Would a Eubank Jr win be better for boxing?

[Dirk Diggler UK]

I don't think anyone is claiming Eubank jr fought good opposition and certainly not in comparison to BJS.

But BJS hasn't really fought any good fighters, other than Ryder, who some people rate, I don't really.

Box-office talks about 'learning fights'. I'm trying to understand what that means, because I've ever only seen BJS in with heavily over matched opponents aside from Ryder.

I think Fletcher, Ryder, O'Sullivan and Blackwell are all good wins for the stage of his career that he's at which is domestic/European level.

[IronDanHamza]

What constitutes a good fighter?

It's their boxing ability.

If Fighter A and Fighter B both have good boxing ability, then from either perspective - it's a good opponent. Along comes Fighter C who has excellent boxing ability and takes on the winner of the fight between A&B (winner was Fighter A).

When the fight is announced, fans aren't happy as Fighter C has fought much better opposition to Fighter A, despite Fighter A being a competent boxer. Inevitably, Fighter C is just too good and beats Fighter A comfortably.

So, what is a good opponent?

It's a fighter who's close to their opponent's ability. Does it matter how good the fighters are? No. It's entirely dependent on the two fighters in question. Tyler Goodjohn was a good opponent for Ricky Boylan, despite that being a clash at domestic level.

That is what is meant when people say Saunders has fought good opposition. The problem with Saunders' opposition is that it's largely untested elsewhere.

I put some stock in how a fighter looks against other good, competent fighters. I understand you can see how good someone is even if they're fighting a punching bag, just by feints, footwork, handspeed etc. But there is still some doubt as to whether they can do these things against better opposition.

Have you seen Ryder outside of his fight against BJS?

It's entirely possible from my reasoning that Saunders may very well be utter dogshit if these fighters that make good opponents are also dogshit but I don't believe that is the case.

How do you determine what a good fighter is?

That's what I was getting at with the 'You don't automatically assume world level'. If Klitschko is excellent, does that make someone like Takam good? Could you give me an example and name a good opponent for a fighter who isn't at world level?

If you're saying for his level he's fought good/decent opposition then yeah I can agree with that.

In general?in the grand scheme of things, no he hasn't

Not to say others have, they haven't either.

Mayweather and Pacquaio at similar stages were the same. Most are.

But to say Billy Joe Saunders has fought good oppositon is simply false.

Like I said, his best win is Ryder.

And yes I've seen Ryder fight many times. He's a decent fighter.

[Box-Office]

What exactly do you mean when you say 'learning fights' ? He's 20-0, I think we can name a few good fighters at 20-0 who's fought better opposition than he has.

For example, his friend Tyson Fury. Same age, turned pro at the same time.

Any fight prior to a World title bout counts as learning as you are progressing towards that ultimate goal and try to accumulate as much as you can.

I don't want to dabble in specifics for Fury, but we'll go with him and? The point is there are not that many. Saunders is an exception.

No response to this post?

Plenty of guys have fought much much better opposition.

Plenty is an over statement.

Also it is 5 in the morning and I have an assignment due in a few hours, so it takes time to respond lol.

[LacedUp]

I think Fletcher, Ryder, O'Sullivan and Blackwell are all good wins for the stage of his career that he's at which is domestic/European level.

Ryder and Blackwell yes.

But it's all in comparison really. It's not like he has a great resume, even for where he is.

[IronDanHamza]

I think Fletcher, Ryder, O'Sullivan and Blackwell are all good wins for the stage of his career that he's at which is domestic/European level.

So if the Koborov fight came through you'd say his opposition wasn't good as he's now fighting at world level?

That's basically my point.

[LacedUp]

Any fight prior to a World title bout counts as learning as you are progressing towards that ultimate goal and try to accumulate as much as you can.

I don't want to dabble in specifics for Fury, but we'll go with him and? The point is there are not that many. Saunders is an exception.

Plenty is an over statement.

Also it is 5 in the morning and I have an assignment due in a few hours, so it takes time to respond lol.

OK I would count a learning fight as a fight that would actually help you progress. Most of BJS' fights have been 'stay busy' kind of fights, he hasn't really been tested by anyone other than Ryder and Blackwell.

Fury clearly has a better resume than BJS. Indisputable.
Thought you were in the UK.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

So if the Koborov fight came through you'd say his opposition wasn't good as he's now fighting at world level?

That's basically my point.

No I'd still say his opposition has been good.

A good win is based on who you beat and when you beat them.

Obviously if he became world champion and then kept fighting guys like Blackwell, they wouldn't be good wins.

[D-MiZe]

If you're saying for his level he's fought good/decent opposition then yeah I can agree with that.

But to say Billy Joe Saunders has fought good oppositon is simply false.

Dan, what the fuck...

Your first comment is what I said originally, then said it again in a few different ways to get my point across. If you don't rate a fighter by the level he's fighting at, then you don't have any levels - thus every fighter is on the same platform.

Ergo, you'd rate the likes of Carl Baker and Wladimir Klitschko in one spectrum. So the likes of Carl Baker would never be considered good (don't think you can find a word bad enough for him if Klitschko is on the other end of the scale ) regardless of his opponent.

But I think that's a little unfair to lump all 1059 active heavyweight professional boxers on one rating system.

Do you think Ryder is good enough to become a contender? That's what I think. I think he'll be as good as BJS in terms of a label like 'contender' but BJS has more chance of becoming a champion (if the opportunity arises and the road is not too rocky).

[Box-Office]

Why do you put so much stock Into undefeated records?

Do you think Wilder's opposition is good?

He's fought a beaten a few undefeated fighters aswell.

Unbeaten "prospect", so guys who are at least supposed to go the whole way. Even after losing to Saunders they are just that.

As for Wilders, I'm not going to pretend to know things that I don't and I'll tell you I haven't followed his career too closely. I'm not sure if those unbeaten guys are prospects or not.

There is also that journeymen type that fights worse no hopers than themselves to get to 10-0 or something of the like only to get lose their next 10. So, not sure if Wilders fought those.

[D-MiZe]

So if the Koborov fight came through you'd say his opposition wasn't good as he's now fighting at world level?

That's basically my point.

Just going to butt in on this conversation 'ere as it's somewhat relevant to what I'm saying...

As soon as Saunders fights the likes of Korobov, he has started down a path where only opposition as good as Korobov will suffice. For me, it's like the previous fights have been sealed with a cap and a new door has opened.

So you kinda disregard his previous opposition once he goes up a level but if he goes back down levels then you start to question what is going on.

Lee Purdy, as an example, is someone that walked through that newly opened door except he was only using a tourist VISA that he won in a raffle. His ability was evident despite him getting a chance against someone like Alexander.