Why do some fighters get credit for taking 'risks'?

[Boxing_1013]

100% Agree and most neutral fans know this.

Two other important factors which favor the A fighter are the below:

1 - the opponent knows that he cannot win by fighting a normal fight (e.g GGG outworked him clearly), yet got robbed, so some fighters HAVE to fight outside their gameplan which also risks their own gameplan, mental state, etc.

2 - the opponent is getting a top pay day and after a couple rounds of realising they ain't gonna KO the A fighter, they think "well fck it, i'm not going to KO him, so i'll just take the money" - this is pretty much what i expect Kovalev to do once he realises after 2 - 3 rounds that he won't be able to KO Canelo, so he'll just settle for a cruise as he'll be thinking i can't win by KO and i'm not gonna get a points win, so i'll just cruise easily for the $$$ and be happy with that.

Very good points man...especially agree with number 1

[ShoulderRoll]

Certain posters called Floyd a cherry picker that never took risks. Along comes Canelo who takes takes risks and has one of the best resumes in the entire sport...yet he doesn't get credit for it from the exact same posters who criticized Floyd.

How can they hate one boxer for doing something then turn around and hate another boxer for doing the exact opposite? I'll leave that up to you to speculate on.

[Boxing_1013]

You make some good points. I think the answer lies in the fact you can't compare the "cash cow" to non cash cows and you have to look at where the sport is.

With respect to hometown/neutral site-you are going to fight where the most money can be made. for example, ODH from his 19th fight on fought only 6 times outside of Vegas at a time when boxing was big in a number of places. That is because that is where the most money was generated.

with respect to Floyd and Canelo, I don't think they are going to fight outside of Vegas, Texas or Cali because the revenue would drop. I get your point, but I think if you ask the opponent and their team, they want the fight to be held where they can maximize resources.

I don't know that "home field" in boxing is the same as in other sports. A fighter doesn't get better if he fights in a different location. It's not like say football where there is a weather element or baseball where the field dimensions are different.

The eastern euros come here because the big money is here. They aren't taking risks as much as they are going where the money is. If the money was in europe, like it is for soccer, Americans would be going there.

To your point about ALi-that wasn't risk taking that was done for financial gain. If you remember, Zaire's president, guaranteed a huge sum of money so long as the fight took place in his country. The ref and judges would've been the same had the fight taken place in Zaire or New York. Tyson going to Japan for Buster was the same thing-Tyson was going to be a 40-1 favorite wherever the fight was held.

Good thread. WOuld love to keep discussing with you.

Thanks man...good points as well...we don't always agree
on here, but I like how you can disagree with people on here without being disagreeable...that is refreshing.

Definitely agree that the A-side is fighting where the money is, not necessarily in their home city...sometimes that can overlap for smaller stars/prospects...but yeah Vegas is the home for big fights now and has been for a while.

I don't blame those guys for taking the money...it's just smart...these guys are taking so much punishment physically, I would hate it if they didn't take the money when it was there.

Obviously the A-side will get the favorable cards at 'home'...so that is a perk of being the A-side and the money fighter...I guess for me it just means that the A-side is usually maximizing his financial returns...but I don't usually think they are taking the biggest risks.

Again that is not to say that those types of guys can't be great boxers...often times they are, clearly...I just think the 'taking risks' part of their story is oversold in a way...when you are the money fighter, you just don't have to take as many risks...that is a big perk that you have...you get to fight at 'home' and you get home cooking on cards if/when you need it.

That helps in the W/L column but also helps in a way to even take some fights, since you know you will get very fair treatment from the judges....and let's be honest...the money fighter makes everyone in boxing money, so it is a deserved perk in a way...if Canelo had 6 losses right now, would as many people really want to see him fight?

I think guys fighting 'away or neutral' could impact their nerves a bit...and could give them a whole new feeling/pressure...but yes it is still the same ring and apart from the judging maybe going against them and the nerves/pressure, I don't really think the action in a lot of fights would go differently necessarily.

I just wonder if Tyson-Douglas or Ali-Foreman would have gone differently in different places...maybe, maybe not...I do feel like Ali really rallied the crowd behind him in the lead up to the fight...I feel like that helped him win... and I kind of wish there were more moments like that...where 2 guys go into a neutral type area and see who can rally the crowd behind them.

I wonder sometimes how Floyd would have done facing Pacqauio in the Phillipines...obviously doing the fight there would have made no sense money-wise probably for Floyd, but to me stuff like that is 'taking a risk'....if Loma went to fight Tank in Baltimore...give me some sh.it like that lol...GGG vs Canelo in Mexico City...Ward rematching Kov in Kov's home city lol...I respect Yarde a lot for going over there...I just want to see more moments/fights like that.

[QueensburyRules]

I know Canelo and Floyd fans may take offense from this thread..but it is not my intent to rile them up...they are just the most recent examples of being the A-side/examples of my point here...I think they are both great boxers and never saw Floyd get worked over in the ring for a whole fight...and Canelo has always impressed me every time I have seen him fight.

But when you are a fighter...and you basically control one of the greatest risks you can have in a fight...which is that the judging will basically always favor you...how can that guy really get credit for taking big risks?

Like when Nelo fought Lara or Trout...yeah he stepped up I guess...but he also knows those guys can't hurt/KO him, and that he would be reasonably competitive with them and would always get the cards in that case...in a way it is like no risk.

Could say the same for him with the Jacobs fight...Cotto...GGG 1 I give him credit for taking the fight, but to be fair he didn't really come to fight that night, and tried to mimic the Jacobs gameplan which won Danny a few rounds...Nelo/his team probably knew that if he did similar there he could at worst get a draw etc on a couple cards.

For Floyd - I mean in his Money May days he knew that if he went 12 rounds with anyone he was getting the win in Vegas...he knew which guys would possibly give him trouble (I think) and also knew (from sparring/stories etc) who he could at worst go 12 with and in that case again he is getting a W.

Taking 'risks' is taking on a guy in his hometown/neutral...like Spence did with Brook, or like some of the Eastern Euros have done lately...taking on a guy on neutral/away terms is a real risk...taking them on, on your terms, is good business, don't get me wrong...but it isn't really taking a risk, when you know you will at worst be pretty competitive and then the cards will be in your favor.

I just have never really understood the logic that those guys were really taking risks...again, they have made good money decisions, and what is more important than that...but real risks are what Ali did facing George Foreman in Zaire...stuff like that is why many consider him the greatest, even though he had some blemishes.

I will say that Canelo going up to 175 to face Kov is a bit of a risk imo...but again, similar to the first GGG fight...if he knows that he can go 12 rounds with Kov, then how big of a risk is it really? He will probably get a good decision in that case, so where is the risk.

Not to get on him for that fight...because I do think it is a good fight and I applaud him for going up and taking it...but those fights become easier to take when you know you control the scoring.

- -Why U have bad credit?

[Boxing_1013]

- -Why U have bad credit?

I actually have great credit

[Boxing_1013]

Moving up and fighting much bigger guys voluntarily deserves credit. We have weight divisions because it's such a huge disadvantage. Instead of choosing to camp at a weight division like Golovkin, Canelo chooses to take bigger challenges, nothing but respect.

Eh idk man...'cherry-picking' guys at higher weights could then satisfy your criteria there...I don't really think Kov fits that bill...but Fielding and Chavez Jr do...to give Nelo credit for them you would have to give GGG credit for Rolls.

And again...when you are the A-side...all fights become easier to take and make...you control almost everything, and you know the judging will always help you out if needed...this helps to take certain fights, including those moving up in weight.

[Boxing_1013]

every fight is a risk. some one just passed away the other day. most boxers are never the same after a fight that's why matchmaking is important for longevity and a fighters health. so I think instead of criticizing every little move a fighter makes we should applaud them for risking they're lives in every fight

I certainly wasn't criticizing anyone...just was trying to provide perspective about what really constitutes taking a risk.

Yeah, the A-side crap is well, crap.

Usyk is a great example of recent risk-taking. Usyk unified at cruiser but he beat Glowacki, Huck, Bredis, Gassiev and Bellew all in their own backyards. That is one hell of a damn run. Considering that one was a former king of the division and three were unbeaten and Bellew was a solid pro with lots of world class experience, I think that's true risk-taking.

Canelo and Floyd both took on risky fights but like you say, they had an ace in the hole every time. Is it smart? Sure. But a bit dull? Yes.

I think there are plenty of guys who risk and honestly don't give a damn. They sometimes don't get the benefit of the doubt with the judges but oh well. They move on. A loss doesn't shatter everybody's self-confidence. Not everyone cries when they lose their "0". As they shouldn't. Most guys don't get to be that interesting until they have a loss. Then they actually learn that everything won't be served on a silver platter for them. Thank God for losses.

Anyway, when it comes down to it, I agree. When you have certain advantages, the risk factor goes way down. Usyk deserves praise in this area. Canelo and Floyd not so much.

Yeah obviously I respect Usyk's skills, who doesn't...but have never really watched a ton of his fights...I do give him a ton of credit for taking on those challengers in neutral/away sites though, especially since he is not a KO artist...the win over Gassiev was definitely impressive...interested to see what he has at HW.

The best part is people eating the TS’s bait. This guys is always parading the GGG vs Canelo series debate about who won and is always hating on Canelo.

The irony is his thread title and 154-168 is easy. It is the same mentality of years for GGG fanboys saying “but why does he hate to move up?!” People don’t even realize how much bigger GGG is compared to Hagler. Canelo moves anywhere above 160 and it’s all “cherry picking,” and any criticism towards GGG for years and there was always shared cliche excuses from fans being rinsed without them really thinking and pretending to know the sport!

And you think Bellew was good or that Usyk took a risk with him? Cmon dude...

I don't think I've ever said a bad word about Canelo...he is a great fighter...if pushed I would probably say he is indeed a drug cheat, and a bit of a 'diva'...but every fighter could get some criticism on those types of fronts I think...he is obviously a very talented fighter and I challenge you to find one post of mine where I say anything remotely derogatory about him (other than this one lol

Also for the record...I never brought up GGG here lol and didn't even really have him in mind...Usyk was kind of in mind, as was Spence...and I basically pointed that out...GGG would more or less fit the bill though so I appreciate you pointing that out.

Alvarez began his career as a teen and grew into a MW.
How does he get credit for that?
From 160, he moved up to a CW 164 vs Chavez Jr. and to 168 vs Rocky Fielding.
Lots of fans were impressed by this but the smart money knew he was heavily favored to win both fights.
Personally, I think the more challenging fights were at MW.
If Alvarez really wanted to impress at a higher weight, why not fight a riskier, more competitive fighter?

Yes these are good points too I think...I do think moving up in weight is commendable, especially if you are facing a live body at the higher weight...this would be Canelo's first live body at a higher weight imo...it will be interesting to see where Canelo goes after Kov, and also what happens in that fight...Canelo is the A-side so he will basically get the fights he wants.

[Boxing_1013]

I like how Pact@rds whom jumped on the GGG train to now in Post-Pac phaze still trolling their saltiness that Alvarez ****** up GGG.

Thread Title: Pac's wins over Cotto and Mosley were way more impressive than Alvarez's

To be fair...in almost every way, Pac's wins over Cotto and Mosley were way better than Canelo's...different weights/times etc so hard to really compare...but yeah don't really see the argument there...and I don't really consider myself a Pac fan...he was great though I give him a lot of credit.

But I thought he lost to Horn so not sure how many Pac 'fans' would say that.

i don't agree with the basic premise of the thread.

i dont think canelo or floyd know they have the judges with them. canelo maybe can hope to have some extra pull, but you never know. and floyd hasnt had the judges on his side over the course of his career. the only fight where anyone has ever said he got the judges favor undeserved is castillo I. but in their rematch floyd won by a landslide only for the judges to score it really close. so he actually would have been robbed himself had he not outclassed castillo completely.

to say they know people cant hurt them is nonsense as well. in fact canelo knew lara very much could hurt him, trust me he could. even trout could cut him bad, break his nose etc and somehow get a a stoppage. this is pro boxing at the highest level.

fighting lara was a huge risk for canelo, a crazy one to take given his potential star power at the time and that he was just coming of a loss.

I mean yeah man anything can happen in boxing...Rolls could have KOed GGG...but you are limiting your risks when you control the judging...and when you know you will in all likelihood go 12 rounds with a guy, and you won't get KD or KOed...then those fights become easier to take.

I also would say that I have yet to have seen a Floyd or Canelo fight where they didn't get more rounds than I felt they deserved on 1 2 or sometimes all 3 cards...I never saw Floyd lose, but I also never watched the Maidana fights or DLH or some others...thought he beat Pac 8-4 and Castillo was a 7-5 either way fight I shade to Floyd.

Also as crazy as it sounded going in...if anyone wants evidence of Floyd getting good cards in Vegas, just check out his last fight with McGregor...McGregor pretty clearly won the first 3 rounds and I think Floyd got 2/3 of those rounds on 2 of the cards.

Not hating on Floyd though, he was great...I don't really take anything away from him...just wouldn't say he really took big risks...but he made big money, and that is the name of the game really.

[Boxing_1013]

Certain posters called Floyd a cherry picker that never took risks. Along comes Canelo who takes takes risks and has one of the best resumes in the entire sport...yet he doesn't get credit for it from the exact same posters who criticized Floyd.

How can they hate one boxer for doing something then turn around and hate another boxer for doing the exact opposite? I'll leave that up to you to speculate on.

Eh I don't know about the logic there man...as some have pointed out, Canelo probably deserves some credit for 'taking risks' for some fights, as did Floyd.

But a lot of people basically acknowledge that Canelo is following Floyd's blueprint as far as who he is facing and when/what terms etc...I don't really agree that he is doing anything way different than what Floyd was doing...he is trying to do the same thing imo...and why wouldn't he...look at how well it worked for Floyd.

And again, I think, and some agree I suppose, that when you are the A-side, some fights become easier to take...because you know that if you get beat clearly, you can probably work out a draw on the cards...and if you fight close enough you can probably get the W...I think that holds true for Canelo, as it did for Floyd...though to be fair to Floyd I never really saw him need the judges to get a win (never saw all of his fights though).

When you are the A-side like that, it just becomes easier/smarter to take as many low risk/high reward fights as you can...every fighter tries to maximize reward and minimize risk really...but when you are the A-side you call the shots so it is easier for you.

[ShoulderRoll]

Eh I don't know about the logic there man...as some have pointed out, Canelo probably deserves some credit for 'taking risks' for some fights, as did Floyd.

But a lot of people basically acknowledge that Canelo is following Floyd's blueprint as far as who he is facing and when/what terms etc...I don't really agree that he is doing anything way different than what Floyd was doing...he is trying to do the same thing imo...and why wouldn't he...look at how well it worked for Floyd.

And again, I think, and some agree I suppose, that when you are the A-side, some fights become easier to take...because you know that if you get beat clearly, you can probably work out a draw on the cards...and if you fight close enough you can probably get the W...I think that holds true for Canelo, as it did for Floyd...though to be fair to Floyd I never really saw him need the judges to get a win (never saw all of his fights though).

When you are the A-side like that, it just becomes easier/smarter to take as many low risk/high reward fights as you can...every fighter tries to maximize reward and minimize risk really...but when you are the A-side you call the shots so it is easier for you.

Look at Canelo's resume. Who has a better one in the sport right now?

He fought high risk , low reward guys when he didn't have to. Dudes like Austin Trout and Erislandy Lara.

Why are we even questioning him when there are dozens of top boxers with a much worse track record?