Why have modern fighters not evolved to be better than SRR

[JAB5239]

Poor Moneyman... The guy talks out of his a s s so badly that when he burps he farts.

The Giuseppe stinks so bad even me and Queenie agree about it. Shhhh, don't tell him I said that though!

[The D3vil]

Nobody's willing to fight 200 times

As the great Teddy Atlas always says, "You don't get better at something by not doing it"

We understand this in every other sport, but boxing.

If the NBA, NFL, MLB players played one game per year, you think they'd be considered as good as the greats?

So, why does boxing expect guys who fight once a year to be considered better than guys who fought often times a dozen or more times a year?

Just look at Boots Ennis.

Guy's got all the talent in the world, but he'll never fully realize it, just like Tank or Ryan Garcia or anybody else in this generation where guys start fighting once or twice a year in their early 20s.

[Bundana]

Nobody's willing to fight 200 times

As the great Teddy Atlas always says, "You don't get better at something by not doing it"

We understand this in every other sport, but boxing.

If the NBA, NFL, MLB players played one game per year, you think they'd be considered as good as the greats?

So, why does boxing expect guys who fight once a year to be considered better than guys who fought often times a dozen or more times a year?

Just look at Boots Ennis.

Guy's got all the talent in the world, but he'll never fully realize it, just like Tank or Ryan Garcia or anybody else in this generation where guys start fighting once or twice a year in their early 20s.

Many of today's top boxers had 200+ amateur fights... but to get really good, you think they should have had another 200 pro bouts?

[billeau2]

Many of today's top boxers had 200+ amateur fights... but to get really good, you think they should have had another 200 pro bouts?

B,
Your comment is not a simple one to respond to. It is one of those statements that has multiple layers... Amateur boxing is wonderful but very different from professional prize fighting. The techniques are limited, the best way to fight is limited because of the rounds allowed, etc. Skills like footwork, fighting at all ranges, and comprehensive strategies are all developed more in the professional ranks.

Does this mean amateur fights aren't legitimate? IMO no... I think fighters like LOMA were phenoms and deserve credit for such, but there is a fine line between how we acknowledge amateur greatness versus professional greatness. I don't claim to have an answer for where this line should be drawn...

[billeau2]

Nobody's willing to fight 200 times

As the great Teddy Atlas always says, "You don't get better at something by not doing it"

We understand this in every other sport, but boxing.

If the NBA, NFL, MLB players played one game per year, you think they'd be considered as good as the greats?

So, why does boxing expect guys who fight once a year to be considered better than guys who fought often times a dozen or more times a year?

Just look at Boots Ennis.

Guy's got all the talent in the world, but he'll never fully realize it, just like Tank or Ryan Garcia or anybody else in this generation where guys start fighting once or twice a year in their early 20s.

It is a real problem... I have a theory about this problem. I believe that combatives, and particularly boxing, because they are a hybrid of fighting and sports, are much more in tune with socioeconomic trends than pure athletics. For example, I can show you clearly... crystal clearly... How during the 1980's in American Football, two developments changed the game: Nautilus conditioning (Arthur Jones inventor) suddenly allowed football players to exhaust all the major muscle groups in a circuit training routine, in under ten minutes. This made players able to concentrate on other developments and to get bigger and stronger. So we see elaborate offenses, influx of growth drugs, cash, and the conditioning to match... hence, we see bigger, better football players, and insanely developed offensive systems, learned in practices... There is virtually no sociological development to interfere with the cash, and further developments that make football "money ball."

Boxing, on the other hand functions under the wings of trends and developments that happen in the areas that breed fighters. But these "fighters" are not concerned any longer with legacy. The concern is money and the whole sport has gone to maximizing revenue for those involved. This is reflected in what it takes to view a match: seldom do people have the money, and it is reflected in fighters denial of legacy, vis a vis the willingness not to take legacy fights.

And here we are... with all these young guys expiring before they fought contemporaries that the fans really want to see.

[ShoulderRoll]

Many of today's top boxers had 200+ amateur fights... but to get really good, you think they should have had another 200 pro bouts?

Fighting 200+ times as a pro is a whole other level of experience to fighting 200+ three rounders, surely?

[Bundana]

B,
Your comment is not a simple one to respond to. It is one of those statements that has multiple layers... Amateur boxing is wonderful but very different from professional prize fighting. The techniques are limited, the best way to fight is limited because of the rounds allowed, etc. Skills like footwork, fighting at all ranges, and comprehensive strategies are all developed more in the professional ranks.

Does this mean amateur fights aren't legitimate? IMO no... I think fighters like LOMA were phenoms and deserve credit for such, but there is a fine line between how we acknowledge amateur greatness versus professional greatness. I don't claim to have an answer for where this line should be drawn...

I'm of the opinion, that "greatness" should be reserved for boxers with amazing pro careers (accomplishments, longevity, brilliance)! Obviously, someone like Loma could never fall in this category, with barely 20 pro fights - no matter how impressive his amateur career was (and it was pretty impressive!). That doesn' mean, that he wasn't all that. I think he was! After the first couple of fights, where he got used to the longer pro distance, there was a small window, where he looked truly phenomenal. But with almost 400 amateur bouts under his belt, he was likely approaching the end of his prime, already when he turned pro, and these past few years he has looked like a shadow of his former self.

We saw the same story with Rigondeaux, who seemed to reach his absolute peak after only a dozen fights or so. His schooling of Donaire was a beautiful thing to watch - but since then it's been going more or less downhill, and after just 23 pro bouts, he looks just about done. But after nearly 500 amateur fights - is it any wonder?

Also Usyk, another 20-fight pro, is probably nearing the end of his career. He fights very seldom - which makes sense, as he probably has no more than 2 or 3 fights (at most!) left in him.

My point is, that no boxer today would benefit from having 200 "learning" fights... or something even close to that!

[The D3vil]

Many of today's top boxers had 200+ amateur fights... but to get really good, you think they should have had another 200 pro bouts?

Two different.

Most gold medalists do nothing

[Bundana]

Two different.

Most gold medalists do nothing

So what's your answer to the question: Do you think, today's boxers would be better, if they had 200 pro fights?

[JAB5239]

Two different.

Most gold medalists do nothing

I found myself not agreeing with this but not knowing why. So dug into it a little bit. Here is some of what I found.

Approximately 40% of American Olympic medal winners (without distinguishing between gold, silver or bronze) obtained professional world titles. This does not include the 1980 U.S. Olympic boxing team, in which five of the eleven team members won professional championships despite being prohibited from competing in Moscow, nor does it include the participants in the 1904 Olympics, where only Americans participated. Approximately 12% of Olympians that did not win medals would eventually win world titles in the pro ranks. Just under a quarter of all Olympic boxers (23.7%) won professional world titles, regardless of whether they won a medal in the Games. Thus the data suggest Olympic medals matter for professional success. We can however be more precise with additional statistical analyses.