Is Degale vs Groves proof that prospects should be fighting each other more often?

[Tom Cruise]

These two guys fought when they were 12-0(GG) and 10-0 (JD). Both were highly rated prospects with decent backing. They already had a good rivalry from the amateurs.

Most of the time fights like these are left to marinate so that they can fight each other later on when world titles are at stake. Fights like Gamboa vs Lopez were put off for so long that the fight never even happened. Fury vs Price looks like it will never happen. But in this case they decided to get it on anyway.

Fast forward four years and now both are going to be fighting for world titles, if they should win then they could face each other for huge amounts of money. If anything the fight is bigger now because of them fighting each other when they were prospects. Obviously it helps that the fight was close, but even if it was a blow out the demand would still be there now due to where they are in their careers.

Another example that pops into my head is Roy Jones vs Hopkins. Obviously the second fight happened way too late, but the demand was always there for a second fight despite the fact that the first fight was pretty one sided.
Basically, should prospects be fighting each other more often, rather than fighting faded former champs and never has beens to build your record?

I cant see the downside for, say, Anthony Joshua/Parker/Dillian Whyte, fighting asap. Or some of the good new fighters at LHW. Get them in the ring and see what happens. Its not the end of the world if they take a loss. If they are good enough they will reach a stage when they can fight again, if they arent good enough then they probably would never reach the top anyway.

[bojangles1987]

I'd like to see it more.

[gmc_rfc_06]

It should always be the case.

It doesn't even have to be against other 'top level' prospects, just against other good young fighters. Having them beat up bums and faded names doesn't prepare them properly for the top level. Letting big fights 'marinate' rarely works either, most of them end up falling apart due to someone losing.

Ultimately though, money and business gets put before good fights. It doesn't matter that those fights are bigger and better for learning, they bring the risk of a loss which fans now seem to look at as some sort of death sentence for fighters.

[Tom Cruise]

It should always be the case.

It doesn't even have to be against other 'top level' prospects, just against other good young fighters. Having them beat up bums and faded names doesn't prepare them properly for the top level. Letting big fights 'marinate' rarely works either, most of them end up falling apart due to someone losing.

Ultimately though, money and business gets put before good fights.

The key with fighting other prospects is that they will be coming to win. Faded former champs (or contenders depending what stage you are at) often have the fight taken from them pretty quick and are only there to survive. They can be good opponents as they are normally more knowledgeable and can show defensive 'old pro' tricks, but thats only one side of the game.

To use Joshua again, in his first 12 fights how many times has he really had to defend himself from someone who is trying to hurt him?

[IMDAZED]

No. Not as prospects. As contenders, yes. Let them build their skills and maximize their talent before putting them in with an equal. I don't want to see them square off when they're both green at 10-0. That won't even be enjoyable to watch. But I don't mind a #1 contender in Hopkins squaring off against a #2 in Jones with the winner taking the step toward the next level.

[Tom Cruise]

Its worth noting that Degale took a grand total of 1 fight to bounce back from the Groves loss. He beat Wilczewski for the Euro title 5 months later.

[Tom Cruise]

No. Not as prospects. As contenders, yes. Let them build their skills and maximize their talent before putting them in with an equal. I don't want to see them square off when they're both green at 10-0. That won't even be enjoyable to watch. But I don't mind a #1 contender in Hopkins squaring off against a #2 in Jones with the winner taking the step toward the next level.

Why shouldnt they fight at 10-0? One loses, one wins. Both work on their techniques and tactics and become better fighters for it. I dont see the downside.

[-PBP-]

Fighters progress differently. Like Wilder vs Fury would have been terrible when they were both 10-0.

[Tom Cruise]

Fighters progress differently. Like Wilder vs Fury would have been terrible when they were both 10-0.

Yeah you have to.take it case by case obviously. But Fury could and should have fought Price when they were coming up.