Boxing Fans and the Degrading and Disrespect of "The Contender"

[soul_survivor]

"Who has he beat?"

"He's beaten nothing but bums"

"He needs to fight somebody"

"Boxing needs to get back to the days where the best fight the best"


These are comments that you see a lot when criticizing today's fighters. But are these criticisms justified when these fighters are beating top 10 contenders in their division? And I am not talking about sanctioning body rankings. We have several legit ratings sites that are pretty consistent in establishing who the top 10 fighters are in each division (even if the order may be off here and there).

The fighters you reminisce over in the past weren't fighting hall of famers and all time greats night after night. They were winning championships and making defenses against top 10 contenders. If they weren't yet champions then they fought top contenders and earned their right to get to the champion. That's how boxing is supposed to work.

A hall of fame resume may have a handful of gems on it. But the meat and backbone of a hall of fame caliber boxing resume is ranked contenders/title defenses/unifications. Mayweather, Hopkins, Hearns, Hagler, Pep, Robinson, Armstrong, Greb, Whitaker, Duran...you name it. A handful of great wins that are supported by a full body of work of beating tough, rugged ranked contenders.

So my question is, when did boxing fans get this idea that top 10 contenders (even the 2,3,4,5 ranked guys at times) are bums and trashmen? When your favorite fighter from the past built his career of this caliber of opposition?

You can't compare contenders pre-multiple belts to contenders of the modern day. With the proliferation of world, interim, silver, super belts the contenders are no longer of true contender quality. WHy? Because they have barely fought any live opponents to get into a position to challenger for a title.

If we were going back to the pre-1990s, the modern ww division would have Pac or Bradley as champs and Porter, Khan and Brook as leading contenders and almost all those fights would get made. Now we have the likes of Porter and Thurman fighting over a so called world title with a likely contender being someone like Jo Jo Dan lol

These aren't contenders in the truest sense of the word.

Take Ali for example, with wins over HOFers such as Moore, Patterson, Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Foster and Norton. The contenders he fought were genuine contenders for THE heavyweight crown, not for a portion of the strap. Guys like Shavers, Chuvalo and co.

Now we have Wilder who has fought Molina and some other bum in his reign as "champion" and AJ fighting some nut called Brezeele or whatever the ****. Who have they beat to be top contenders?

[boliodogs]

The criticism if often justified. With most champions only defending their titles twice a year or less it's important that they defend against a legit top 10 contender when they do make a title defense. Many champions don't ever fight top contenders. Wilder is a perfect example. Every time he makes a title defense I look up the unknown guy he will be fighting to see where he is ranked. Usually the guy is completely unranked except by boxrec who rank every pro boxer in the world. Wilder's title defenses have all been against guys ranked 20th to 30th by boxrec and unranked by everyone else. Oh, they might be ranked 13th or 15th by the WBC but never top 10. Lara finally defended his title against a top 10 contender when he fought Vanes. Lara's last three title defenses before Vanes were against unranked fighters. Jacobs is getting ready to defend his title for the 2nd time against unranked and unworthy Mora who he shouldn't have fought the first time. Only boxrec ranks Mora at 45th in the world. Not all champions today are defending their titles against unranked guys but lots of them are. As a rule the champions of 15 or more years ago defended their titles much more often against much higher ranked and better challengers.

[-PBP-]

You can't compare contenders pre-multiple belts to contenders of the modern day. With the proliferation of world, interim, silver, super belts the contenders are no longer of true contender quality. WHy? Because they have barely fought any live opponents to get into a position to challenger for a title.

If we were going back to the pre-1990s, the modern ww division would have Pac or Bradley as champs and Porter, Khan and Brook as leading contenders and almost all those fights would get made. Now we have the likes of Porter and Thurman fighting over a so called world title with a likely contender being someone like Jo Jo Dan lol

These aren't contenders in the truest sense of the word.

Take Ali for example, with wins over HOFers such as Moore, Patterson, Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Foster and Norton. The contenders he fought were genuine contenders for THE heavyweight crown, not for a portion of the strap. Guys like Shavers, Chuvalo and co.

Now we have Wilder who has fought Molina and some other bum in his reign as "champion" and AJ fighting some nut called Brezeele or whatever the ****. Who have they beat to be top contenders?

I consider Wilder, AJ, Ortiz and all of those guys contenders. A win over anyone of them is solid.

Even though there are 4 belts we still have rankings like Ring, TBRB, etc. so we still have a good consensus on who the top 10 fighters are.

[_Maxi]

"Who has he beat?"

"He's beaten nothing but bums"

"He needs to fight somebody"

"Boxing needs to get back to the days where the best fight the best"


These are comments that you see a lot when criticizing today's fighters. But are these criticisms justified when these fighters are beating top 10 contenders in their division? And I am not talking about sanctioning body rankings. We have several legit ratings sites that are pretty consistent in establishing who the top 10 fighters are in each division (even if the order may be off here and there).

The fighters you reminisce over in the past weren't fighting hall of famers and all time greats night after night. They were winning championships and making defenses against top 10 contenders. If they weren't yet champions then they fought top contenders and earned their right to get to the champion. That's how boxing is supposed to work.

A hall of fame resume may have a handful of gems on it. But the meat and backbone of a hall of fame caliber boxing resume is ranked contenders/title defenses/unifications. Mayweather, Hopkins, Hearns, Hagler, Pep, Robinson, Armstrong, Greb, Whitaker, Duran...you name it. A handful of great wins that are supported by a full body of work of beating tough, rugged ranked contenders.

So my question is, when did boxing fans get this idea that top 10 contenders (even the 2,3,4,5 ranked guys at times) are bums and trashmen? When your favorite fighter from the past built his career of this caliber of opposition?

They invented this to attack GGG. Murray is a good fighter according to many (wins over sturm and sergio), but after he was destroyed by GGG, he's a bum.

Good to see you jumping on the GGG bandwagon.

[-MAKAVELLI-]

i thought you were talking about that show where Ishe and Sam Soliman and them came from...i liked that crappy show

[Razcal26]

It's nothing but new-age crap mixed in with fake nostalgia.

I wouldn't even acknowledge it if I were you you.

[soul_survivor]

I consider Wilder, AJ, Ortiz and all of those guys contenders. A win over anyone of them is solid.

Even though there are 4 belts we still have rankings like Ring, TBRB, etc. so we still have a good consensus on who the top 10 fighters are.

The thing is, someone like Wilder and/or AJ have "world" title belts, they are in no hurry to fight Fury/Wlad and probably will not do so for a long time, considering they are getting paid like champions to fight bums. That's the problem with belt proliferation, a contenders can all of a sudden be leveled a champion.

[Eff Pandas]

So my question is, when did boxing fans get this idea that top 10 contenders (even the 2,3,4,5 ranked guys at times) are bums and trashmen?

I think its cuz we used to have a top ten of ten fighters pre-4 alphabet groups. Now we got 25 or so, up to 40 "top ten" fighters. And sure there is what I call the Legit Top Ten, but thats a disputable list is the problem.

The name calling is standard & depending on my mood I can ignore that or go on a tirade about that myself lol, but thats just a easy & preferable to them way some guys talk about boxing & the non-elite guys or guys contending for elite status. Is what it is.