A Deep look into Mayweather, Pacquiao, Canelo and GGG's Risk History

[billeau2]

I just realized Ward was an underdog against Kessler and Leonard was a considerable underdog against Hearns.

With the Gatti fight, I remember giving him a great punchers chance before the fight; especially since Floyd was going up in weight, I wasn't sure how he'd respond to the punches from a bigger man.

Well that kind of explains it. Gatti was his first venture going up into middle weight territory. That makes sense. Yes Ward was not expected to win the tourney that had Kessler as the one who was expected to win.

[Chollo Vista]

Great work Chollo Vista

Thanks John

[them_apples]

As many of you know, betting odds gives a chance to look into how "risky" a fight is "at the time" that it happens which all play a role in evaluating a fighters legacy and greatness. Let's look into some of the most famous, some would even argue "great", fighters in the last 20 years:

(Per Odds Shark)

Mayweather
- Conor McGregor -350
- Andre Berto -3000
- Manny Pacquiao -200
- Marcos Maidana -600
- Marcos Maidana -900
- Canelo Alvarez -300
- Robert Guerrero -600
- Miguel Cotto -700
- Victor Ortiz -500
- Shane Mosley -400
- Juan Manuel Marquez -360
- Ricky Hatton -240
- Oscar De La Hoya -190 or 3 to 2 underdog
- Carlos Baldomir -700
- Zab Judah -500
- Shambra Mitchell -950
- Arturo Gatti -400
- Henry Bruseles -2000
- Corrales - 120
- Castillo ? Couldn't find
- Hernandez? Couldn't find

Pacquiao

-Thurman -120
- Broner -227
- Mathysse -230
- Jeff Horn -600
- Jessie Vargas -900
- Timothy Bradley -245
- Floyd Mayweather Jr. +160
- Chris Algieri -700
- Timothy Bradley -280
- Brandon Rios -550
- Juan Manuel Marquez -220
- Timothy Bradley -450
- Juan Manuel Marquez -1100
- Shane Mosley -850
- Antonio Margarito -450
- Joshua Clottey -600
- Miguel Cotto -270
- Ricky Hatton -225
- Oscar De La Hoya +160
- David Diaz -600
- Juan Manuel Marquez -210
- Marco Antonio Barrera -330
- Jorge Solis -850
- Erik Morales -180
- Oscar Larios -600
- Barrera - Barerra was 3 to 1 favorite
- Ledwaba - was 10 to 1 favorite


Canelo

- Kovalev -400
- Jacobs -500
- Fielding -2500
- Gennady Golovkin +155 - - -
- Gennady Golovkin +150
- Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. -425
- Liam Smith -1400
- Amir Khan -650
- Miguel Cotto -300
- James Kirkland -900
- Erislandy Lara -285
- Alfredo Angulo -670
- Floyd Mayweather +235
- Austin Trout -220
- Josesito Lopez -2000
- Shane Mosley -605
- Kermit Cintron -1200
- Alfonso Gomez -2200
- Ryan Rhodes -890
- Matthew Hatton -1500
- Lovemore N’dou -2000
- Carlos Baldomir -1700
- Luciano Leonel Cuello -1200


Golovkin

Ouma - 14 to 1
Simon - 25 to 1
Proksa - 4 to 1
Rosado - 34 to 1
Ishida - 50 to 1
Macklin - 12 to 1
Stevens - 15 to 1
Adama - 9 to 1
Geale - 7 to 1
Rubio 20 to 1
Murray - 20 to 1
Monroe Jr - 25 to 1
Lemieux - 13 to 1
Wade - 70 to 1
Brook - 7.5 to 1
Jacobs - 4.8 to 1
Canelo - 1.8 to 1
Vanes - 25 to 1
Canelo - 1.9 to 1
Derv - 4.5 to 1
Szeemeta - 42 to 1

Lastly, I wanted to see when these guy's were really good or really bad in betting odds. I tallied when they were an underdog, 5 to 1 or less favorite or 20 to 1 or more favorite. Here's what I got:

Mayweather
- Bouts in which he was the underdog – 0 (Possibly Corrales, De La Hoya or Castillo? I can't find supporting data on Corrales/Castillo. I did read that DLH closed as a 3 to 2 favorite, during ring walks. I can't verify accuracy though.
- Bouts in which he was a 5 to 1 favorite or less – 10
- Bouts in which he was a 20 to 1 favorite or more - 2

Pacquiao
– Bouts in which he was the underdog – 6 (Mayweather, De La Hoya, Barerra, Morales, Sasakul and Ledwaba).
- Bouts in which he was a 5 to 1 favorite or less – 17
- Bouts in which he was a 20 to 1 favorite or more - 0

Canelo

- Bouts in which he was the underdog – 3 (Mayweather, Golovkin 1 and 2)
- Bouts in which he was a 5 to 1 favorite or less – 9
- Bouts in which he was the 20 to 1 favorite or more - 3

Golovkin

- Bouts in which he was the underdog – 0
- Bouts in which he was a favorite by 5 to 1 or less – 5
- Bouts in which he was a favorite by 20 to 1 or more - 8


In conclusion:

- Most amount of times as underdog - Pacquiao with 6
- Most amount of times in fights as 5 to 1 favorite or less - Pac with 19
- Most amount of times in fights as 20 to 1 or more favorite - Golovkin with 8

this is a great post, the only thing to consider is the odds makers are considering profit as well. the odds are in relation to public opinion and not necessarily a collective group of educated boxing individuals.

I always say this though, Mayweather never took a single risk outside of De La Hoya. Mayweather was the favorite in that but it was still a risk, and at the time he had to for big money and also for the passing of the torch. This is the biggest spot on his entire career.

I think everyone knows Pacquiaos resume is the best of this generation, but he did a bit of cherry picking at 147 - but makes up for it with his excellent lower weight class resume.

Mayweather on the other hand you can poke holes in every single fight and see why he took them. Corralles he had already sparred before and was struggling to make weight, and simply just not as good as Mayweather. Gatti was finished completely, I'm surprised people even consider this a good win. in 2005 Gatti was not dangerous and had already been in 3 brutal fights with Ward and a DLH stoppage (to add to the mix the sucker punch Mayweather got on Gatti when the ref half stepped).

Shane and Cotto were already way past their best and beatable. I'm not sure whos win is better over Cotto. Pacs or Mayweathers. Mayweather fought Cotto at 154 coming off a good win, Pac fought a younger Cotto who had only been beat once - but also at a catchweight (Cotto was a 147 lb fighter then).

It's to bad, because Mayweather is still a great fighter and could beat a lot of good fighters, but he went safety first. I can see from his perspective why, but from the fans perspective its hard to rate him in history - since a lot of great fighters could probably be undefeated on his resume given the same circumstances and given they stayed in shape.

[Bundana]

Odds in Joe Louis 27 world title bouts (from the 1961 Ring Record Book, page 80):

Braddock: 5 to 2
Farr: 5 to 1
Mann: 12 to 1
Thomas: 20 to 1
Schmeling: 9 to 5
Lewis 15 to 1
Roper: 10 to 1
Galento: 8 to 1
Pastor: 6 to 1
Godoy: 10 to 1
Paychek: 12 to 1
Godoy: 8 to 1
McCoy: 20 to 1
Burman: 10 to 1
Dorazio: 20 to 1
Simon: 18 to 1
Musto: 20 to 1
Baer: 6 to 1
Conn: 18 to 5
Nova: 13 to 5
Baer: 10 to 1
Simon: 8 to 1
Conn: 14 to 5
Mauriello: 9 to 1
Walcott: 10 to 1
Walcott: 13 to 5
Charles: 2 to 1

So what does this mean? Despite the overwhelming (in most cases) odds, do we not recognize Louis as a great champion? I don't see anyone going through his record, poking holes in every fight in an attempt to belittle him. Why is that?

[ShoulderRoll]

Odds in Joe Louis 27 world title bouts (from the 1961 Ring Record Book, page 80):

Braddock: 5 to 2
Farr: 5 to 1
Mann: 12 to 1
Thomas: 20 to 1
Schmeling: 9 to 5
Lewis 15 to 1
Roper: 10 to 1
Galento: 8 to 1
Pastor: 6 to 1
Godoy: 10 to 1
Paychek: 12 to 1
Godoy: 8 to 1
McCoy: 20 to 1
Burman: 10 to 1
Dorazio: 20 to 1
Simon: 18 to 1
Musto: 20 to 1
Baer: 6 to 1
Conn: 18 to 5
Nova: 13 to 5
Baer: 10 to 1
Simon: 8 to 1
Conn: 14 to 5
Mauriello: 9 to 1
Walcott: 10 to 1
Walcott: 13 to 5
Charles: 2 to 1

So what does this mean? Despite the overwhelming (in most cases) odds, do we not recognize Louis as a great champion? I don't see anyone going through his record, poking holes in every fight in an attempt to belittle him. Why is that?

I think in Joe Louis' case he doesn't get questioned because fought all comers. There is no one that people wanted him to fight that he avoided.

[Anthony342]

I think in Joe Louis' case he doesn't get questioned because fought all comers. There is no one that people wanted him to fight that he avoided.

What about anyone these days or in recent years? Is there someone in boxing we can say that about, taking on the best, nobody avoided say from 2000 to now?

[ShoulderRoll]

What about anyone these days or in recent years? Is there someone in boxing we can say that about, taking on the best, nobody avoided say from 2000 to now?

Canelo Alvarez stands out. Best resume in the sport.

Carl Froch fought everybody too.

[Bundana]

Canelo Alvarez stands out. Best resume in the sport.

Carl Froch fought everybody too.

Year, Froch may not have been one of the best (technically) boxers - but he beat some pretty good fighters and never ducked anyone. You can't help but respect that!

[The Old LefHook]

Great idea, Chollo. The statistics probably could have been worked for even more. Still they present a good picture.

[Anthony342]

Canelo Alvarez stands out. Best resume in the sport.

Carl Froch fought everybody too.

Nice, but just 2 guys? No wonder I don't watch that much modern boxing.