It's the same today. Top guys got rich while the rest didn't make that much
gottcha. we may be coming at this from different angles.
my thinking was this: most of the time, sherdoggers complain about guys who have already made it who then start demanding money fights. guys like Woodley, Bisping, A Silva. those guys are millionaires, and they use the leverage they either avoid contenders or get paid more to fight certain other fighters.
if that's the scope of the conversation, then that's not pertinent to the millionaires of yesteryear like Sak. because they didn't exist.
OTOH, there are other guys who want to be the next Woodley, like Colby Covington. he hasn't made millions, but he is now threatening to sit out for a title belt (like Woodley did). if that's the kind of guy you were talking about, then yes, it's pertinent to say he didn't make millions (yes) just like guys from 2001 didn't.
where i would argue it's different is that Colby
knows he can become a millionaire, by winning and then defending the belt. so he's now doing the most logical thing in the world; doing everything in his power to take a shortcut to the belt.
that choice didn't exist in 1999. but it does today. and that choice is causing guys to be pickier about who they fight.
lastly, another difference is
fans. fans used to be ok with a few losses, if fighters performed well. today, much less so. a 10-2 fighter is a lot further away from a title shot than a 11-1 fighter who hasn't fought a #3 contender to a close decision loss. and that's too bad. and since fan interest plays a big part of title shots, it matters.
TLDR: today, smart career management (e.g. avoiding some fights) heavily increases the chances of you becoming a millionaire, and that didn't used to be the case.
sorry for the long explanation. hope we're on the same page. cheers.
.
