How about making boxers accountable for taking long layoffs?

[tomhawq]

"Jermell Charlo doesn't think ring rust exists; Says fighters use it as excuse for performances."

This is probably the more useful way to approach this thread, instead of who's doing it or not. So if what Charlo is saying is true, why do fans continue to use it as an excuse when the guy in question performed not up to par in his fight?

Fans love to treat their fighters like they're babies. They worry about them constantly. Even when they fight abroad they worry they might get lost or get mugged. It's crazy. Not to mention getting lowballed as if they don't know what they're getting into.

Boxers (not even comfortable calling them fighters) of today are lucky. They get to fight once a year without getting flak from fans. They're even given instant excuse for not performing well for the long layoff.

[al-Xander]

Fans love to treat their fighters like they're babies. They worry about them constantly. Even when they fight abroad they worry they might get lost or get mugged. It's crazy. Not to mention getting lowballed as if they don't know what they're getting into.

Boxers (not even comfortable calling them fighters) of today are lucky. They get to fight once a year without getting flak from fans. They're even given instant excuse for not performing well for the long layoff.

That's exactly what this thread is all about. These boxers can fight as seldom as they want, for all I care, but stop making it as if it's some paranormal entity that is responsible for the layoff.

[al-Xander]

It's a win win situation for Wilder. He loses, blame it on the layoff. He wins, no mention of the long layoff. In theory, he's supposed to be at a disadvantage because AJ is more active. Blame the layoff on some ghost or something.

Exactly. Fighters who are active are not given any credit, while inactive ones get instant "long layoff" excuse even before the fight begins with the added bonus of not being held accountable for it.

[al-Xander]

Any more take on this before I let it dry in obscurity and peace?

[Citizen Koba]

I don't get it. Layoffs are a fact of life and very often do play into a fighters performance. Whose 'fault' it is should only really be relevent if you haven't grown out of the fanboy / hater kinda mindset and are still getting into ego battles with other posters.

End of the day it's the fighter who pays the price for his own inactivity whether it's for reasons beyond his control or a matter of choice.

[dan-b]

I don't get it. Layoffs are a fact of life and very often do play into a fighters performance. Whose 'fault' it is should only really be relevent if you haven't grown out of the fanboy / hater kinda mindset and are still getting into ego battles with other posters.

End of the day it's the fighter who pays the price for his own inactivity whether it's for reasons beyond his control or a matter of choice.

Doesn't that still makeup the majority of the posts here?

[jqSide]

Bottom line is blame the fighter, not some invisible entity or something. As Jermell Charlo himself says, quoted in earlier posts, "I don't think ring rust exists; fighters use it as excuse for performances."

And as a fan don't make made up excuses for them like mental issues as if he's your husband or something without evidence like real diagnosis taken from experts in the medical field. Or he having personal issues doe. You don't owe them anything. Most times it's the result of too much partying and drinking sessions.

[Combat Talk Radio]

Lemme just put it out there as a reminder.

We need to explain why they're given slack for not expecting them to do well in their next fight as if it's someone else's fault they chose to be inactive. I can understand when it comes to non-established boxers, because they're rarely offered even stay-busy fights and at the mercy of various factors working against their favors.

Bookmark this thread. If Crawford goes a full year inactive and then even remotely looks piss in his next fight, NSB needs to accept the truth of the matter.

[al-Xander]

I don't get it. Layoffs are a fact of life and very often do play into a fighters performance. Whose 'fault' it is should only really be relevent if you haven't grown out of the fanboy / hater kinda mindset and are still getting into ego battles with other posters.

End of the day it's the fighter who pays the price for his own inactivity whether it's for reasons beyond his control or a matter of choice.

Interesting. But do you agree fighters who don't fight often, say one fight a year, deserve to become HOF material? To me fighting less than others is no different from avoiding fights. Less fights, less risks, less chances of losing. What is more simpler than that?