Money or Glory? by Emerson De-Verne-Ghent Apr 26th 2008

A writer new to BBN, Emerson De-Verne-Ghent, ponders one of the oldest questions in the game - money or glory? The eternal question for a fighter partaking in the sweet science; “Should I try and win the most, or try and make the most money?” I have categorised these views into two: The Purist and The Realist. The Purist Most will tell you that a fighter should always go for the latter. That it's a boxer's job, and their obligation to the fans, to only fight the best they can inconsequential of whether the opponent could destroy, or tarnish, the legacy they have shed blood, sweat and tears creating, risking their potential earnings for future fights. They will point out that it's all about fighting the best to become the best, gathering more belts than Michael Jackson along the way, and generally flying the flag for British sport. The money will come, in time. However, a defeat for them could be, and often is, catastrophic. The fighter is forced to rebuild a career that was riding high one minute and branded a has been the next by the very same people that stood by them from the beginning, heralding them, at the time, as the best thing since sliced bread. How often do we judge a fighter to be too old, protected by their promoter or just not as good as we thought they were? Unfortunately this is a view synonymous among boxing fans, especially British ones. Too often a fighter is judged on their most recent performance instead of given a chance to rebound from the defeat, or even consideration given to the quality of the opponent they were facing. There may have been problems with the training camp, personal issues or the fact that they just had an off night. After all, fighters are human, not robots that consistently produce the best performances until their battery runs out. None of that matters to some fans. You lose in boxing and that's it. You're rubbish. On to the next fighter. The Realist Regarded by many as the outsiders. The fans that dare to take into account real life. Let's be honest here, fighters have responsibilities. They have a mortgage, bills to pay and a family to provide for. Not only that, but for most fighters this is the only chance they have of providing any real financial security for their family and, if they're lucky, ensuring they have enough to live on after the autumn of their career has come and gone. How many fighters at domestic level, or world level, are there that fight just for fun, or for the love of the sport? Not many. Most fighters, at least at some point in their lives, had to have another job because the money that's provided by the sport wasn't enough for them. If you were to offer a domestic fighter a guaranteed £50,000 purse or the British title, which one would they more likely go for? Unfortunately the Lonsdale belt doesn't keep Nationwide happy, the gas man from your door and a saveloy and chips on the table. Too many times we fail to consider the fighter outside of the ring because we only ever see them bathed in light in a squared circle, worshipped by the masses that have paid to see them. We don't see them at home with the wife and 5-year-old Tom who needs new school clothes, again, because he fell over in the playground. Conclusion I don't think there can ever be a right answer. It could be argued that to achieve financial security you must have glory first to fully achieve a lucrative status within this sport that we all love. This is a good theory, but it isn't always true. Junior Witter holds the most prestigious belt at 140 pounds, yet his defences aren't witnessed by huge audiences on pay-per-view. There have also have been cases where fighters have achieved such status without fighting the best available because the public have still flocked to see them fight. A good example of this is Ricky Hatton during his WBU defences. Does that make him a bad person, a devil to the sport? Of course not, it would be nonsensical to say that. Would you say to Duncan Bannatyne “Sorry mate, you've made more than enough money now. Time for you to take up a real challenge, like managing Northern Rock”. I suspect Duncan would tell you where to stick it, and quite right too! I believe, in some way, that one cannot exist without the other because they are intrinsically linked, at least in most cases, and if you achieve one you will, in time, achieve the other. There never will be definite answer of what's the right path to take. Everyone is different, has differing levels of responsibility and reliance on the sport. That said, I know what I'd choose, given the option.

Go back Comment on this article | Send to a friend | Print

Good Stuff Poncey One. Apr 26th 2008, 11:41:08 by neckodeemus Good stuff Emerson, the purist in us will always want fighters to make the biggest fights and hang the financial spread but we have to remember that these guys are making a living. For them it is sport and business. Hopefully they can strike the right balance once they start to make the cash.   the real problem? Apr 26th 2008, 05:53:49 by ian edwards I don't have a problem with fighters going for the money, its only natural and human. I'm not even sure if 'money' and 'glory' are mutually exclusive. My problem comes when they go for the money, and try and dress it up as something else.