"Off Night"

Well that is an incorrect assumption at times. It's to be taken on a case by case basis. Don't know about you, but if I'm the winner I want to have beaten the best version of that fighter, not one that, for one reason or another, is not at their personal best. I'm making that assumption on the basis that they are healthy and not going through a personal conflict like losing a loved one. I think it's fair to assume that guys that only fight 2 or 3 times a year and get paid millions will be as fully prepared as possible.

Stupid post. You can practice something and get it right 100 times in a row rehearsing, then go out to do it for real and **** it all up. Boxers are human beings, theyre going to have nights when they're dont perform up to par.

As prize fighters we assume they prepare to their fullest both physically and mentally. It's on them to be ready to perform, and being unfit doesn't take anything away from their opponent who did take camp seriously. Not training hard enough is never an acceptable excuse. Well that is an incorrect assumption at times. It's to be taken on a case by case basis. Don't know about you, but if I'm the winner I want to have beaten the best version of that fighter, not one that, for one reason or another, is not at their personal best.

williams-quintana mayweather-castillo leonard-duran etc. Fights like these where the fighter looked bad/below average the first fight, then won handily the second time, have a great case at saying they had an off-night the first fight. Now of course the other fighter can turn it around and say he had an off-night the second fight, but that's why there are trilogies. It's a much better excuse when the rematch happens immediately(no tune up) and at the same weight class. Also, you have to take in consideration: Training/lack of, long lay offs, injuries that are ignored in camp/aggravated injuries during a fight, trouble making weight, personal/family/legal issues. These may not seem like legit issues to boxing fans, but remember that boxers are humans and they have issues that interfere with their job just like any one else personal/physical issues is affecting their job performance. lmaooo ohhh noooo

There's such thing as off nights, but we can't give fighters passes for having them. You can't perform twice a year and get a pass for being off on one of those moments. I'd say Angulo had an off night against Canelo. He didn't look like himself, but he doesn't get a pass for it. Canelo did a job on him and we can't make excuses for Angulo. Danny Garcia I don't think had an off night against Herrera. Herrera just had Danny figured out with a great gameplan and made him look silly in there. Na he was just getting his ass beat from the opening bell....thats what happens when you have no defense.

I'm going to make an assumption that you never boxed a day in your life?

If you don't believe in "off nights", train for a few years and you'll understand. Pros have all sorts of lingering injuries which flare up here and there. With that said, it's part of the game and that's the beauty of the rematch.

To me, the better fighter doesn't need a "woulda, shoulda, coulda" to win the fight, they just go out and perform. Part of being a fighter is making sure you have a good camp and to be mentally strong and prepared for the fight. If the other guy beats you for whatever reason, then he is better than you on that night.

Well in boxing an off night can be representative of a training camp that was subpar, or a personal life in shambles. The performance of a fighter represents the entire span of their preparation, and what did, and didn't occur in that period of time. As prize fighters we assume they prepare to their fullest both physically and mentally. It's on them to be ready to perform, and being unfit doesn't take anything away from their opponent who did take camp seriously. Not training hard enough is never an acceptable excuse.

Williams-Quintana Mayweather-Castillo Leonard-Duran etc. Fights like these where the fighter looked bad/below average the first fight, then won handily the second time, have a great case at saying they had an off-night the first fight. Now of course the other fighter can turn it around and say he had an off-night the second fight, but that's why there are trilogies. It's a much better excuse when the rematch happens immediately(no tune up) and at the same weight class. Also, you have to take in consideration: Training/lack of, long lay offs, injuries that are ignored in camp/aggravated injuries during a fight, trouble making weight, personal/family/legal issues. These may not seem like legit issues to boxing fans, but remember that boxers ARE humans and they have issues that interfere with their job just like any one else personal/physical issues is affecting their job performance. Couldn't have said it better. TS ... Boxer's are humans, end of story

It's possible that a fighter has an "off-night" since at the end of the day they're human. It's disrespectful to the opponent however to claim a fighter didn't look good or lost solely on the fact he had an "off-night". It's completely possible that an "inferior" fighter simply has the right style to trouble the "superior" fighter. During a span of 12 rounds a fighter has more than enough time and infinite opportunities to make up for a perceived "off-night". It's not a team sport like baseball where you only have 3 or 4 opportunities to perform and an infinite amount of time in between to analyze your sub-par performance and doubt your abilities. You also don't have other teammates you can rely on it's just you and your opponent leaving no room to doubt your skills or performance. If you are doubting your skills then simply the other guy is better than you. Well in boxing an off night can be representative of a training camp that was subpar, or a personal life in shambles. The performance of a fighter represents the entire span of their preparation, and what did, and didn't occur in that period of time.

Williams-Quintana Mayweather-Castillo Leonard-Duran etc. Fights like these where the fighter looked bad/below average the first fight, then won handily the second time, have a great case at saying they had an off-night the first fight. Now of course the other fighter can turn it around and say he had an off-night the second fight, but that's why there are trilogies. It's a much better excuse when the rematch happens immediately(no tune up) and at the same weight class. Also, you have to take in consideration: Training/lack of, long lay offs, injuries that are ignored in camp/aggravated injuries during a fight, trouble making weight, personal/family/legal issues. These may not seem like legit issues to boxing fans, but remember that boxers ARE humans and they have issues that interfere with their job just like any one else personal/physical issues is affecting their job performance.

It's possible that a fighter has an "off-night" since at the end of the day they're human. It's disrespectful to the opponent however to claim a fighter didn't look good or lost solely on the fact he had an "off-night". It's completely possible that an "inferior" fighter simply has the right style to trouble the "superior" fighter. During a span of 12 rounds a fighter has more than enough time and infinite opportunities to make up for a perceived "off-night". It's not a team sport like baseball where you only have 3 or 4 opportunities to perform and an infinite amount of time in between to analyze your sub-par performance and doubt your abilities. You also don't have other teammates you can rely on it's just you and your opponent leaving no room to doubt your skills or performance. If you are doubting your skills then simply the other guy is better than you. Great post. Thank you.

I am not a fan of Danny but I do respect him as a fighter. He is as legit as they come. I only used him because he is the one in recent memory whose fans have been using that term with. I'm just talking in general. I'm a big Cotto fan but each one of his losses were by fighters that are simply better than him. Minus Margo. He didn't lose to Trout because of an "off night". It's possible that a fighter has an "off-night" since at the end of the day they're human. It's disrespectful to the opponent however to claim a fighter didn't look good or lost solely on the fact he had an "off-night". It's completely possible that an "inferior" fighter simply has the right style to trouble the "superior" fighter. During a span of 12 rounds a fighter has more than enough time and infinite opportunities to make up for a perceived "off-night". It's not a team sport like baseball where you only have 3 or 4 opportunities to perform and an infinite amount of time in between to analyze your sub-par performance and doubt your abilities. You also don't have other teammates you can rely on it's just you and your opponent leaving no room to doubt your skills or performance. If you are doubting your skills then simply the other guy is better than you.

I am not a fan of Danny but I do respect him as a fighter. He is as legit as they come. I only used him because he is the one in recent memory whose fans have been using that term with. I'm just talking in general. I'm a big Cotto fan but each one of his losses were by fighters that are simply better than him. Minus Margo. He didn't lose to Trout because of an "off night".

Always hated that term. I mean seriously? That is such a lame excuse for looking sub-par or losing a fight. I don't watch basketball or baseball or even football that much but athletes that play multiple days or even weekly should be the only ones that have an "off night" here and there. Fighters and fans that use that as an excuse just don't want to admit that the other fighter is better than they are. How can you have an "off night" when you train and are 100% ready for a fight twice or three times tops a year? Danny Garcia for example(this is not a hate thread), lost to a better fighter in Herrera because Herrera is a better fighter, not cause he had an "Off Night". you don't like danny. every fighter has an off night where they just don't look the same.

Herrera clearly beat Garcia but I wouldn't say that was an off-night. An off-night is, for example, Khan vs Garcia when Khan trained himself for most of the camp and also let his anger get the better of him due to the Garcia's racist taunts. Those factors, plus the weight-draining contributed to that loss - that was an "off-night" because Khan was out of his element due to the poor camp & racism from his opponent. Had Khan been able to prepare properly with a dedicated trainer, stuck to the right game plan and controlled his anger then he would have won that fight fairly easily. ummm no dude, khan got his ass sent to the canvas because he got clipped.

Always hated that term. I mean seriously? That is such a lame excuse for looking sub-par or losing a fight. I don't watch basketball or baseball or even football that much but athletes that play multiple days or even weekly should be the only ones that have an "off night" here and there. Fighters and fans that use that as an excuse just don't want to admit that the other fighter is better than they are. How can you have an "off night" when you train and are 100% ready for a fight twice or three times tops a year? Danny Garcia for example(this is not a hate thread), lost to a better fighter in Herrera because Herrera is a better fighter, not cause he had an "Off Night". As others have already said they're human. Who knows it could be something going on in a boxer's personal life that us as fans will never know. They have emotions and cry and laugh just like everyone else. You just don't like Danny

King of off nights??? What u talking bout Cuba??? He had one in recent memory vs Herrera. That's it! Who's that in your avatar?

WTF lol?! YES. People have off days and nights for no explainable reason. WE ALL DO.