Can we just give it up for the UNDERDOGS a minute?

[Combat Talk Radio]

https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/7/2...etting-preview

Crawford was at -650 vs Postol.

He was at -166 vs Gamboa.

https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2017/5/2...howtime-boxing

Spence at -225 vs Brook.

So. How were these guys underdogs then? Or maybe I've misunderstood the stuff at the start of your posts about 'the media and the bookies'.

On the very link you shared on Crawford/Postol, read the text, ignore the numbers.

But while I understand the logic behind those odds, I'm not sure I agree with them. Crawford may have the easier accolades to rattle off, but Postol has his own impressive resume, including a world title, an undefeated record, and one of the sport's best trainers in Freddie Roach in his corner. Postol will come in to the fight with a size advantage, plus a good gameplan for how to use that advantage. He'll also come in against a Crawford who is making his big PPV debut, and so may be more willing to force an exciting fight - and "exciting" fights are not always smart tactical fights.

As far as Spence/Brook, BloodyElbow refused to be brave. But let's look at Forbes, which is much more widely read:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshkat.../#5ce977dc354c

Spence (21-0, 18 KOs), after all, is considered perhaps the best prospect in all of boxing. But he’s never seen a pro boxer on the level of Brook, a wonderful fighter himself who beat Shawn Porter to win his title and then gave Gennady Golovkin problems in the early rounds of their fight last year.
...
In fact, two of the three Forbes boxing experts believe the 31-year-old Brook will prevail and retain his title in front of his countrymen.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterka...bettors-guide/

Four Best Bets:

1.) Kell Brook to win by decision or technical decision +350: The fact that Kell Brook is an underdog in his own backyard is a bit perplexing. As good as Errol Spence Jr. is, he doesn't have the big fight experience that Kell Brook has and won't have the support of the 27,000 plus fans at Bramall Lane in Sheffield cheering him on. They will clearly be cheering on the hometown hero. Brook is also a deceivingly strong fighter and is undefeated at welterweight. Spence Jr. is very talented, however, Saturday night in Brook's backyard will be an uphill battle from round one. Every time Brook throws a punch, hit or miss, the crowd will go wild. At +350 (wager $100 to win $350), there is great value on Kell Brook pulling out a decision.

2.) Kell Brook to win the fight +200: We're already vested in Kell Brook winning a decision, so anytime you can get underdog value, you take it. Especially when you believe the underdog is clearly going to win the fight. This is a modest +200 (wager $100 to win $200) for Brook to simply win the fight. Kell Brook is the underdog and has still never lost at welterweight while Errol Spence Jr. has yet to face an opponent of Brook's pedigree. The challenger has to take that belt from the champion and I don't think this is where it's going to happen for Spence Jr.

...
4.) Kell Brook to win and both fighters to be knocked down

Forbes analysts gave Spence literally NO chance to win that fight. Casuals are more likely to take faith in and be influenced by that opinion than some one-off boxing site.

In the eyes of the MEDIA, Spence was the true underdog (which was silly), regardless of what the numbers said.

[Citizen Koba]

On the very link you shared on Crawford/Postol, read the text, ignore the numbers.



As far as Spence/Brook, BloodyElbow refused to be brave. But let's look at Forbes, which is much more widely read:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshkat.../#5ce977dc354c




https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterka...bettors-guide/



Forbes analysts gave Spence literally NO chance to win that fight. Casuals are more likely to take faith in and be influenced by that opinion than some one-off boxing site.

In the eyes of the MEDIA, Spence was the true underdog (which was silly), regardless of what the numbers said.

Meh. We were hearing pundits calling it for from both sides as I recall it. Certainly in neither case was the win considered an upset and as I've pointed out the bookies odds paint a pretty clear picture. But hey, it's your thread, man. If you want to call favourites underdogs I guess that's up to you - I was just just giving you a heads up.

[Combat Talk Radio]

Meh. We were hearing pundits calling it for from both sides as I recall it. Certainly in neither case was the win considered an upset and as I've pointed out the bookies odds paint a pretty clear picture. But hey, it's your thread, man. If you want to call favourites underdogs I guess that's up to you - I was just just giving you a heads up.

Spence/Brook was still an upset if for no other reason than the fact it took place on Brook's home turf. Spence did what nobody thought he could.

Because I distinctly remember quite a few peeps talking about Spence's suspect chin.

[Citizen Koba]

Spence/Brook was still an upset if for no other reason than the fact it took place on Brook's home turf. Spence did what nobody thought he could.

Because I distinctly remember quite a few peeps talking about Spence's suspect chin.

Well, not quite 'nobody'. If you're talking about NSB then there was actually a slight majority picking Brook for the win (and I was amongst them, though not due to any concerns about Spence's chin, but rather his relative lack of experience) on the Pick 'em... so I guess you have a point there. The kid made a believer of me that night.

It still doesn't make him the underdog in the real world though - just proves that plenty of folk on here get it wrong sometimes.

[Combat Talk Radio]

Welcome to the club, Sho Kimura.

[Combat Talk Radio]

Andrey Sirotkin takes his rightful place amongst the gods.

[Combat Talk Radio]

Sadam Ali takes his place amongst the gods.

[W1LL]

Joe Calzaghe vs. Jeff Lacy. Some underdog Joe turned out to be, eh?

[Combat Talk Radio]

Caleb Truax takes his rightful place amongst the gods.

[DrHouse579]

Spence/Brook was still an upset if for no other reason than the fact it took place on Brook's home turf. Spence did what nobody thought he could.

Because I distinctly remember quite a few peeps talking about Spence's suspect chin.

You don't have to go out of your way to revise history and add in the whole "rocky underdog" narrative to prop up Spence's victory. If anything it may have been a 50/50 fight, which is why that forbes article you linked said those were the "best" bets (ie. those with the most value not necessarily who is more likely to win).

And for every critic talking about Spence's chin, there were way louder (and justified) concerns about Brook coming down from 160 AND whether or not his surgically-repaired eye would hold up over 12 rounds AND his past stamina issues. Brook was realistically the slight underdog even with home court advantage. The fact that Spence beat him into submission, and that Brook was arguably the top 147 fighter, makes it a great victory, not that Spence was some no-hoper who pulled off a miracle.