It was NEVER in DOUBT. The boxers of this era are BUMS.

Indeed, I noticed it is a common method used by tv networks to build up superstars but damn it they seem to forget that what makes people great is that they beat all comers if they're good enough. And it also helps generate more money (over a longer period rather than a short term gain). Man I could talk about this nonsense all day lol

It is down to the economics of modern boxing, which killed HBO and will ultimately kill several other outlets and dates back to the mid to late 90s. In a rush to create the next Mike Tyson, HBO invested heavily in a number of fighters, Oscar, Mayweather, Jones, Hopkins and a fair few others. Only one of them turned into a true star (Oscar), while the others mainly feasted on horrible opposition (Hopkins not so much but he was never invested in so much). Jones eventually fell to the wayside, a wasted career and one with millions invested. Mayweather eventually became a star by modern standards but it was already 2007 and HBO had invested huge sums into an 11 year career, which ultimately did not produce the quality nor the profits they imagined. By this time, Showtime and severa other outlets were following the HBO formula and will also end up failing like they did. Indeed, I noticed it is a common method used by tv networks to build up superstars but damn it they seem to forget that what makes people great is that they beat all comers if they're good enough.

That's what annoys me about certain boxers. Why not take the risk of losing to a fellow great? It's always worse to lose to a bum or average fighter, those are reputation destroyers. A valiant losing effort against a fellow top fighter will more than likely earn you more respect and money down the line. It is down to the economics of modern boxing, which killed HBO and will ultimately kill several other outlets and dates back to the mid to late 90s. In a rush to create the next Mike Tyson, HBO invested heavily in a number of fighters, Oscar, Mayweather, Jones, Hopkins and a fair few others. Only one of them turned into a true star (Oscar), while the others mainly feasted on horrible opposition (Hopkins not so much but he was never invested in so much). Jones eventually fell to the wayside, a wasted career and one with millions invested. Mayweather eventually became a star by modern standards but it was already 2007 and HBO had invested huge sums into an 11 year career, which ultimately did not produce the quality nor the profits they imagined. By this time, Showtime and severa other outlets were following the HBO formula and will also end up failing like they did.

Very true. Trial by fire creates great fighters, trial by soft toys creates decent fighters. That's what annoys me about certain boxers. Why not take the risk of losing to a fellow great? It's always worse to lose to a bum or average fighter, those are reputation destroyers. A valiant losing effort against a fellow top fighter will more than likely earn you more respect and money down the line.

Many fighters take too long building up their records agaisnt lower level pros. If you hadn't a long amateur career I understand but most have a decent amateur backing and just decide to rack up those wins so they can cash in. I think it's an obvious sign of a lack of confidence in a fighter. Those special few we have make me glad for having them exist. Thing is, I'll always try to tune in to watch their fights as they're rarely total mismatches. Very true. Trial by fire creates great fighters, trial by soft toys creates decent fighters.

YOu dont have to retract it because it is a fair enough statement but if it takes a decade to fight that level and 12 years to not even unify your division then it is pathetic imo and a failure on either the side of the boxer, the promoter, the manager, the trainer or all of them. I forgot to mention Usyk and Inoue originally, gonna mention Gonzalez, rung and estrada to the list too. Modern fighters actually fighting the best and earning their stripes. Put Donaire in that bracket too. Many fighters take too long building up their records agaisnt lower level pros. If you hadn't a long amateur career I understand but most have a decent amateur backing and just decide to rack up those wins so they can cash in. I think it's an obvious sign of a lack of confidence in a fighter. Those special few we have make me glad for having them exist. Thing is, I'll always try to tune in to watch their fights as they're rarely total mismatches.

The PBC manage their fighters awfully granted but I'm still not retracting the fact that those were his first big fights and not Pacquiao. YOu dont have to retract it because it is a fair enough statement but if it takes a decade to fight that level and 12 years to not even unify your division then it is pathetic imo and a failure on either the side of the boxer, the promoter, the manager, the trainer or all of them. It’s the weakest era it’s ever been during the gloved era. Extremely limited fighters lauded as great and elite because the competition and standards are so low. McDonalds said Thurman was better than BOTH Sugar Ray’s but in the real world he wouldn’t be top 10 in Leonard’s day or top 30 in Robinson’s. There are some great fighters. Loma, Crawford, Inoue, Usyk but when your making a deal of bums like Gervonta and Charlo’s then you know the standards are low. I forgot to mention Usyk and Inoue originally, gonna mention Gonzalez, rung and estrada to the list too. Modern fighters actually fighting the best and earning their stripes. Put Donaire in that bracket too.

The current generation is just a group of bums all across the sport. You're not wrong there bruv

It will be some years before we see boxers to rival the Pac / Floyd era. Imagine what a prime Pacquiao would have done that cyclist. The current generation is just a group of bums all across the sport.

It’s the weakest era it’s ever been during the gloved era. Extremely limited fighters lauded as great and elite because the competition and standards are so low. McDonalds said Thurman was better than BOTH Sugar Ray’s but in the real world he wouldn’t be top 10 in Leonard’s day or top 30 in Robinson’s. There are some great fighters. Loma, Crawford, Inoue, Usyk but when your making a deal of bums like Gervonta and Charlo’s then you know the standards are low.

Spence would demolish both men who fought tonight right after he stops Porter.

He's been fighting for 12 years as a pro, it took him a decade to fight someone Porter's level (felt Porter won) and was fighting once a year during that period if I'm not mistaken. Low quality opposition, the odd ok level, low activity....these are all problems and that is what I'm getting at in my post. The fact that Thurman may be considered a guy in the PBC stable who has done more than the others is a poor reflection of the stable itself and their methods of building careers. Most of the true greats were champions by their early to mid 20s and by the age of 30 had a fair share of top level fights - MAB, Morales, Pac, Floyd, Oscar etc etc etc The PBC manage their fighters awfully granted but I'm still not retracting the fact that those were his first big fights and not Pacquiao.

Isn't this this guy that makes bad predictions and comes in and acts like a know it all after the fight? It's either him or some other g@y ass soccer fan that does that every time. Ah you finally unblocked me.... Would you also like me to bring up all those threads I destroyed you in, then you ran to the mods to get me banned on racism or whatever it was, then that mod tried threatening me and I sent him some messages laying down the law and then you blocked me but now are brave enough to unblock me? hahaha we can take this to the other forum section and I can start exposing you again if you like? If not, stay in your lane boy.

Woah woah hold on there sonny Jim I agree with most of what you're saying there but Thurman's first big fights were against Porter and Garcia back when they were the best at 147. Pacquiao would've completed the set but he's still too good. He's been fighting for 12 years as a pro, it took him a decade to fight someone Porter's level (felt Porter won) and was fighting once a year during that period if I'm not mistaken. Low quality opposition, the odd ok level, low activity....these are all problems and that is what I'm getting at in my post. The fact that Thurman may be considered a guy in the PBC stable who has done more than the others is a poor reflection of the stable itself and their methods of building careers. Most of the true greats were champions by their early to mid 20s and by the age of 30 had a fair share of top level fights - MAB, Morales, Pac, Floyd, Oscar etc etc etc

I said this a long time ago and even posted it on here, the fighters that have largely fought in this decade are not great because they refuse to be great. Thurman is 20 years old and just had his first truly big fight, Wilder was 30+ before he fought Fury and even that was supposed to be a cash grab, Spence is the wrong side of 25 and still yet to unify...I could go on and on and on. If a fighter does not fight the best available opposition, then he can not learn at the highest level so when he eventually steps up, he loses. All credit for the bravery of Thurman but he was a punching bag for about 8 rounds. There are a handful of fighters out there daring to be great, Crawford (already undisputed in one division and now frozen out of the other belts), AJ and Lomachenko. For some reason, at least 2 of these 3 fighters at any given time are hated on by the likes of red prick, motor *****, barryyyy and the others of their ilk (I'll be expecting a message from a mod or a ban for using these names lol). Woah woah hold on there sonny Jim I agree with most of what you're saying there but Thurman's first big fights were against Porter and Garcia back when they were the best at 147. Pacquiao would've completed the set but he's still too good.

Isn't this this guy that makes bad predictions and comes in and acts like a know it all after the fight? It's either him or some other g@y ass soccer fan that does that every time.

I said this a long time ago and even posted it on here, the fighters that have largely fought in this decade are not great because they refuse to be great. Thurman is 20 years old and just had his first truly big fight, Wilder was 30+ before he fought Fury and even that was supposed to be a cash grab, Spence is the wrong side of 25 and still yet to unify...I could go on and on and on. If a fighter does not fight the best available opposition, then he can not learn at the highest level so when he eventually steps up, he loses. All credit for the bravery of Thurman but he was a punching bag for about 8 rounds. There are a handful of fighters out there daring to be great, Crawford (already undisputed in one division and now frozen out of the other belts), AJ and Lomachenko. For some reason, at least 2 of these 3 fighters at any given time are hated on by the likes of red prick, motor *****, barryyyy and the others of their ilk (I'll be expecting a message from a mod or a ban for using these names lol).

Thurman wasn’t the best in the division I’m still convinced Spence and Crawford would beat manny.

One of those good fighters you speak of just got hit azz handed to him by a Pipe and Slippers Pacquiao I didn't say Pacquiao is bad dude... He's literally the best ever. That Thurman fight wasn't one sided either they both gave it their all and made it a war. I just don't like their fandoms and wouldn't wish for a return of that. Although Nelo GGG fans give them a good run for their money. I dunno what to make of fighter popularity and its importance, I don't care about big names unless they're fighting each other really.

The new generation has plenty of very good and popular fighters. Mayweather and Pac have the worst fandoms in the history of the sport too so... Who cares? One of those good fighters you speak of just got hit azz handed to him by a Pipe and Slippers Pacquiao