Whats the point in highly rated prospects fighting low quality opposition?

[Prince Madison]

Often fighters have 15 or so fights against completely overmatched opposition at the start of the careers to gain 'experience', the experiencing meaning fighters are well versed at beating up fighters who arent on there level.
When i watch these fighters on the undercards (and unfortunately often as the main event now) just beating up walking punchbags i wonder, what are the fighters really getting out of it experience wise?
And also i think when we look at the safety of the sport, it cant be good to have some elite prospect just using someone as target practise.
Without singling out joshua (who has been moved quicker than most to be fair), ive seen comments suggesting joshua shouldnt have to fight a top level fighter cause 'its only been 17 fights', as if a boxer should get a free pass for a number of years before he has to face someone on his level. Also recent comments from pacquiaos team and garcia about 'spence needing to prove himself' got me thinking about what more does he have to prove after demolishing algieri and bundu at fringe world level.
I know its meant to be a case of gradually stepping up competition for these prospects, but couldnt you just have a couple of fights at each level, or at the very least jump up to fringe world level after a few fights.Is it really necessary to beat up 15 or so bums before stepping it up, when its so clear the fighter is above this level?
Its as if a fighter has to be guided so as to minimise any remote chance of losing, but its okay for the opponent to get beaten up badly. Surely losing or struggling in a fight would be more useful experience; lomachenko probably learnt 50x more in that salido fight than if he beat a bunch of stiffs for 10 fights without breaking a sweat. And surely the embarrassment of losing could be forgiven, as the fighter can point to it as a learning curve; they can regroup and learn from it.
So what do people think, are fighters moved too slowly, and should top prospects get thrown in at the deep end more quickly?

[b00g13man]

What's the point of top 3 p4p fighters fighting low quality opposition?

[Eff Pandas]

Professional boxers for sure are moved to slow. I mean just look at amateur boxing. If you keep winning your in the world championships in your first or second year in the sport potentially. In pro boxing you can beat nobodies for a half a decade or **** a full decade like I think Kell Brook did more or less.

There clearly needs to be more structure in moving boxers up that is outside of boxers & promoters control. Would probably make for a more even playing field if that happened & the small promoter would have more power & the big promoter would have less power which could only be a good thing in my mind.

[Sadiqkingofko]

I agree 100% with you, Wlad lost early in his career, Pacquaio lost early in his career, Tarver lost early in his career, promoters or mangers like to keep his fighter's "0" as long as possible, but it doesn't really matter tbh

[*TonyMontana*]

Often fighters have 15 or so fights against completely overmatched opposition at the start of the careers to gain 'experience', the experiencing meaning fighters are well versed at beating up fighters who arent on there level.
When i watch these fighters on the undercards (and unfortunately often as the main event now) just beating up walking punchbags i wonder, what are the fighters really getting out of it experience wise?
And also i think when we look at the safety of the sport, it cant be good to have some elite prospect just using someone as target practise.
Without singling out joshua (who has been moved quicker than most to be fair), ive seen comments suggesting joshua shouldnt have to fight a top level fighter cause 'its only been 17 fights', as if a boxer should get a free pass for a number of years before he has to face someone on his level. Also recent comments from pacquiaos team and garcia about 'spence needing to prove himself' got me thinking about what more does he have to prove after demolishing algieri and bundu at fringe world level.
I know its meant to be a case of gradually stepping up competition for these prospects, but couldnt you just have a couple of fights at each level, or at the very least jump up to fringe world level after a few fights.Is it really necessary to beat up 15 or so bums before stepping it up, when its so clear the fighter is above this level?
Its as if a fighter has to be guided so as to minimise any remote chance of losing, but its okay for the opponent to get beaten up badly. Surely losing or struggling in a fight would be more useful experience; lomachenko probably learnt 50x more in that salido fight than if he beat a bunch of stiffs for 10 fights without breaking a sweat. And surely the embarrassment of losing could be forgiven, as the fighter can point to it as a learning curve; they can regroup and learn from it.
So what do people think, are fighters moved too slowly, and should top prospects get thrown in at the deep end more quickly?

Maybe ask golovkin

[Prince Madison]

Maybe ask golovkin

yeah i agree, hes a good example, in the first 5 or 6 years of his career he fought complete stiffs (know people are going to say thats what hes still doing lol), and it took him way too long to get to world level and now hes 34 and only got a couple of years really where hes likely to be at his best. If he hadnt of wasted that 5 years his CV might look a whole lot different.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Showcase fights...

Sometimes for learning experiences, like fighting a southpaw, or a guy with a rock solid chin, or guy with power, guy with a good jab... These fighters may have records like 9-7 but they possess a single good trait that a prospect can learn from

[Real King Kong]

What's the point of top 3 p4p fighters fighting low quality opposition?

I get what your saying, but he is fighting kovalev next tho...so he gets a bit of a pass.

[Larry the boss]

Often fighters have 15 or so fights against completely overmatched opposition at the start of the careers to gain 'experience', the experiencing meaning fighters are well versed at beating up fighters who arent on there level.
When i watch these fighters on the undercards (and unfortunately often as the main event now) just beating up walking punchbags i wonder, what are the fighters really getting out of it experience wise?
And also i think when we look at the safety of the sport, it cant be good to have some elite prospect just using someone as target practise.
Without singling out joshua (who has been moved quicker than most to be fair), ive seen comments suggesting joshua shouldnt have to fight a top level fighter cause 'its only been 17 fights', as if a boxer should get a free pass for a number of years before he has to face someone on his level. Also recent comments from pacquiaos team and garcia about 'spence needing to prove himself' got me thinking about what more does he have to prove after demolishing algieri and bundu at fringe world level.
I know its meant to be a case of gradually stepping up competition for these prospects, but couldnt you just have a couple of fights at each level, or at the very least jump up to fringe world level after a few fights.Is it really necessary to beat up 15 or so bums before stepping it up, when its so clear the fighter is above this level?
Its as if a fighter has to be guided so as to minimise any remote chance of losing, but its okay for the opponent to get beaten up badly. Surely losing or struggling in a fight would be more useful experience; lomachenko probably learnt 50x more in that salido fight than if he beat a bunch of stiffs for 10 fights without breaking a sweat. And surely the embarrassment of losing could be forgiven, as the fighter can point to it as a learning curve; they can regroup and learn from it.
So what do people think, are fighters moved too slowly, and should top prospects get thrown in at the deep end more quickly?

[LoadedWraps]

Often fighters have 15 or so fights against completely overmatched opposition at the start of the careers to gain 'experience', the experiencing meaning fighters are well versed at beating up fighters who arent on there level.

You must be reaaaaaally new to boxing, or just flat out trolling.

You are pretty close to getting on daily red K status from me, your latest thread creating streak has been moronic and unbearable.

You don't deserve an honest response, sadly some unaware dope on here will give you one.

Stop asking ******ed questions and participate in actual boxing discussion for a change.