of boxing? But let's be honest
there's only one maybe two fights at a push that are worthy of pay
per view and there's a reason these massive fights require an additional fee. For
an example Froch vs Groves last year, a massive domestic world title
fight in Manchester where Froch's purse was seven figures and George
Grove's purse was a reportedly a hefty £500,000. So who's going to
pay these two if that fight wasn't PPV? Sky aren't going to front
that kind of money for one fight so it makes sense for a fight with
such demand to be PPV and that's just the main event, who's going to
pay the boxers on the under card? The Judges? The legendary Michael
Buffer the MC who I can assure you doesn't come cheap! The ticket
sales aren't going to cover it and all these people need to be paid before Matchroom get their cut and they're in the sport the same as
everyone else and that's to get paid. After all boxing is a
business.
Let's
be honest there's only a number of fights that are worthy of PPV at
the moment in this country, to name a few in my opinion they are
Froch vs Groves 2 (obviously as it's going to be one of the biggest
fights in British history) Brook vs Khan, DeGale vs Groves 2 and
Scott Quigg vs Carl Frampton.
I
once had someone say to me that there should be a purse limit so
people didn't price themselves out of fights but what a load of
bullshit that is. If you're at the top of the top in a lonely, brutal
sport then there shouldn't be a limit on what you get paid to step in
the ring and fight. It's the same when people moan about Wayne Rooney
getting paid £300,000 a week. I agree to a certain extent that no
footballer should be earning that kind of money for what they do but
then you can't blame them that their exceptional talent got them to
the top of their game and they are reaping the rewards so it's the
same with boxers. There shouldn't be a limit on the reward when the
risk every time a boxer gets in the ring is so high. Boxers can get
injured at any level but higher the level higher the risk so this
warrants a higher reward it's simple. Try telling Mayweather that
there's going to be a limit on his purse. Didn't think so.
Thank
you for reading and stay tuned for more posts.
No comments:
Post a Comment