Active means Sharper than Inactive

[Tony Trick-Pony]

I've often said that fighters today aren't active enough. I'm not blaming the fighters. I'm not blaming anybody. I am saying that guys who fight often appear to have less injuries related to training and staying in shape. It makes perfect sense really.

Roberto Duran, Julio Cesar Chavez and so many from the past looked sharper when they were active, fighting regularly. I'm not saying every fight they have is going to be great. However, they hone their skills with more experience. A great fighter isn't going to get busted up in every or even most or possibly any of his fights. He can stay sharper, though.

As a good example, take the recent Loma-Walters fights. Before the bell even rang, many were saying that Walters' inactivity would hurt him, which it probably did.

Yet, posters on here claim that less is better- the same posters who say he took too much time off. Well, which is it? Fighting once a year and taking the gamble that the inactive fighter has managed to stay sharp in the interim and won't get inured, resulting in another cancellation? Or staying sharp with tune-ups and lesser fights that don't necessarily have to be on TV in order to keep skills sharper and get more exposure, building up their names?

Look at Mike Tyson. In the early going, he was fighting all the time. Amir Khan did the same. These stars now would be much bigger if they were more active. They'd also look sharper in their big performances as well.

[boliodogs]

The great Hagler set an example today's champions should try to follow. He defended his title at least 4 times a year and always against a high ranked contender. Some of today's champions fight a low ranked guy once a year if we are lucky.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

The great Hagler set an example today's champions should try to follow. He defended his title at least 4 times a year and always against a high ranked contender. Some of today's champions fight a low ranked guy once a year if we are lucky.

Very true. I mean, it must be embarrassing for some of these guys who tell people they're a boxer. "When was your last fight?" "A year ago." "Um...okay."

Get these guys in the ring!

[Elroy The Great]

when your next opponent is real competition, its good to stay active. but as we all see, taking tune ups is just as good.

professionals know what it takes to win.

[Scipio2009]

I've often said that fighters today aren't active enough. I'm not blaming the fighters. I'm not blaming anybody. I am saying that guys who fight often appear to have less injuries related to training and staying in shape. It makes perfect sense really.

Roberto Duran, Julio Cesar Chavez and so many from the past looked sharper when they were active, fighting regularly. I'm not saying every fight they have is going to be great. However, they hone their skills with more experience. A great fighter isn't going to get busted up in every or even most or possibly any of his fights. He can stay sharper, though.

As a good example, take the recent Loma-Walters fights. Before the bell even rang, many were saying that Walters' inactivity would hurt him, which it probably did.

Yet, posters on here claim that less is better- the same posters who say he took too much time off. Well, which is it? Fighting once a year and taking the gamble that the inactive fighter has managed to stay sharp in the interim and won't get inured, resulting in another cancellation? Or staying sharp with tune-ups and lesser fights that don't necessarily have to be on TV in order to keep skills sharper and get more exposure, building up their names?

Look at Mike Tyson. In the early going, he was fighting all the time. Amir Khan did the same. These stars now would be much bigger if they were more active. They'd also look sharper in their big performances as well.

Times are different now; the fighters of yesteryear may have been more active, but they were also afforded the right to take plenty of tickover fights, in between their big showdowns. Look through Chavez's record from when he first one a world title, pull the tickover fights, and Chavez's schedule isn't much busier than the current fighters.

You add that modern S&C/diet programs have basically shifted things to needing a standard 8-week to properly peak, and there's only so active guys can be kept.

[-PBP-]

It's hard to stay active with few tv dates and promotion. Fighters won't fight off tv for the purses that the boxers of the past were earning.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Times are different now; the fighters of yesteryear may have been more active, but they were also afforded the right to take plenty of tickover fights, in between their big showdowns. Look through Chavez's record from when he first one a world title, pull the tickover fights, and Chavez's schedule isn't much busier than the current fighters.

You add that modern S&C/diet programs have basically shifted things to needing a standard 8-week to properly peak, and there's only so active guys can be kept.

Um yeah. Chavez was fighting four-five times all through his twenties and early thirties. So he was more active than today's 1-2 fight a year champions.

[bambam182]

ROFL AHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA

more fights a year = less damage to brain and body

more cigs a year = less damage to lungs.

HAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAH

i cant believe i found this thread.

[bambam182]

HAHAHAHAH

i had to come back in here HAHAHAHAHAHA ROFL.

[bambam182]

i've often said that fighters today aren't active enough. I'm not blaming the fighters. I'm not blaming anybody. I am saying that guys who fight often appear to have less injuries related to training and staying in shape. It makes perfect sense really.

Roberto duran, julio cesar chavez and so many from the past looked sharper when they were active, fighting regularly. I'm not saying every fight they have is going to be great. However, they hone their skills with more experience. A great fighter isn't going to get busted up in every or even most or possibly any of his fights. He can stay sharper, though.

As a good example, take the recent loma-walters fights. Before the bell even rang, many were saying that walters' inactivity would hurt him, which it probably did.

Yet, posters on here claim that less is better- the same posters who say he took too much time off. Well, which is it? Fighting once a year and taking the gamble that the inactive fighter has managed to stay sharp in the interim and won't get inured, resulting in another cancellation? Or staying sharp with tune-ups and lesser fights that don't necessarily have to be on tv in order to keep skills sharper and get more exposure, building up their names?

Look at mike tyson. In the early going, he was fighting all the time. Amir khan did the same. These stars now would be much bigger if they were more active. They'd also look sharper in their big performances as well.

hhahahahaahahahahahahahahhahah