A Deep look into Mayweather, Pacquiao, Canelo and GGG's Risk History

[Nay_Sayer]

Mayweather
- Bouts in which he was the underdog – 0 (Possibly Corrales, De La Hoya or Castillo? I can't find supporting data on Corrales/Castillo. I did read that DLH closed as a 3 to 2 favorite, during ring walks. I can't verify accuracy though.

I recall Corrales being the favorite going into the Mayweather fight..

[Citizen Koba]

Why is it not probable? Pac is down. Pac isn't asking Loma to do anything he, himself, hasn't already done.

I know I made the thread. It's not subjective data in any way. It's factual objective data that gives us a picture of "risk".

If Loma fights Pac, he would be taking reasonable risk. Nothing that hasn't already been done though

It's a good thread but I'd be wary of attributing too much intent into it. You can reasonably make some judgement of how many times the various fighters were in 'good' fights relative to their perceived ability, which is an interesting kinda statistic in itself though obviously open to interpretation.

What you can't do is presume that failing to get as many 'high' risk fights indicates deliberate aversion - or 'low risk' matchmaking rather than a simple lack of opportunity.

Simple fact is that more powerful promoters and bigger fanbases = larger purses = better opponents. For all the fanfare HBOs financial investment in Golovkin never really matched the fanfare and the hype. Bear in mind Golovkin was just shy of 33 years old before he made his first $ mil purse and his opponents were getting less and that was HBOs call, not Golovkins. Folk may mock him for being Mr 97k or whatever but therein lies precisely the reason he couldn't get the opponents especially in conjunction with HBOs yearly diminishing budgets. The reward of fighting Golovkin never matched the risk for guys who were significant enough to have other opportunities.

All 3 of the other fighter you mention had been picked up by major promotions from a relatively young age where they were able to get both excellent matchmaking and good exposure to US audiences - and ,importantly, in divisions where there were already recognised US stars.

[Chollo Vista]

I recall Corrales being the favorite going into the Mayweather fight..

I looked it up and he wasn't. Do you have a conflicting source?

[ShoulderRoll]

It's a good thread but I'd be wary of attributing too much intent into it. You can reasonably make some judgement of how many times the various fighters were in 'good' fights relative to their perceived ability, which is an interesting kinda statistic in itself though obviously open to interpretation.

What you can't do is presume that failing to get as many 'high' risk fights indicates deliberate aversion - or 'low risk' matchmaking rather than a simple lack of opportunity.

Simple fact is that more powerful promoters and bigger fanbases = better purses = better opponents. Bear in mind Golovkin was just shy of 33 years old before he made his first $ mil purse and his opponents were getting less. Folk may mock him for being Mr 97k or whatever but therein lies precisely the reason he couldn't get the opponents especially in conjunction with HBOs yearly diminishing budgets. The reward of fighting Golovkin never matched the risk for guys who were significant enough to have other opportunities.

All 3 of the other fighter you mention had been picked up by major promotions from a relatively young age where they were able to get both excellent matchmaking and good exposure to US audiences - and ,importantly, in divisions where there were already recognised US stars.

What's Golovkin's excuse for not getting the opponents now, though?

[Madison Boxing]

that is the kind of mindless ******ity that wrecks good threads

Excuse me?

[Chollo Vista]

how does Marquez stack up... ?

that would be real interesting

I tried looking him up on odds shark, but couldn't find anything. I'll do one on him when I get a chance.

[Nay_Sayer]

That's not a probable fight.

Why not? Pac moves down a weight class, Lomafako moves up a weight class.

Sounds a lot more reasonable than when Lomafako dragged Rigondeaux up TWO weight classes...

[Nay_Sayer]

Doesn't change the fact that exceptional fighters are less likely to be underdogs since they're less likely to face opponents who are a risk to them.

And yet Ali was the underdog in two of the biggest fights of his career. Probably was the underdog in the first Frazier fight too..

Great fighters take risks. That's exactly how they become great. That's also why Lomafako never will be..

[aboutfkntime]

It's a good thread but I'd be wary of attributing too much intent into it. You can reasonably make some judgement of how many times the various fighters were in 'good' fights relative to their perceived ability, which is an interesting kinda statistic in itself though obviously open to interpretation.

What you can't do is presume that failing to get as many 'high' risk fights indicates deliberate aversion - or 'low risk' matchmaking rather than a simple lack of opportunity.

Simple fact is that more powerful promoters and bigger fanbases = larger purses = better opponents. For all the fanfare HBOs financial investment in Golovkin never really matched the fanfare and the hype. Bear in mind Golovkin was just shy of 33 years old before he made his first $ mil purse and his opponents were getting less and that was HBOs call, not Golovkins. Folk may mock him for being Mr 97k or whatever but therein lies precisely the reason he couldn't get the opponents especially in conjunction with HBOs yearly diminishing budgets. The reward of fighting Golovkin never matched the risk for guys who were significant enough to have other opportunities.

All 3 of the other fighter you mention had been picked up by major promotions from a relatively young age where they were able to get both excellent matchmaking and good exposure to US audiences - and ,importantly, in divisions where there were already recognised US stars.

also.... you have to actually win those fights

nobody has actually mentioned that... the conversation seems to be centered around, who took the most risks... but greatness is determined by who had the most success... not the same thing

the betting odds are not a true picture of the boxing landscape at that point in time... 1) for the reason ****head stated, that odds reflect vegas book-margins... 2) who knows how accurate those figures are, they almost certainly change from betting shop to betting shop...

[Citizen Koba]

What's Golovkin's excuse for not getting the opponents now, though?

Well I'd say the last post contained 'reasons' rather than 'excuses', but the last 4 years or so has all been about chasing Canelo and the $$$s... You won't hear me saying any different and I've expressed my disapproval over and over. And since his DAZN deal chosing to fight Rolls and Szeremeta (if that's next) are simply an unnecessary let down since in theory he should have had both the freedom and the resources to pretty much pick who he chose.

I won't fault any boxer for trying to maximise his income and retire healthy with a fat bank account... especially one who's winding down his career, so you can call that an 'excuse' I guess, but as a boxing fan foremost it's been kinda anticlimactic to say the least.

Still it's over that same period that he's fought his toughest opponents and all guys have pointless filler fights - it just would been nice if Golovkin had taken at least semi-credible ones.