The worst kind of robbery...

[robjr]

there should never be an excuse of robbing the fighter who earned the victory.. Its what gives boxing a bad rep.

[pfcwintergreen]

Lol, so you think the way prospects are guided up fighting fighters who are a bit better than the last is a bad thing?

No, I just think its more important that they struggle and learn as opposed simply avoiding losses against progressively better BUMS. Which is what prospects and their promoters do nowadays; they simply try to avoid losses, because people put an incredible amount of stock in their meaningless and hyper-inflated whatever-and-"0" record.

Fighting progressively better fighters that will truly challenge a prospect will likely result in a loss or two, and also produce a much better contender who won't be "exposed" because he's been fighting progressively better punching bags. Yet promoters avoid taking this route because, again, the masses will discount the fighter because the 0 turned into a 1 or a 2.

Yeah, I'll stick to the management system that generally gets a prospect into a true contender role undefeated where they have learned how to deal with nearly all of the styles.

Jake Lamotta had lost 3 by his 20th fight. B-hop lost his first fight.

In order to guarantee that prospect's illusory perfect record, he will not be dealing with any style or skill that his promoter thinks will pose a threat to him. As long as you and other fans insist that contenders must be undefeated, they will follow the money, beat up those cans, and maintain the zero for your pleasure.

[Fox McCloud]

No, I just think its more important that they struggle and learn as opposed simply avoiding losses against progressively better BUMS. Which is what prospects and their promoters do nowadays; they simply try to avoid losses, because people put an incredible amount of stock in their meaningless and hyper-inflated whatever-and-"0" record.

Fighting progressively better fighters that will truly challenge a prospect will likely result in a loss or two, and also produce a much better contender who won't be "exposed" because he's been fighting progressively better punching bags. Yet promoters avoid taking this route because, again, the masses will discount the fighter because the 0 turned into a 1 or a 2.



Jake Lamotta had lost 3 by his 20th fight. B-hop lost his first fight.

In order to guarantee that prospect's illusory perfect record, he will not be dealing with any style or skill that his promoter thinks will pose a threat to him. As long as you and other fans insist that contenders must be undefeated, they will follow the money, beat up those cans, and maintain the zero for your pleasure.

There are two types of elite fighters... Prospects and surprises. LaMotta and Hopkins (although to a lesser extent) are considered surprises. Highly decorated amatuers who become prospects are not suppose to drop 2 before their 25th fight.

I agree that they need to be learning on their way up... and that is what generally happens with most prospects IMO. They usually face a brawler here, a swarmer here, a slickster here, etc. Then they repeat the process a few times, trying to get better and better opponents so they can adequately compete with those styles in elite fighters one day.

[pfcwintergreen]

Highly decorated amatuers who become prospects are not suppose to drop 2 before their 25th fight.

They aren't supposed to? Why not? Its a totally artificial expectation in my view. If you are saying they are not supposed to drop 2 before their 25th, then you are also saying that they are not supposed to fight competitive opponents until their 25th.

There is no way around this; if prospects fight opponents who are even marginally competitive with them, it is inevitable that a substantial number of them (even some future champions) will drop 1, 2 or even more.

But today's prospects don't do this, so they don't lose, so you don't expect them to. Thus they are not "supposed to" lose. Again, I see this as a totally artificial expectation that only reflects the match making of today's promoters.

All sports involve competition, and all sportsmen are supposed to lose on occasion. 25 fights is a huge chunk, even half or more, of a fighter's career;it shouldn't be spent a bizarro world where losing is unacceptable and where competition is therefore kept to an absolute minimum.

Yes?

[Fox McCloud]

They aren't supposed to? Why not? Its a totally artificial expectation in my view. If you are saying they are not supposed to drop 2 before their 25th, then you are also saying that they are not supposed to fight competitive opponents until their 25th.

There is no way around this; if prospects fight opponents who are even marginally competitive with them, it is inevitable that a substantial number of them (even some future champions) will drop 1, 2 or even more.

But today's prospects don't do this, so they don't lose, so you don't expect them to. Thus they are not "supposed to" lose. Again, I see this as a totally artificial expectation that only reflects the match making of today's promoters.

All sports involve competition, and all sportsmen are supposed to lose on occasion. 25 fights is a huge chunk, even half or more, of a fighter's career;it shouldn't be spent a bizarro world where losing is unacceptable and where competition is therefore kept to an absolute minimum.

Yes?

I already told you... the blueprint for an effective pre-titlist career for a prospect is to just rotate the styles. First you take on a homeless person who fights as a brawler, swarmer, slickster, etc. Then a person who has a second job to support his family in addition to boxing in each of those styles. Next, you take on someone who has a somewhat decent record in each of those styles. Then prospects gone wrong/former champions who are old in those styles. Then other current prospects and then elite fighters. If all fighters did that, then they would be well on their way to being very successful boxers. I think if a fighter follows that blueprint, a loss means that they will probably not make it at the elite level, or they were moved up too quickly.

Honestly, if Courtney Burton couldn't beat Julio Diaz, how the **** would he hang with Juan Diaz or Joel Casamayor? The only way he could is if he just got put in against Julio before his skills and mentality was ready for such a tough test. You know what I'm saying?

[ElGranLuchador]

there is no worst kind of robbery
just because the underdog got robbed doesnt make it anymore fair
in fact when a huge underdog gets robbed its more unfair cuz of the amount of effort the underdog had to do to beat the favorite