Dont blame today's new fighters blame the ones before them

I don't see how Oscar started the trend. He's far from the first star/champ to be not that inactive toward the end of his career, and fight guys that weren't really his biggest threats. Depends what trend your talking about? He is not entirely responsible! There must be a misunderstanding! I never suggested DLH only faced guys who aren't threatening at ANY point of his career as that couldn't be further from the truth! Or anything to do with him being inactive towards the end (which yes, he did). Despite all the fame n money DLH still maintained his balls in his career! Manny n Floyd on the other hand aren't even old fighters or past their prime..they're both young & in their prime! But they don't abuse their power to fight the best like oscar was willing to...no! They abuse their power to fight the lowest risk/highest reward fighter..and have the nerve to claim to be the best in the world..AND also claim to be the best in history haha!

interestin perspective! those are some of the reasons why I find it very hard for any new generation fighter to surpass some of the all-time greats because it was so much more tough & so much more different to boxing that it is now. the sport being as dangerous as it is..the top fighters get overpaid! they receive way too much money & attention...boxers a spoiled these days, with one option too many. dlh abused his star power towards the end of his career by holding up the sport with fights against fighters he had no reason being in the ring with. DLH started that the trend and manny n floyd have killed it. I don't see how Oscar started the trend. He's far from the first star/champ to be not that inactive toward the end of his career, and fight guys that weren't really his biggest threats.

What you honestly have to blame is the fact that the culture is different. Back in the 30s or 40s, losing three times in one year, could still mean that you won 12 times. A boxer fighting 15 times that year wouldn't be the most shocking news. That would never happen at this point in history. There are several reasons why it wouldn't happen and why it would never work. You can blame medical science for making fighters aware of the dangers of too many fights. You can blame the bigger contracts that keep fighters from HAVING to fight so often. You can blame the networks for requesting more time to build a fight. But the biggest "problem" is that the sport has more exposure at this point due to cable television. Back in the 30s or 40s, a fighter could get away with fighting so many times is because he could go from this town to that town, and the fans might not have seen his last few fights. So, watching this next fight was still an event for them. They could face so many different fighters, and make a solid enough living doing it. Might be the only way they can actually make a decent living. With television, it forces a fighter to do two things. One, you have to put more energy into that televised bout, both for training and building it up. Also, losing that bout means more, because more fans will have seen the event. With the advances in technology, fighters have to fight less. When you fight less, you have to lose less. When you have to lose less, you tend to take less risk. Just the way it happens. Thankfully, throughout history, fighters have continued to buck that trend. interestin perspective! those are some of the reasons why I find it very hard for any new generation fighter to surpass some of the all-time greats because it was so much more tough & so much more different to boxing that it is now. the sport being as dangerous as it is..the top fighters get overpaid! they receive way too much money & attention...boxers a spoiled these days, with one option too many. dlh abused his star power towards the end of his career by holding up the sport with fights against fighters he had no reason being in the ring with. DLH started that the trend and manny n floyd have killed it.

Leonard did cherry-pick toward the end of his career. While Lalonde was a bigger man, the fight took place at 168 so both that title and Lalonde's 175 lb belt could be at stake, and people were very critical of it. I think it was Gil Clancy who said the fight was a farce that should not have been sanctioned. Hearns was viewed to be a shot fighter (or close to it) when Leonard fought him in the rematch. Hearns had not only been knocked out by Iran Barkley, but looked shaky in the bout with James Kinchen. Michael Nunn was viewed as the top threat around middleweight, having flattened Sumbu Kalambay in what should have been a unification bout. But Hearns and Duran were much higher financial reward/lower-risk fights (or at least Hearns was believed to be low risk). Duran did have a belt after his terrific win over Barkley, but still, was nearing 40, and you'd be hard-pressed to find people who think Duran was the bigger threat to Leonard than Nunn and some of the other guys around that division. Terry Norris wasn't thought of to be a big threat at the time. Norris-Leonard won KO Magazine's Upset of the Year for 1991. That fight did poor ticket sales at MSG.

I didn't give you or anyone else any advice, I simply stated a fact. People on here already have their built in excuses to justify whatever side they're on. That's a fact, not advice. You didn't even answer the SRR question, which assuming since you stated it in the first place that you'd know the answers to it, unless you were pulling it out of your ass for the sake of argument. See what you're trying to do is misconstrue something in my post to fit your argument, which doesn't even stick to the original point of Floyd being the highest profile top fighters to make it a rule of taking the low risk/high reward, instead of the exception. when his predecessors did sh!t the other way around. Nobody's saying Floyd started it, that's what exception to the rule implies (that it's been done before, but not made a career out of it), so if you're saying it just to "win" the argument, I'll make it easier on you and won't respond again. My arc ends here, lol. Didn't even read what you said about Ray Robinson because it doesn't matter. Charley Burley and Holmon Williams, I can name more guys he didn't face if you want. You made those posts, I argued my point. Sorry that your argument was poorly constructed and had that many holes. Do a better job and maybe that will not happen. Dog Floyd if you want, but your opinion is slanted as a shanty in a hurricane. His career is the same as those in the past he started out made a name for himself, fell off a bit once he made that name then fought money fights almost exclusively. That is the rule in boxing not the exception, you have it ass backwards.

Justify it whatever way you wish the arcs are the same, I know about Leonard's career. You can call them excuses or reasons but they followed the same arc. You should follow your own advice~ Same shit, with different excuses~. This shit is old and didn't just start in this era how boxing works is how it has always worked, so blaming Floyd is just scapegoating since he is only more recent then the other guys. The fact that you are blind to the ills of boxing history shows the fault in your reasoning. I didn't give you or anyone else any advice, I simply stated a fact. People on here already have their built in excuses to justify whatever side they're on. That's a fact, not advice. You didn't even answer the SRR question, which assuming since you stated it in the first place that you'd know the answers to it, unless you were pulling it out of your ass for the sake of argument. See what you're trying to do is misconstrue something in my post to fit your argument, which doesn't even stick to the original point of Floyd being the highest profile top fighters to make it a rule of taking the low risk/high reward, instead of the exception. when his predecessors did sh!t the other way around. Nobody's saying Floyd started it, that's what exception to the rule implies (that it's been done before, but not made a career out of it), so if you're saying it just to "win" the argument, I'll make it easier on you and won't respond again. My arc ends here, lol.

All fighters will do this from time to time. When the opportunity arises for an easy payday most guys are going to jump on it. Blame the fighters individually, not their eras of activity.

Justify it whatever way you wish the arcs are the same, I know about Leonard's career. You can call them excuses or reasons but they followed the same arc. You should follow your own advice~ Same shit, with different excuses~. This shit is old and didn't just start in this era how boxing works is how it has always worked, so blaming Floyd is just scapegoating since he is only more recent then the other guys. The fact that you are blind to the ills of boxing history shows the fault in your reasoning. These guys equate rep, post counts, and join dates with being knowledgeable about the sport!

Mayweather and SRL's arc are not "the exact same". "Got soft in the middle", Leonard had a detached retina courtesy of Hearns, Floyd doesn't have that excuse for retiring. I wouldn't call fighting Hagler, Hearns, Duran, and Terry Norris at the end of your career softening up, but whatever I didn't expect to change anyone's mind on this. People on here already have their built in excuses to justify whatever side they're on. Tex Rickard intentionally kept Dempsey away from black fighters of the era because of the reaction of America to Jack Johnson's reign. Breaking the color barrier wasn't in the cards at the time. So... your point with SRR is? Of course he wanted more money, that's the point of the high reward side of it. You know... high risk/high reward, which is the original point. Name 2 black fighters of the time SRR didn't fight because they weren't a draw. Justify it whatever way you wish the arcs are the same, I know about Leonard's career. You can call them excuses or reasons but they followed the same arc. You should follow your own advice~ Same shit, with different excuses~. This shit is old and didn't just start in this era how boxing works is how it has always worked, so blaming Floyd is just scapegoating since he is only more recent then the other guys. The fact that you are blind to the ills of boxing history shows the fault in your reasoning.

All I have to say is the arc of their careers are the exact same they started out high got soft in the middle then picked back up only to soften more~ You can justify that as being different all you like but really it is the same exact thing, just of varying levels of greatness. Mayweather and SRL's arc are not "the exact same". "Got soft in the middle", Leonard had a detached retina courtesy of Hearns, Floyd doesn't have that excuse for retiring. I wouldn't call fighting Hagler, Hearns, Duran, and Terry Norris at the end of your career softening up, but whatever I didn't expect to change anyone's mind on this. People on here already have their built in excuses to justify whatever side they're on. Jack Dempsey must have learned his tricks from a guy 90 years in the future~ or that Ray Robinson always wanted more money and would not fight other black fighter would were good but didn't bring in the long green. Please, thing are the same as they always have been, nothing changes once you make you name your competition goes down hill as you make more for fighting a lesser guy and fighting lesser guys brings in the same amount as fighting real unknown guys. Tex Rickard intentionally kept Dempsey away from black fighters of the era because of the reaction of America to Jack Johnson's reign. Breaking the color barrier wasn't in the cards at the time. So... your point with SRR is? Of course he wanted more money, that's the point of the high reward side of it. You know... high risk/high reward, which is the original point. Name 2 black fighters of the time SRR didn't fight because they weren't a draw.

Jack Dempsey must have learned his tricks from a guy 90 years in the future~ or that Ray Robinson always wanted more money and would not fight other black fighter would were good but didn't bring in the long green. Please, thing are the same as they always have been, nothing changes once you make you name your competition goes down hill as you make more for fighting a lesser guy and fighting lesser guys brings in the same amount as fighting real unknown guys. This guy hit it on the head berto is a good example

What you honestly have to blame is the fact that the culture is different. Back in the 30s or 40s, losing three times in one year, could still mean that you won 12 times. A boxer fighting 15 times that year wouldn't be the most shocking news. That would never happen at this point in history. There are several reasons why it wouldn't happen and why it would never work. You can blame medical science for making fighters aware of the dangers of too many fights. You can blame the bigger contracts that keep fighters from HAVING to fight so often. You can blame the networks for requesting more time to build a fight. But the biggest "problem" is that the sport has more exposure at this point due to cable television. Back in the 30s or 40s, a fighter could get away with fighting so many times is because he could go from this town to that town, and the fans might not have seen his last few fights. So, watching this next fight was still an event for them. They could face so many different fighters, and make a solid enough living doing it. Might be the only way they can actually make a decent living. With television, it forces a fighter to do two things. One, you have to put more energy into that televised bout, both for training and building it up. Also, losing that bout means more, because more fans will have seen the event. With the advances in technology, fighters have to fight less. When you fight less, you have to lose less. When you have to lose less, you tend to take less risk. Just the way it happens. Thankfully, throughout history, fighters have continued to buck that trend.

Jack Dempsey must have learned his tricks from a guy 90 years in the future~ or that Ray Robinson always wanted more money and would not fight other black fighter would were good but didn't bring in the long green. Please, thing are the same as they always have been, nothing changes once you make you name your competition goes down hill as you make more for fighting a lesser guy and fighting lesser guys brings in the same amount as fighting real unknown guys.

No, but as one of the top fighters in the sport, he's been the best example of taking low risk/high reward fights. For other top fighters in the sport, who were in Floyd's position in the past, it was an exception to fight a low risk/high reward opponent, not a rule. For Floyd it's the opposite. Most fully expect him not to fight an opponent that is the biggest threat at that moment. Before his 2008 hiatus, what was being scheduled was a De La Hoya rematch and he was talking about a Hatton rematch, while Cotto and Margarito were fighting each other. At the end of his career, he was fighting Hagler, rematching Hearns, and finishing the trilogy with a Duran that had just won the Middleweight title. Floyd fights low risk/high reward, SRL fought high risk/high reward. Like I said, you look through past fighters resumes and you can find exceptions, not a rule. Mayweather's has become a rule, where you can find exceptions from his low risk/high reward approach. You can justifying it to yourself however you want, but real is real. All I have to say is the arc of their careers are the exact same they started out high got soft in the middle then picked back up only to soften more~ You can justify that as being different all you like but really it is the same exact thing, just of varying levels of greatness.

Yup,only Floyd has done that huh? No, but as one of the top fighters in the sport, he's been the best example of taking low risk/high reward fights. For other top fighters in the sport, who were in Floyd's position in the past, it was an exception to fight a low risk/high reward opponent, not a rule. For Floyd it's the opposite. Most fully expect him not to fight an opponent that is the biggest threat at that moment. Before his 2008 hiatus, what was being scheduled was a De La Hoya rematch and he was talking about a Hatton rematch, while Cotto and Margarito were fighting each other. Why are you comparing the end of Floyd's career with the beginning of SRL, Leonard's career arc while greater is not different from Floyd. Fighter have always been the same, greed and wanting to do less for more is not something new. At the end of his career, he was fighting Hagler, rematching Hearns, and finishing the trilogy with a Duran that had just won the Middleweight title. Floyd fights low risk/high reward, SRL fought high risk/high reward. Like I said, you look through past fighters resumes and you can find exceptions, not a rule. Mayweather's has become a rule, where you can find exceptions from his low risk/high reward approach. You can justifying it to yourself however you want, but real is real.

Who should we blame? SRL, who took the low risk/high reward fights in the form of a prime Wilfredo Benitez, ATG Roberto Duran (who actually proved himself at 147 against HOFer Palomino before the fight), prime Tommy Hearns, and moved up 2 weight classes to fight Hagler? Tyson fought everyone. De La Hoya fought pretty much every notable opponent from 135 to 160, win or lose. Fact is, Floyd will be the predeccesor when fighters do the same in the future. His choices at 147 have been the definition of low risk/high reward Why are you comparing the end of Floyd's career with the beginning of SRL, Leonard's career arc while greater is not different from Floyd. Fighter have always been the same, greed and wanting to do less for more is not something new.

Who should we blame? SRL, who took the low risk/high reward fights in the form of a prime Wilfredo Benitez, ATG Roberto Duran (who actually proved himself at 147 against HOFer Palomino before the fight), prime Tommy Hearns, and moved up 2 weight classes to fight Hagler? Tyson fought everyone. De La Hoya fought pretty much every notable opponent from 135 to 160, win or lose. Fact is, Floyd will be the predeccesor when fighters do the same in the future. His choices at 147 have been the definition of low risk/high reward Yup,only Floyd has done that huh?

Who should we blame? SRL, who took the low risk/high reward fights in the form of a prime Wilfredo Benitez, ATG Roberto Duran (who actually proved himself at 147 against HOFer Palomino before the fight), prime Tommy Hearns, and moved up 2 weight classes to fight Hagler? Tyson fought everyone. De La Hoya fought pretty much every notable opponent from 135 to 160, win or lose. Fact is, Floyd will be the predeccesor when fighters do the same in the future. His choices at 147 have been the definition of low risk/high reward

I blame DLH, him pushing that "prizefighter" bullshiit really took a toll on boxing