After watching boxing for several decades, why fight any tough opponents?

Collapse
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • PBR Streetgang
    Undisputed Champion
    Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
    • Nov 2016
    • 8315
    • 3,935
    • 2,164
    • 42,787

    #21
    Originally posted by Boxing fan1981

    Fair post, let me play devils advocate, if I’m an average boxer and I pick this easy system, and instead of knocking out an opponent in the 3rd round, as expected, it’s a cherry-pick gone wrong and it turns out to be a barn burner, Ward vs Gatti style, is this now ok because I’ve entertained?
    I think alot of the issue is how fans perceive the situation and how the fighter and his team proclaim the situation.

    Let's look at Dana Rosenblatt as an example. He built his record up to 28-0 fighting marginal competition and was paired with Vinny Pazienza in a New England battle. Vinny was coming off a destruction at the hands of RJJ and was perceived as name (albeit a passed prime one) that would look good on Dana's resume.

    Vinny ended up blasting him out. Rosenblatt evened the score and finished his career with a 37-1-2 record.

    The point is that I don't recall Rosenblatt, his team or the fans ever trying to make him into anything he wasn't. He was a good regional fighter who fought for fringe belts like the WBU, IBO and IBA. Had fans, promotions or Rosenblatt himself tried to declare him some P4P great, people would have taken issue.

    Some fans can be insufferable in how they hype up their favorite fighter or hate on another. Some fighters and their teams are delusional...for me, it only really matters if it ends with two dudes (or girls for that matter) getting in the ring and settling the debate for real....not on a boxing forum.

    ​​​​​

    Comment

    • The Big Dunn
      Undisputed Champion
      Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
      • Sep 2009
      • 70573
      • 10,107
      • 8,299
      • 287,568

      #22
      Originally posted by Boxing fan1981

      Fair post, let me play devils advocate, if I’m an average boxer and I pick this easy system, and instead of knocking out an opponent in the 3rd round, as expected, it’s a cherry-pick gone wrong and it turns out to be a barn burner, Ward vs Gatti style, is this now ok because I’ve entertained?
      IMO in this scenario the problem is labeling it a “cherry pick” from the beginning because it wasn’t the exact preferred opponent.

      This is exactly what happened with Tank relative to Barrios and Cruz.

      Barrios and Cruz were in no way cherry picks. A lot on NSB called them that because Tank was favored to win, works with Floyd and Haymon, and they were angry because Tank is fighting in house fights and not the guys the want-Loma, Ryan, Haney.

      Ok I get being angry but basing a boxer on these variables is utterly ridiculous.

      Both Barrios and Cruz performed exactly how I expected because I saw them as solid pros. Not hof’ers or top p4p boxers, but solid pros that weren’t just there for a payday. They tried to win.

      Instead of Tank getting credit for the wins the anger cause responses like, “Tank got exposed”, which to me is crazy because as I posted winning a tougher than expected fight used to be a positive.

      Don’t get me wrong, it happens other times as well. Ggg/Brook and Loma/linares are other examples where the fight was tougher than expected and posters saw this as a negative.

      Comment

      Working...
      TOP