Why would two talented boxers fight each other when one of them could lose?

Interesting article here:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/queensberry-rules-boxing-blog/2016/jan/27/unbeaten-fight-danny-garcia-angel-thurman-porter

Finally, somebody said it. It’s out there now. For those of you who haven’t seen it, Angel García, father of undefeated welterweight Danny García, expressed his confusion to Fighthype over just why in hell Shawn Porter and Keith Thurman, two young, talented welterweights, would want to fight each other:

I don’t know why they are calling each other out as they are both elite fighters. I don’t make sense. They’re still young. I don’t want people misunderstanding what I’m saying – it’s a great fight – but, at the end of the day, someone is going home with the ‘0’. If they want to do that, it’s up to them. They’re making good money to be calling each other out. At the end of the day it’s about retiring wealthy. Why would they fight each other when they could fight a Salka? It’s about the bank being loaded. That’s why Oscar is at where’s he at right now. I don’t want you to misunderstand this, but sometimes it’s not about the glory, it’s about the paper, because they take punches in the face and that shi t hurts. They could have waited and got more fights under their belts and become bigger stars and then met each other.

Garcia is correct, one of them would likely walk out of the ring with a loss on the old record. This is how boxing works now. If a fighter loses, the fame, fortune, and women all vanish into the ether like they were never there. Why take that kind of risk when you don’t have to?

BULLSH!T of the highest order. They fight to see who's the best...the way it should be. Federer and Novak have played each other 44 times not counting today's match. It currently stands at 22-22....boxing should be f*cking ashamed of itself

Didn't surprise me in the least coming from Angel Garcia.

It's the disregard for the fans that really gets me though.

Fans love to see fighters earn their way to big paydays, but it sickens them to watch people milking the system.

This is why I prefer UFC. I still don't particularly like grappling, but the best guys fight the best.

If a fighter loses, the fame, fortune, and women all vanish into the ether like they were never there.

Yeah, Muhammed Ali faded into obscurity after losing to Joe Frazier didn't he?

Amir Khan disappeared into the ether after getting KO'd inside a minute didn't he?

PacMan suffered those loses as a youngster...utterly ruined him.

Wlad K all but vanished from the public's consciousness after his loss to Sanders. Whatever happened to that guy?

Lennox Lewis, didn't he lose to Oliver McCall? Wonder what he's doing these days.

I don't understand the Oscar mention. Is he saying Oscar made a career of fighting rubbish (which he clearly didn't) or is he saying fighting consistently against quality operators messed Oscar up?

Really don't see Oscar's relevance to this.

On the story I could understand his point I'd he was talking specifically about his own son. Where it's your own flesh and blood I'd think the easier the better however it doesn't sit well as a boxing fan when he gave us the Salka fight and mentions it here as an easy one that others should take (or fighters of a similar ilk).

Suppose this is where we are in in general. Lucky that fighters like Porter and Thurman think differently.

AdamT wrote:This is why I prefer UFC. I still don't particularly like grappling, but the best guys fight the best.

You confuse UFC with being MMA, it's no different to the WBC or the IBF, it's just an organisation; Fedor Emelianenko being a prime example of the best in MMA not actually fighting the best.

Well 99% of the top fighters are under the UFC banner. If/when it gets a serious rival, it will end up like boxing.

Boxing would have always worked this way !!..

Time for naive types to disabuse themselves of the notion that old timers fought for the prestige.......They were cold hard times the 20s 30s 40s 50s etc....Boxers had families to feed..

Give these oldtimers an easy belt with crap challengers and they'd have eaten it up..

That is the problem......We have easy belts now and easy money and Boxing is a hard business.....

Don't really want to scold any boxer for finding an easy way...I'd do the same !!

Unfortunately for the fans though though it sucks...and being a fan myself it's frustrating..

Boxing has injured itself........and I don't see a way back..

Blame the politics not the boxers.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Boxing would have always worked this way !!..

Time for naive types to disabuse themselves of the notion that old timers fought for the prestige.......They were cold hard times the 20s 30s 40s 50s etc....Boxers had families to feed..

Give these oldtimers an easy belt with crap challengers and they'd have eaten it up..

That is the problem......We have easy belts now and easy money and Boxing is a hard business.....

Don't really want to scold any boxer for finding an easy way...I'd do the same !!

Unfortunately for the fans though though it sucks...and being a fan myself it's frustrating..

Boxing has injured itself........and I don't see a way back..

Blame the politics not the boxers.....

I do blame the politics and sometimes the fighters.

Woodrow Wilson's new freedom act which was a very, very basic welfare program didn't come in till around 1915.... and then Harding/Coolidge basically scrapped that when the GOP won in 21 ...

FDR 33-45 onwards the welfare state started to take shape with the "NEW deal" and that was very basic to today's standards......Soup kitchens everywhere ...

Poor people were poor not like today's standards......

Just look at the TV movies back home they make today...Poor downtrodden types have three garages, a pool as well as a big house.....Poor people don't exist they never have !!

Fighters fought for cold hard cash.....

Not all this glory crap............

Four belts and alphabet-chump city...They'd have snapped your hand of..

Let's not kid ourselves..

History lesson over...

I guess it's ok then. Ducking and dodging is part of the game.

You're very immature..

You're very full of yourself.

Yep..

Like I said people always have and always will take the pee in any profession......

These days it's easier. ..

Never said it's alright...They shouldn't be allowed too...

Can you understand that ??

Of course I can understand it. I might be immature, but I'm not special.

Jury's still out on that, Adam

I guess so David.

Like it or not a lot of boxers are in it to make the maximum amount of money for there families. If they can do this whilst reducing the risk of their health then generally they will take it. Obviously that can restricted fighters sometimes meeting but I can't blame them. I certainly wouldn't call someone a ducker. They likely are not afraid of the other fighter they just think they have a better way of making the big bucks.

Thank God most of us grew up in a different era, where great fighters fought other great fighters.

When was the last time two great fighters fought at their best weight while they were still at their very best?

hazharrison wrote:Thank God most of us grew up in a different era, where great fighters fought other great fighters.

When was the last time two great fighters fought at their best weight while they were still at their very best?

Off the top of my head. JMM vs Pacquiao??

Frampton v Quigg will tick the box shortly.

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Thank God most of us grew up in a different era, where great fighters fought other great fighters.

When was the last time two great fighters fought at their best weight while they were still at their very best?

Off the top of my head. JMM vs Pacquiao??

I had hoped this PBC malarkey might become like the UFC, however, Haymon has form for overpaying fighters, so who knows?

It's grim we don't get to see Frampton/Quigg/LSC vs Rigo, Canelo vs GGG, Kovalev vs Stevenson etc.

spencerclarke wrote:Frampton v Quigg will tick the box shortly.

Love them both but they haven't proven themselves to be great fighters (yet).

I think when he mentions Oscar it is in regard to his promotional company, not his career.
I think any financial advisor would agree with Garcia tbh.

Some great fights can be made. With Floyd and Manny soon out of the picture, the big fights need to be made.

GGG vs Canelo can maybe happen. Also I would like to see Ward vs Kovalev.

I actually feel very sorry for Rigo. Such a waste of talent. Fighters avoiding him like the plague. Makes GGG look fortunate.

hazharrison wrote:Thank God most of us grew up in a different era, where great fighters fought other great fighters.

When was the last time two great fighters fought at their best weight while they were still at their very best?

It didn't happen that much in previous eras either, very rare for two great fighters to be at their peak at the same weight.

The good old days...When fighters didn't care about feeding their loved ones and were all macho..

Modern fighters don't know they've been born !!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The good old days...When fighters didn't care about feeding their loved ones and were all macho..

Modern fighters don't know they've been born !!!

I don't mean to be rude. But isn't the tone of this post, similar to the one I sent you?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Thank God most of us grew up in a different era, where great fighters fought other great fighters.

When was the last time two great fighters fought at their best weight while they were still at their very best?

It didn't happen that much in previous eras either, very rare for two great fighters to be at their peak at the same weight.

When I was writing that, I knew you'd chirp up with a pedantic response.

Ok:

How often to top ten ranked (independent rankings) fighters face one another? A load less than they used to.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The good old days...When fighters didn't care about feeding their loved ones and were all macho..

Modern fighters don't know they've been born !!!

I don't think anyone's ever suggested that. I'm all for fighters - they're the only reason I'm still interested in the sport.

The current system is junk, though.

Always awkward when Truss points out the bleeding obvious. Have to then agree with him. It makes me feel dirty.

It wasn't called prizefighting because they did it for honour and glory and a pat on the back. Reality is some fighters fight for glory others fight for a bump in their pay packet. Always have. Difference is that now the two overlap a HELLUVA lot less

A pedantic response or merely correcting you yet again.

hazharrison wrote:Thank God most of us grew up in a different era, where great fighters fought other great fighters.

When was the last time two great fighters fought at their best weight while they were still at their very best?

This is the era where Holmes trashed the WBC belt because he refused to rematch Witherspoon or fight Page....Fighters that could beat him...and stayed linear champ and the man apparently !!

The era where Camacho vacated his WBC belt after Bramble lost because he didn't want another fight with the heavy hitting Rosario...

The era where Hearns became number 1 contender in all the alphabets after slamming Shuler....Just for Hagler to pick on a 3 years out welter "13 MONTHS" later.....Being cut and rocked obviously wasn't that enjoyable...

The era where Spinks trashed the IBF belt to escape Tyson and Tucker and the HBO unification series...and stayed linear champ and the man apparently !!

I could go on.........................................

Yep modern fighters don't know they are born !!

See Case and point Nonito Donaire after his loss to Rigo

That being said Boxing needs to step up big time, its a risk reward business, we as the fans can do something about it though, by boycotting mismatches

Hammersmith harrier wrote:A pedantic response or merely correcting you yet again.

You should have said:

A pedantic response or merely correcting you yet again?

Two can play that game sad sack.

Baby throwing his toys out the pram again.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Baby throwing his toys out the pram again.

Pathetic trolling as usual.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Thank God most of us grew up in a different era, where great fighters fought other great fighters.

When was the last time two great fighters fought at their best weight while they were still at their very best?

This is the era where Holmes trashed the WBC belt because he refused to rematch Witherspoon or fight Page....Fighters that could beat him...and stayed linear champ and the man apparently !!

The era where Camacho vacated his WBC belt after Bramble lost because he didn't want another fight with the heavy hitting Rosario...

The era where Hearns became number 1 contender in all the alphabets after slamming Shuler....Just for Hagler to pick on a 3 years out welter "13 MONTHS" later.....Being cut and rocked obviously wasn't that enjoyable...

The era where Spinks trashed the IBF belt to escape Tyson and Tucker and the HBO unification series...and stayed linear champ and the man apparently !!

I could go on.........................................

Yep modern fighters don't know they are born !!

Yep, that's EXACTLY the same situation we have now. The 80s was just a mirror image of 2016.

Arum couldn't sell the Hagler vs Hearns rematch (due to the one-sided nature of the fight after the first minute). After the Schuler KO (on the same night Hagler struggled with Mugabi) blew fresh life into the idea, Leonard threw his hat into the ring and that was that. You know all this, though.

You can cite spurious examples from any era if you put your mind to it but the fact remains: in the 80s we had great fighters fighting other great fighters. That happens far less often today (and there are fewer great fighters).

Unsurprising that when the Guardian runs a boxing article it's this kind of drivel.

Pathetic from Garcia, lost a little respect for him for that.

One guy will definitely leave the ring without his 0. Porter lost his a year or so ago

Lance wrote:One guy will definitely leave the ring without his 0. Porter lost his a year or so ago

Best comment yet. Totally missed that. As did Angel Garcia and the useless journos at the Guardian!!

kingraf wrote:Always awkward when Truss points out the bleeding obvious. Have to then agree with him. It makes me feel dirty.

It wasn't called prizefighting because they did it for honour and glory and a pat on the back. Reality is some fighters fight for glory others fight for a bump in their pay packet. Always have. Difference is that now the two overlap a HELLUVA lot less

More often than not on the cobbles on a Friday night after the pub

To many non boxers throw out the old glory/legacy card all to often. Why would anybody decide to make life harder for themselves or turn down so called easy money? Funnily enough fighters like Peter Buckley found they were able to make more money for themselves by losing!

To compound matters - apparently Garcia vs Guerrero did excellent numbers on Fox.

No real surprise there, for me I thought it would be a decent fight, Guerrero is generally good value, not seen it yet though.

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Thank God most of us grew up in a different era, where great fighters fought other great fighters.

When was the last time two great fighters fought at their best weight while they were still at their very best?

This is the era where Holmes trashed the WBC belt because he refused to rematch Witherspoon or fight Page....Fighters that could beat him...and stayed linear champ and the man apparently !!

The era where Camacho vacated his WBC belt after Bramble lost because he didn't want another fight with the heavy hitting Rosario...

The era where Hearns became number 1 contender in all the alphabets after slamming Shuler....Just for Hagler to pick on a 3 years out welter "13 MONTHS" later.....Being cut and rocked obviously wasn't that enjoyable...

The era where Spinks trashed the IBF belt to escape Tyson and Tucker and the HBO unification series...and stayed linear champ and the man apparently !!

I could go on.........................................

Yep modern fighters don't know they are born !!

Yep, that's EXACTLY the same situation we have now. The 80s was just a mirror image of 2016.

Arum couldn't sell the Hagler vs Hearns rematch (due to the one-sided nature of the fight after the first minute). After the Schuler KO (on the same night Hagler struggled with Mugabi) blew fresh life into the idea, Leonard threw his hat into the ring and that was that. You know all this, though.

You can cite spurious examples from any era if you put your mind to it but the fact remains: in the 80s we had great fighters fighting other great fighters. That happens far less often today (and there are fewer great fighters).  

Hearns was his mandatory...

Fight of the decade wasn't marketable for a return....ok.

Who promoted Hagler v Leonard ?...Arum..

Give it a rest....Even your mate Jeff Ryan scoffed at Hagler refusing to rematch Hearns..."Hearns doesn't deserve a rematch and an old welterweight deserves a shot...what nonsense"..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Thank God most of us grew up in a different era, where great fighters fought other great fighters.

When was the last time two great fighters fought at their best weight while they were still at their very best?

This is the era where Holmes trashed the WBC belt because he refused to rematch Witherspoon or fight Page....Fighters that could beat him...and stayed linear champ and the man apparently !!

The era where Camacho vacated his WBC belt after Bramble lost because he didn't want another fight with the heavy hitting Rosario...

The era where Hearns became number 1 contender in all the alphabets after slamming Shuler....Just for Hagler to pick on a 3 years out welter "13 MONTHS" later.....Being cut and rocked obviously wasn't that enjoyable...

The era where Spinks trashed the IBF belt to escape Tyson and Tucker and the HBO unification series...and stayed linear champ and the man apparently !!

I could go on.........................................

Yep modern fighters don't know they are born !!

Yep, that's EXACTLY the same situation we have now. The 80s was just a mirror image of 2016.

Arum couldn't sell the Hagler vs Hearns rematch (due to the one-sided nature of the fight after the first minute). After the Schuler KO (on the same night Hagler struggled with Mugabi) blew fresh life into the idea, Leonard threw his hat into the ring and that was that. You know all this, though.

You can cite spurious examples from any era if you put your mind to it but the fact remains: in the 80s we had great fighters fighting other great fighters. That happens far less often today (and there are fewer great fighters).  

Hearns was his mandatory...You write some crap...

Fight of the decade wasn't marketable for a return....ok.

Who promoted Hagler v Leonard ?...Arum..

Give it a rest..

I could post you some direct quotes from Arum (and almost certainly have previously) but hey, you can't help some folk.

Pointless debating someone as irrational as you..

Let's stop before you start editing articles...or start throwing the toys out..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Pointless debating someone as irrational as you..

Let's stop before you start editing articles...or start throwing the toys out..

Which is how these things go. You say something odd - I offer a factual response and then you decide it's not worth debating.

To claim Hagler ducked a Hearns rematch - a guy who was never the same after Hagler - is ridiculous.