Number of fights vs. quality of fights.

[Grand Champ]

I was wondering.. How much does the number of fights a fighter got on his resume really mean..? If we take a guy like Julio Ceasar Chavez, the man had countless of fights but the majority of those were against part time fighters (not hating on the man). On the other hand we got fighters today who only fight around 40 fights but a lot of those are against quality opponents.. Fighters today fight a lot less then they did 50 years ago is this bad for boxing that they don't face almost anybody in the divison?

What's your take on this

Discuss.

[Kinetic Linking]

quality > quantity

always has been, always will be.

[MANGLER]

quality > quantity

always has been, always will be.

Cosign. Activity is good, but better comp makes a better fighter more than constant stay busy fights.

[Miburo]

Quality is better than quantity (i.e. Salvador Sanchez), but it has become somewhat detrimental to the sport. Look at the huge lags in activity we experience as fight fans, which also serves to keep boxing out of the public eye.

[Thread Stealer]

One of the things that makes activity level important is that it shows a fighter's durability. Obviously it's a physically (and mentally) taxing sport and it shows something if your body can handle all those fights. Also, if you're fighting all the time, you're more likely to have an off-night or run into a tough style matchup. I'm not talking about guys facing a 2-10 fighter or someone making their pro debut, but staying active against solid pro fighters. James Toney, in the early 90s while a champ, was staying active (Kellen did this to try to keep Toney from getting into trouble and getting fat) against a lot of veteran fighters.

Still, quality is more important.

For instance, I think extremely highly of Michael Spinks, who had just 32 pro fights. Ray Leonard had 40.

[JAB5239]

I was wondering.. How much does the number of fights a fighter got on his resume really mean..? If we take a guy like Julio Ceasar Chavez, the man had countless of fights but the majority of those were against part time fighters (not hating on the man). On the other hand we got fighters today who only fight around 40 fights but a lot of those are against quality opponents.. Fighters today fight a lot less then they did 50 years ago is this bad for boxing that they don't face almost anybody in the divison?

What's your take on this

Discuss.

Quantity shows a fighters longevity and toughness, but quality distinguishes his skills. I prefer a mix of both like fighters like Pep, Greb, Langford, Charles, Chavez, Robinson and many others practiced. Looking at their records you may find some spotty comp, but they stayed active and they still fought more top fighters than todays boxers do.

[Silencers]

Quality is always better than quantity, you can be 100-0 fighting tomato cans.

[Obama]

There has to be a balance. Beating 5 B level fighters is better than beating 1 A level fighter. Leonard's resume for instance is pretty damn weak outside the top names on it.

In 40 fights these are Leonard's only notable wins:

Floyd Mayweather
Armando Muniz
Wilfred Benitez
Dave Green
Roberto Duran (x2)
Ayub Kalule
Thomas Hearns
Marvin Hagler
Donny Lalonde

The two best p4p fighters Leonard beat (Duran & Hearns), have better resumes than him. Why? Cuz they fought more...

[princemanspoper]

for a minute there I thought Dunce was referring to sugar ray robinson but then I saw a number of black fighters in that particular reseme list and realised it was obviously someone else.My mistake

[Obama]

for a minute there I thought Dunce was referring to sugar ray robinson but then I saw a number of black fighters in that particular reseme list and realised it was obviously someone else.My mistake

WOW. You have SERIOUS issues.