Golovkin-Brook: Boxing is all about the money
By Poerqe: Through the ages there have been a lot of boxers who have influenced boxers and boxing as a whole. But none have made such on impact as Floyd ‘money’ Mayweather (49-0, 26 KOs). It was always about the money, but never so much as during and post Mayweather. Mayweather has numerous times openly admitted that instead of trying to match himself against the very best and testing himself. He looks at what makes financially the most sense. This mantra seems to have been adopted by the other boxers who also look to maximize their purses and minimize the risk they take. And can we really blame them?
If we look at the September 10th Gennady Gennadyevich Golovkin (34-0, 31 KOs) vs. Kell Brook (36-0, 25 KOs) fight, you have to wonder How this fight is even allowed to take place? Well, there is only one reason. It makes sense financially and the risk for both fighters is pretty low. The money is obviously good, for GGG the fact he’ll lose is pretty none existing. Kell will lose but it probably won’t have effect on his career. People except him to lose (except for some delusional Brook fans). He’ll get exposure in the US and around the rest of the world. God knows he needs some.
Kell who has kept the IBF belt hostage ever since he won it in august against Shawn Porter (29-2, 16 KOs). After Porter he fought Jo Jo dan (38-3, 18 KOs), Frankie Gavin (24-2, 13 KOs) and Kevin Bizier (28-3, 17 KOs). All in the UK. There weren’t a lot of people tuning in for Kell’s fight outside of the UK. So they went the Mayweather route. What makes financialy the most sense and will be pretty risk free. And they came out with a way to make a lot of money and get the exposure he badly needs. Without risking much career wise. Same move Amir Khan (35-4, 19 KOs) made, with fighting Saul ‘Canelo’ Alvarez (49-1, 33 KOs).
Is this move bad for boxing? Well it does deprives the boxing public of genuine fights. If boxers keep fighting at catch weights and dragging opponents up from two weigh classes and make good money doing it. Why would they bother fighting credible opponents? What incentive do they have fighting risky fights, if they can make about the same amount (sometimes even more) fighting a relatively safe opponent. But can we really blame them, wouldn’t we all do the same?