Has one-fight-a-year become a standard in boxing and no longer a big deal?
Collapse
-
Do you remember any skewing? Like as in a few weight divisions for whatever reason fight more often than a few others. Anything like that? I'm just interested and I don't really follow sub WW.Comment
-
That's the strangest part. While the fighter in question would rather just keep quiet about the long layoff or take responsibility, it is the fans that provide long layoff excuse as if it's somebody else's fault.
Comment
-
The lower weights were more active.
Every division was between 1.4 (175, 160, 147 & 140) to 2.0 (105) fights per year. So a fight every 6mos to 8.5mos was the full range. The avg was 1.6 so a fight every 7.5mos so ig I rounded up to 8mos & forgot about it.
Looking at my notes I checked ages too & there was correlation between activity & age as you might expect. Younger top ten ranked guys fought more.
105lbs - 27.4yrs (#1), 2 fights (#1)
135lbs - 27.6yrs (#2), 1.9 fights (#2)
200+lbs - 34.2yrs (#17), 1.6 fights (#9t)
160lbs - 33.6yrs (#16), 1.4 fights (#14t)
175lbs - 33.4yrs (#15), 1.4 fights (#14t)Comment
-
It really has become some sort of lottery scheme.Too many fighters are waiting on that winning ticket.
However, with the types of decisions/scores/stoppages we see these days, it also seems to be a lottery when they do fight.Comment
-
-
Yeah, it's awful. It's as if they will always be in their primes. Such fighters probably have 2-3 fights left to retirement. Maybe even less. Then the stock begins to decline in terms of money opportunities. Cost of training alone is not cheap.
Comment
Comment