[quote]rundymc wrote:
x2. Joker seems to have a very flowery view of the fighters of old.[/quote]
it’s quite possible, or you have flowery view of the fighters today. It’s debateable, or whichever side of the fence you stand…
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
Seems like a loss to a fighter back then was something really personal and devasting, now it seems like ‘oh well I lost, lemme collect my 7 figures, and go from here’[/quote]
It is actually the opposite.
Now, one loss is so devastating to a career that the fighters almost won’t deal with it.
Website and idiot posters start screaming about the fighter has been “exposed” and they’re garbage and this and that and their fans abandon them and it’s totally ridiculous.
Back in the day, you could lose a fight and people would understand it was a bad night. Now, it’s the end of a fighter’s career.
Things have changed, but it’s because the fan base is both less educated about the sport and more boisterous and loud on the internet. It’s an awful combination.[/quote]
I wasn’t really talking about their career or other people’s judgement. I was talking about their own personal demons sort to speak. With virtually no money, pride and recognition was what most were fighting for back then. I don’t see that pride in some of today’s fighters really. I think it’s safe to say that some top 10 fighters care less than yesteryear since that payday tends to put a smile on their face win or lose (or at least their wife’s lol)
[/quote]
I think that’s some total nostalgic bullshit.
Nobody would fight for a living if they didn’t make a shitload of money doing it.
Pride and recognition, who the fuck’s this guy think he’s kidding…Gotta love looking back through rose colored glasses.
[/quote]
well there is a reason the top fighters fought some 200 or more fights in their career, Sugar Ray Robinson and Willie Pep, and some of the top guys today maybe fight 50?? And not 15rds like they used to, or with as much referee or doctor interference.
Most top ranked fighters from years past barely made more money than say a doctor, today, top fighter can practically retire after 2-3 paydays if he wanted to.
No need to get nasty, you still sound a little butthurt…[/quote]
The times have changed, but that’s not because of the fighters. Its just the way things have gone.
And if you think that guys like Jack Dempsey, Jou Louis, and Sugar Ray Robinson “barely made more money than a doctor”… fuck man, for the fifth time in two days I’m going to tell you that you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
These guys were just as rich and well known and prominent as the fighters are today. And they did it for that - money and fame.
Nobody would get into this painful ass career if they were doing it for “pride.” You don’t have 200 fights for “recognition,” you do it because that’s what it takes to get to the top and make the money.
FYI - Joe Louis earned around $5 million over his boxing career (although he got fucked out of a lot of it.)
That equates to about $47 million in today’s dollars.
No doctor is making $47 million over the course of 17 years in the 1930s/1940s.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
FYI - Joe Louis earned around $5 million over his boxing career (although he got fucked out of a lot of it.)
That equates to about $47 million in today’s dollars.
No doctor is making $47 million over the course of 17 years in the 1930s/1940s. [/quote]
you’re talking about champions, I stated top 10 fighters. They didn’t share in PPV gates, or have multi sponsorships as they do today. No different than Joe Frazier who couldn’t afford his own funeral. Again, props to mayweather and foreman for coming forward and offering to pay.
If you are trying to imply that boxing was more of a business back then that today… I’ll lol.
It probably is the nostalgia, more than anything…
The boxers of years past (sort of like MMA) seemed like they took more pride in their gym, wanting to promote it and their fighters and trainers, making it out to be ‘the baddest boxing club around’. It seemed they fought with the weight of their gym/trainers credibility on their shoulders. It’s small stuff like that, that’s been lost over the years. Some of those boxers would travel state to state desperate to find fights, and what do we have today?? Guys who fight the bare minimum to keep their ranking and cash flow, delaying fights at a whim. Even as recent as J.C Chavez and Roberto Duran, these guys kept busy and fought the best of the best repeatedly. It just seemed there were 5-6 superfights a year then, now we’re lucky to get 2-3. Maybe it’s just there are so few super fighters, I dunno.
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
Seems like a loss to a fighter back then was something really personal and devasting, now it seems like ‘oh well I lost, lemme collect my 7 figures, and go from here’[/quote]
tg
It is actually the opposite.
Now, one loss is so devastating to a career that the fighters almost won’t deal with it.
Website and idiot posters start screaming about the fighter has been “exposed” and they’re garbage and this and that and their fans abandon them and it’s totally ridiculous.
Back in the day, you could lose a fight and people would understand it was a bad night. Now, it’s the end of a fighter’s career.
Things have changed, but it’s because the fan base is both less educated about the sport and more boisterous and loud on the internet. It’s an awful combination.[/quote]
I wasn’t really talking about their career or other people’s judgement. I was talking about their own personal demons sort to speak. With virtually no money, pride and recognition was what most were fighting for back then. I don’t see that pride in some of today’s fighters really. I think it’s safe to say that some top 10 fighters care less than yesteryear since that payday tends to put a smile on their face win or lose (or at least their wife’s lol)
[/quote]
I think that’s some total nostalgic bullshit.
Nobody would fight for a living if they didn’t make a shitload of money doing it.
Pride and recognition, who the fuck’s this guy think he’s kidding…Gotta love looking back through rose colored glasses.
[/quote]
well there is a reason the top fighters fought some 200 or more fights in their career, Sugar Ray Robinson and Willie Pep, and some of the top guys today maybe fight 50?? And not 15rds like they used to, or with as much referee or doctor interference.
Most top ranked fighters from years past barely made more money than say a doctor, today, top fighter can practically retire after 2-3 paydays if he wanted to.
No need to get nasty, you still sound a little butthurt…[/quote]
Sugar Ray Robinson was filthy rich. Not as rich as a Mayweather or Pacquiao, but rich.
He kept fighting because he made a lot of retarded investments and squandered his wealth. In his dying years he was supported by rich fans such as Sinatra.
You mentioned Joe Frazier. Are you implying he did not make bank on the Ali fights?
The sport has more money behind it now than when Pep was fighting, but what you’re implying is that the fighters of old had some sort of warrior’s dignity just because they had to fight more often to make bank.
Did it occur to you that the opposite could very well be true? That when the money isn’t good, you fight less for passion and recognition and more to make ends meet?
Is it not possible that the fighters now making 4 mils per fight, and know that they’re set, fight for the fame and glory?
FWIW I don’t swing either way. I don’t presume to have insight into the minds of boxers who fought years ago, or those that fight today. I always suspect that it’s a little bit of both.
Don’t mean to pile dude but:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
you’re talking about champions, I stated top 10 fighters.
and what do we have today?? Guys who fight the bare minimum to keep their ranking and cash flow, delaying fights at a whim.
[/quote]
You are also talking about champions and well known fighters here.
Most fighters fight 2-4 times a year. Even the ‘superfight’ guys. I don’t think it was any different in Ali’s day, and if it was, the majority of that competition was can-status.
There are less superfights because the sport isn’t as big as it was in the 80s/90s. You are correct
Rest in peace Joe.
[quote]rundymc wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
Seems like a loss to a fighter back then was something really personal and devasting, now it seems like ‘oh well I lost, lemme collect my 7 figures, and go from here’[/quote]
tg
It is actually the opposite.
Now, one loss is so devastating to a career that the fighters almost won’t deal with it.
Website and idiot posters start screaming about the fighter has been “exposed” and they’re garbage and this and that and their fans abandon them and it’s totally ridiculous.
Back in the day, you could lose a fight and people would understand it was a bad night. Now, it’s the end of a fighter’s career.
Things have changed, but it’s because the fan base is both less educated about the sport and more boisterous and loud on the internet. It’s an awful combination.[/quote]
I wasn’t really talking about their career or other people’s judgement. I was talking about their own personal demons sort to speak. With virtually no money, pride and recognition was what most were fighting for back then. I don’t see that pride in some of today’s fighters really. I think it’s safe to say that some top 10 fighters care less than yesteryear since that payday tends to put a smile on their face win or lose (or at least their wife’s lol)
[/quote]
I think that’s some total nostalgic bullshit.
Nobody would fight for a living if they didn’t make a shitload of money doing it.
Pride and recognition, who the fuck’s this guy think he’s kidding…Gotta love looking back through rose colored glasses.
[/quote]
well there is a reason the top fighters fought some 200 or more fights in their career, Sugar Ray Robinson and Willie Pep, and some of the top guys today maybe fight 50?? And not 15rds like they used to, or with as much referee or doctor interference.
Most top ranked fighters from years past barely made more money than say a doctor, today, top fighter can practically retire after 2-3 paydays if he wanted to.
No need to get nasty, you still sound a little butthurt…[/quote]
Sugar Ray Robinson was filthy rich. Not as rich as a Mayweather or Pacquiao, but rich.
He kept fighting because he made a lot of retarded investments and squandered his wealth. In his dying years he was supported by rich fans such as Sinatra.
You mentioned Joe Frazier. Are you implying he did not make bank on the Ali fights?
The sport has more money behind it now than when Pep was fighting, but what you’re implying is that the fighters of old had some sort of warrior’s dignity just because they had to fight more often to make bank.
Did it occur to you that the opposite could very well be true? That when the money isn’t good, you fight less for passion and recognition and more to make ends meet?
Is it not possible that the fighters now making 4 mils per fight, and know that they’re set, fight for the fame and glory?
FWIW I don’t swing either way. I don’t presume to have insight into the minds of boxers who fought years ago, or those that fight today. I always suspect that it’s a little bit of both.
[/quote]
Quite true, again Sugar Ray Robinson was a champion, making the $$$, along with Joe Louis. I don’t think we can compare those two (and a few more champs from that era) with say a guy who never won a belt etc, etc, but hovered in the top 10 (meaning he wasn’t some unknown punching bag} I’d like to know the direct comparison of wealth between that guy, and one in the same situation today.
Of course it’s pure speculation on my part, as I couldn’t get into these fighters heads, or way of thinking. All I’m saying is that even in a loss, the underlying issues ‘money’ make things a lot more rosier than in the past.
Of course Frazier made money, seeing as he only had around 40 professional fights, I’d say he did pretty good, I’m saying that ‘bilked’ or not, the man still didn’t have enough to pay for his own funeral. I’d say the guys today have more business savvy and such, but then you look at Tyson, and begin to wonder (one example in the vast minority)
Actually it did not occur to me, and the argument is very subjective. It’s possible that they fought to make ends meet and less for passion, true, but on the opposite end if that weren’t the case for fighters today (fought more for passion and less to make ends meet), why aren’t they fighting 4-5 times a year, and squabbling less?? I think we’d all like more fights, from the top fighters, and less squabbling… no?? Especially with the popularity of the sport dying, you’d think they’d want to make the sport of boxing to be in a better state when they left, than when they came in…
my two cents lol
Some of that squabbling is good. The Mayweather/Pac fight is what I’m assuming you’re referring to, and all that running around in circles is going to generate some decent money come fight time.
Every 24/7 with Floyd or Manny on there training for a fight with someone else, generates more interest. All that interest is going to explode come fight time. It could very well be the biggest fight of all time. So the squabbling is good no?
I don’t mind it. I follow both boxing (casually) and MMA so I get my fill of good and interesting fights. I like the build up, I like when fighters try their hand at promotion (think Sonnen, Floyd etc), I like the sports in general. If Fedor had ended up in the UFC back in 07, I would have blown a load the first time he fought in a cage (of course that didn’t happen)…
come to think of it, it’s not that different from sex. You cum, and the buildup is worth. You don’t, you leave frustrated. Either way, you can’t cum all the time, or it wouldn’t be as good.
I am sorry for that horrific analogy.
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
Quite true, again Sugar Ray Robinson was a champion, making the $$$, along with Joe Louis. I don’t think we can compare those two (and a few more champs from that era) with say a guy who never won a belt etc, etc, but hovered in the top 10 (meaning he wasn’t some unknown punching bag} I’d like to know the direct comparison of wealth between that guy, and one in the same situation today. [/quote]
The fighters who were not at the top back then made shit money.
The fighters who are not at the top now make shit money.
Nothing has changed, only the adjustment for inflation.
That’s kind of my point.
Believe me dude, I know a good amount of fighters. Unless you’re up at the top… it’s lean for you.
[quote]rundymc wrote:
Some of that squabbling is good. The Mayweather/Pac fight is what I’m assuming you’re referring to, and all that running around in circles is going to generate some decent money come fight time.
Every 24/7 with Floyd or Manny on there training for a fight with someone else, generates more interest. All that interest is going to explode come fight time. It could very well be the biggest fight of all time. So the squabbling is good no?
I don’t mind it. I follow both boxing (casually) and MMA so I get my fill of good and interesting fights. I like the build up, I like when fighters try their hand at promotion (think Sonnen, Floyd etc), I like the sports in general. If Fedor had ended up in the UFC back in 07, I would have blown a load the first time he fought in a cage (of course that didn’t happen)…
come to think of it, it’s not that different from sex. You cum, and the buildup is worth. You don’t, you leave frustrated. Either way, you can’t cum all the time, or it wouldn’t be as good.
I am sorry for that horrific analogy.[/quote]
haha works for me, it’s just that when the build up is so long and nasty, and then the fight sucks, it’s much more of a letdown than if they just shut up and prove it in the ring. A little gamesmanship and stuff doesn’t hurt, hell Ali and Cosell made some of the best TV ever with their back n forth exchanges and such promoting fights.
And the most interesting thing is that the most euphoria fight fans have is when two relatively unknown fighters get in there, with no buildup or hype, and fight like there is no tomorrow. It’s like having sex with one chick, and then out of nowhere in joins another chick lol.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
Quite true, again Sugar Ray Robinson was a champion, making the $$$, along with Joe Louis. I don’t think we can compare those two (and a few more champs from that era) with say a guy who never won a belt etc, etc, but hovered in the top 10 (meaning he wasn’t some unknown punching bag} I’d like to know the direct comparison of wealth between that guy, and one in the same situation today. [/quote]
The fighters who were not at the top back then made shit money.
The fighters who are not at the top now make shit money.
Nothing has changed, only the adjustment for inflation.
That’s kind of my point.
Believe me dude, I know a good amount of fighters. Unless you’re up at the top… it’s lean for you.[/quote]
I’d have to look deeper into that, otherwise I’d be speculating. I’d still think say a guy ranked 5-10 and never holds a championship ever, makes more today relative to the fighter in the same situation back then. A high amount of those guys averaged over 100 fights in their career, today it’s luck if they reach 50-60, and take less of a beating (ref stoppages, 12 rounds) than before. I was always surprised that in those times, Marciano only fought 49 times, then I realized that was in 7 years, averaging 7/year.