Wilder - Breazeale May 18 on PPV

[JONdaCON]

JD is a negative Nancy...

Play devil's advocate with yourself for once JD, it'll be fun.

[ViperSniper]

Joshua-Ruiz is a perfect example on why the "A-side" should have a small % of their purse on the line!

Obviously a 60/40 split, winner take all agreement wouldn't have worked here for Joshua-Ruiz but the "A-side" having a small % of his purse on the line could have!

AJ fucked up big time!! Hearn (the promoter) has invested in Joshua (the "A-side") & now have lost millions of dollars! AJ should be held accountable for, because he didn't meet his end of the agreement & get the job done with a W!

Why should AJ (or any "A-side" fighter) be guaranteed soo much in a fight he should be able to EASILY guarantee to deliver? This was not just the case of Ruiz being the "B-side" here. He was far less than that. Ruiz (like Miller) was not only meant to be showcase fight for the big US debut of AJ but Ruiz Jr was a replacement who wasn't given much of a chance by many!

Ruiz Jr should have gotten a small percentage of AJ's purse AND a KO/stoppage bonus too & Joshua would STILL walk away with more money than the guy that just did a better job than him!
Then maybe next time, AJ wouldn't go to the ring all nonchalant like everything will go according to plan & already know how much he is making than look like a dazed smiley fool on the big night!

[JD]

Joshua - Ruiz is the exact example why it will never happen.

The case study you are using blows up the entire hypothetical.

[lloyd mayflower]

Joshua Ruiz isnt a good example. Neither side needed to be incentivized by more money.

Ruiz took his shot at getting more money by winning the fight. AJ was looking to impress in the Wilder dance.

[JD]

Sure it is. It’s a perfect reason it would never happen.

Ruiz’ bonus is winning, not some payout that no A side would agree to.

“Bonus money? Sorry Andy...next on the list is...”

[blackbelt2003]

Fuck me, last night is a PERFECT example of why the A-Side should NEVER agree to performance-based bonuses....



Black

[JONdaCON]

Lol

[ViperSniper]

(06-02-2019 05:39 PM)blackbelt2003 Wrote:  Fuck me, last night is a PERFECT example of why the A-Side should NEVER agree to performance-based bonuses....



Black

Well performance based bonuses is something an "A-side" shouldn't agree on it if it's a high risk 50/50 fight. But if some mega fighter is taking on soft competition or against a fighter that is meant to set him up for his next fight..I don't see why he should be guaranteed sooo much in a fight that's meant to be a given!

If he does his job like he is supposed to then he will be guaranteed x amount..but for whatever reason he fucks things up..he should be held accountable for..(while still being payed a fuck load more than his lesser opponent.

For a mega fight like a Wilder-Joshua fight a performance based bonus wouldn't be great (KO bonus for both, would work though) but for fights like Joshua-Ruiz where there is a big gap in skill or marketability it could work.

If the best just fought the best & fighters gave it there best..then these contracts wouldn't be required.

[salvador]

If there had been a performance based bonus last night AJ would have stuck with the jab for 7 rounds straight to make absolutely damn sure he won on points before taking any risks.

[blackbelt2003]

The market determines the payday, not the other way around.

Try telling a big name fighter "we'll give you an extra 100k if you win and 100k on top of that for a KO".

The big name fighter's team then says: "how about you put that 200k on my guarantee or we walk". And they get up and walk out.

You then end up putting the 200k in their guarantee to make the fight.



Black