THE TERM CASHING A FIGHTER OUT.

this post by no means is ment to be arguementive..i read that term several times on here and unless i missed something i dont recall hearing it in the past. how did it originate.first i strongly believe the term is nonsence without any merit and again a overationalization of something that simply isnt there.
ive read that golden boy was cashing out kirkland with the angulo match.realy his last several fights have not been a main event nor headlining a tv card.now chavez and alvarez are talked about as being cashed out.why.because they could lose a fight and maybe badly.the term to me means the promoter has no more interest or sees no value in a fighter.why because he lost a fight.chavez and alvarez are extremly popular.a loss isnt going to diminish there popularity or abilty to draw fans.the public desides that not the promoter or fans speculating fantasyland...
was floyd patterson cashed out when he got koed two fights in a row .nope.he fought several big fights after and sold a ton of seats.same with rocky graziano after the second time he was koed by zale..was emile griffitrh cashed out after getting crushed in one round by cartewr...or bob saterfield who got koed several times.or art aragon who sold out every venue in la and yes even after losses..i can go on and on about this nonsence.
brining a fighter to another level also isnt cashing him out.when they did that with bummy davis against i believe lou ambers bummy got blown out losing about every round.after the fight davis said get me some bums i can ko.davis went on for tons of fights selling out the garden and st nicks arena fighting both great fighters and fighters at or slighly below his level..davis was extremly popular threwout his career even after losses.
now if a fighter losses one fight i read so and so is cashing him out.or if there matched as a underdog before any losses its cashing the fighter out.sorry.this is one of the most rediculous over rationalzation of fantasy ive ever heard.by the way was wlad cashed out when he got koed 3 times by a bum and 2 mediocre fighters.
.

I agree completely. I dont think its possible to do that in this sport. You listed the reasons completely. I do think you can capitalize on someones fame and create new fame and a fan base by putting up a young unproven fighter against a name fighter. But even then its all based on if the young guy is the real deal. How many young unproven guys have had their heads kicked in fighting the veteran with a name. Hell look at what Grady Brewer did just this last year.

Dmar you have a great point here. Even if the name fighter looses he still can make money and fight on. That one fight doesn't cost him his career.

If Arum set up Chavez Jr vs Martinez now he'd be cashing him out because Martinez would beat Jr so badly he'd have to retire. That would be cashing a fighter out. As of now Jr defends titles against fringe contenders that pose no real threat.

I have to disagree with quite a bit of what you posted for a couple of reasons. All the fighters you mentioned fought in a completely different era than now. The 40's, 50, 60's didn't have the competition that boxing has now. Boxing was more prominent then, more popular to the masses. Now, there a ton of other high visibility sports with way more exposure than boxing, so a fighter has to be careful with his career. I, personally don't believe a fighter is done after a loss, but to me, cashing out a fighter means something else. They promote a guy to his fullest value, as an asset. When the promoter has strung a fighter along, such as Chavez Jr., going 40something and 0 without fighting anybody of substance, and then decide to put him in with a guy that he can't beat, like Martinez, that would be cashing him out, because he might not get any high profile fights once the fans see what he's really made of. A perfect example is Camacho Jr. The kid sucks. They strung him along getting bad decisions in his favor, but then they could only do that for so long, when they ptu him in with Lemieux, he was cashed out.

I agree and disagree with dmar's post. I agree that the term cashing out is overgeneralized and Kirkland was a great example of why it's inaccurate. On the other side, I think smart match making and marketing can create an inflated value for fighters. Promoters cash in by taking advantage of a fighters popularity by continuing to give them very winnable fights while protecting them from threats. They cash out when they set a fighter up with a fight he is very likely to lose but will generate lots of money and interest (Chavez vs. Martinez for example) when the option still exists to have them continue to fight bums at the expense of their credibility.

I think the point I disagree with about dmar is the importance of record. When a fighter loses, they lose their momentum and in this day and age instantly get devalued. If Chavez lost an importantly fight, it would hurt his ability to sell. The mystery would be over and a lot of fans and networks would jump ship. A lot of people turn in on the off chance that he might be special or to see him finally get exposed.

thanks guys but in reality thoses that disagreed may of proven my point..gamboa alvarez and chavez are 3 fighters that are mentioned often as not ready to be cashed out yet or in gamboas case cashed out by fighting rios.one loss does not devalue a fighters marketabilty.if alvarez lost to citron does he now lose his huge fan base.i doubt it.or his marketabilty.why.same with gamboa on the marketabilty side.hbo showtime etc would still have a strong interest in him as well as real boxing fans cause hes action..is david lemiux career now over because he got destroyed by rubio.will there be no more interest in him by tv because he lost.
to the comment fighers of the 40s 50s and 60s it was differnt.they dont have the competion..i say realy lol what competion.
chavez has his fans of course.he still will be marketable after that one lose.exposed.well most knowledgeable boxing fans already know what he is.maybe even some of his fans.they still like him.hes no differnt then art aragon who fought sellout after sellout in la dispite the fact he lost fights and some of thoses losses or even most of them was not against top competion or big stars.like aragon chavez comes to fight.did gattis appeal go away when he got his ass kicked several times.the boxing public in general realized he wasnt a elite fighter.many viewd him as a top tier club fighter.so did tv guys.
yet his fan base was fantastic and so was his marketabilty.
a fighers fan base which is the key or one of them to marketabilty will not disappear because of a loss or so called being exposed by a top fighter.chavez may be a perfect example.every one on here feel no contest with martinez.no chance.ill bet tv people feel the same way.maybe even a few of his fans.he gets clobbered and we call it being exposed .hows that since its a result we all expect.
sometimes a fighter like chavez gets clobbered but shows great heart.never stops trying.gives his all dispite being in over his head.he may actualy win fans not lose them.how many times has sam peter been exposed.mccline chambers vitali wlad.yet he went to europe and was viewd as a threat there and he got koed.finaly after 5 losses and a few disappointing wins hes exposed as a mediocre overated fighter and finaly no marketabilty..the exposure so to speak was there 100 percent against mc cline.yet he was very marketable.there is no such thing as cashing out a fighter.not via one loss.especialy when you expect that loss...but we label it not only as cashed out but now exposede.

gumby overinflated value.i like that.boxing has too many fighters that are in that category.