Is tougher matchmaking required for our upcoming boxers?

[Chris W 1982]

So Kevin Mitchell is the latest boxer to lose his valued unbeaten record.

After seven years as a pro, Mitchell faced his real acid test in Michael Katsidis and he was brutally exposed. Was his education his downfall?

Apart from Carl Johansean and Breidis Prescott, who was Mitchell tested by in his 30+ fights before his tilt against the Australian warrior.

I fancied Mitchell to win but he was brutally exposed by a quality opponent. Would better and tougher matchmaking throughout the last seven years made any difference to tonight's unfortunate outcome.

[jimcook]

of course.allegedly could clearly be seen saying " use your head" before mitchell left the dressing room. because of the class of his previous opponents mitchell had to learn this lesson the hard way.had he fought a few thaxton types along the way, he might have been better equiped to deal with katsidis.same thing went for amir khan...weak opponents dont teach you how to deal with heavy handed high pressure world class fighters.
if mitchell can get over it though he might be a better fighter for it....

[Brute]

Look at Katsidis' record. He lost to two World Champions in fights where he was competitive and beat a man who had won two world titles.

Mitchell found himself in against a seasoned fighter who had done the hard yards. He should learn from this and prepare better for world class opponents rather than believing his own publicity. He is obviously talented but took Katsidis too easily, not giving him the respect he was due. He can learn from this.

[banjo]

Yes. You can learn more about yourself from a defeat than from knocking over a journeyman.

The whole mindset has changed now though hasn't it? In the old days a loss was considered nothing more than a bad day at the office but now it's seen as a major career blow.

[tobyh5]

Edit Wrong thread

[Brute]

Yes. You can learn more about yourself from a defeat than from knocking over a journeyman.

The whole mindset has changed now though hasn't it? In the old days a loss was considered nothing more than a bad day at the office but now it's seen as a major career blow.

True. Tony Zale got KOed by Rocky Graziano but KOed him in their other two meetings. These days they are both legends.

Joe Louis was KOed by Max Schmeling, but went on to be one of the best ever. Most great fighters lose occasionally.

[whicker]

It is too easy to be wise after the event.

[Rob Magic]

I mention this alot about fighters been educated too easily. Dont get me wrong, the first half a dozen fights should be against beatable opponents while they adjust to the pro game but then the class of opponent should start to increase slowly. That's the trouble with FW. Matched against bums for too long. Then you eventually get a tough fight and then look what happens. I just think alot of boxers are protected nowadays. What happened to the days of fighting domestic, british, european before world title fights.

[TheCobra]

It always goes back to some quote I read from some american guy about fighters in england, something like "In England they don't build good fighter, they build records". It is very true especially for Warren fighters as we all know and can see each time one of them gets exposed when they step up a level, having had it all their own way earlier in their career.

[winkveron]

It always goes back to some quote I read from some american guy about fighters in england, something like "In England they don't build good fighter, they build records". It is very true especially for Warren fighters as we all know and can see each time one of them gets exposed when they step up a level, having had it all their own way earlier in their career.

Malignaggi said the same thing about Hatton, saying he'd only be a club fighter if he was American. That's debatable but you get the point. Everyone overrated Mitchell's last win against Mendoza, forgetting that Murray beat him a few years ago. That wasn't an ideal fight to prepare for Katsidis in hindsight. He maybe should have had a couple more against other fringe fighters or tough, durable, ex world champs.

[m1kee50]

Building records not fighters is right IMO... so concerned with that '0'

Look at Rafael Marquez... fought a former world champion in his first fight - a man who went on to challenge for a title afterwards too... hasnt done him any harm at all.

the difference is that if they lose early it can show them how much they dont yet know and how much work is involved... lose when you have been handfed baby-food opponents it looks bad. so many fights seem to be 80-20 or 90-10 affairs rather than 50-50 or even 60-40.

[DavidPayne]

Yes.

I'd rather see some rounded 25-3 guys than another 28-0 guy who turns away when he gets hit.

[Jeff Thomas]

Look no further then Ricky Burns and John Simpson for evidence of how little that '0' means. MMA fighters don't need it, so why do boxers. Years ago maybe when an 0 was considered a sign that someone was unbeateable- but these days we're a bit wiser- the internet defintely helps. Building an education is far more important then building a record. Mitchell sat atop the biggest unbeaten streak in uk boxing but this isn't premiership football. Its not a level playing field. If you gave me the funds then i'm pretty certain I could get most prospects in the country to 30-0. In addition to this I could probably get them a couple of pentacontinental titles and maybe a WBU interim super duper title shot.

This should be a lesson, but it won't. The way certain promoters make matches isn't going to change on the back of this. A loss to world class katsidis in a packed west ham football ground is far more lucrative then a close points loss to an up for it former european champion at bethnal green. And thats the bottom line.

[DavidPayne]

Look no further then Ricky Burns and John Simpson for evidence of how little that '0' means. MMA fighters don't need it, so why do boxers. Years ago maybe when an 0 was considered a sign that someone was unbeateable- but these days we're a bit wiser- the internet defintely helps. Building an education is far more important then building a record. Mitchell sat atop the biggest unbeaten streak in uk boxing but this isn't premiership football. Its not a level playing field. If you gave me the funds then i'm pretty certain I could get most prospects in the country to 30-0. In addition to this I could probably get them a couple of pentacontinental titles and maybe a WBU interim super duper title shot.

This should be a lesson, but it won't. The way certain promoters make matches isn't going to change on the back of this. A loss to world class katsidis in a packed west ham football ground is far more lucrative then a close points loss to an up for it former european champion at bethnal green. And thats the bottom line.

Agreed Jeff.

But for all the back story of working on the railways etc - it seemed when it came to it, Mitchell just didn't want it enough. Not on Saturday, but on the Saturday's before it.

And that comes from easy fights and being told you're the bee's knees for too long or maybe not, maybe its just genetic, or pre-programmed its what seperates the good from the great.
One look at Katsidas in the dressing room or on the scales, and you knew Mitchell was fkked.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Yes.

I'd rather see some rounded 25-3 guys than another 28-0 guy who turns away when he gets hit.

Totally agree, what's wrong with a couple of losses on a record? If Mitchell had been matched tougher he may have been ready for Katsidis, and been able to mount a challenge.

Considering he had 7 years as a pro - Mitchell has faced piss poor opposition. Prescott really had nothing but a big punch, and has done nothing before or since khan to suggest he is even remotely world class.

It seemed obvious that Katsidis was a big favourite going into this - he had almost everything on his side, strength, power, big fight experience, and proven toughness. Mitchell had an edge in speed and boxing skills, but nowhere near enough of an edge to countermand all those assets.

[Counter-puncher]

Yes.

I'd rather see some rounded 25-3 guys than another 28-0 guy who turns away when he gets hit.

Totally agree, what's wrong with a couple of losses on a record? If Mitchell had been matched tougher he may have been ready for Katsidis, and been able to mount a challenge.

.

and I will counter your 'may' with a sizeable 'may not'

matchmaking, of whatever order of cleverness and foresight, could not have given Mitchell the chin he needed to take Katsidis' punches, or the punch he needed to hurt katsidis more, which were IMo what were lacking here

he could, possibly, have been made sharper etc, all that would have done IMo is extended the fight (and the beating Micthell took) for a longer duration.

but all this 'needed tougher matchmaking' talk smacks of excuse-making/ laying the blame at the door of someone we love to hate, rather than putting it squarely onto the deficit in phycial tools which made this turn out to be such a mismatch

i can't really understand why people think a 3 round blowout, a total wreackage job by Katsidis, was influenced greatly by any other factor than katsidis' basic superiority to M<itchell

and you guys saying it now, i ask you where you were before the fight, when commenst that Mitchell may not be ready and should have had better matchmaking beforehand, were few and far between

heaven forbid we might blame Mitchell' not being good enough, for him not winning a fight

heaven forbid his own admitted poor discipline beforehand gets factored in.

nah, its FW's fault isn't it, that one will play well to the boxrec galleries. sour grapes guys get over it.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Yes.

I'd rather see some rounded 25-3 guys than another 28-0 guy who turns away when he gets hit.

Totally agree, what's wrong with a couple of losses on a record? If Mitchell had been matched tougher he may have been ready for Katsidis, and been able to mount a challenge.

.

and I will counter your 'may' with a sizeable 'may not'

matchmaking, of whatever order of cleverness and foresight, could not have given Mitchell the chin he needed to take Katsidis' punches, or the punch he needed to hurt katsidis more, which were IMo what were lacking here

he could, possibly, have been made sharper etc, all that would have done IMo is extended the fight (and the beating Micthell took) for a longer duration.

but all this 'needed tougher matchmaking' talk smacks of excuse-making/ laying the blame at the door of someone we love to hate, rather than putting it squarely onto the deficit in phycial tools which made this turn out to be such a mismatch

i can't really understand why people think a 3 round blowout, a total wreackage job by Katsidis, was influenced greatly by any other factor than katsidis' basic superiority to M<itchell

and you guys saying it now, i ask you where you were before the fight, when commenst that Mitchell may not be ready and should have had better matchmaking beforehand, were few and far between

heaven forbid we might blame Mitchell' not being good enough, for him not winning a fight

heaven forbid his own admitted poor discipline beforehand gets factored in.

nah, its FW's fault isn't it, that one will play well to the boxrec galleries. sour grapes guys get over it.

I said MAY, not WOULD.

Mitchell has talent, but he has fought a proliferation of stiffs, and hasn't really learned the defensive skills you need to beat Katsidis. He may never learn them, buit he certainly wasn't going to learn them fighting against the level of competition he has been, simple as.

Yes, I think Mitchell has been horrifically overrated going into this fight, he'd done nothing to show me he had anything to deal with Katsidis, and you can read my previous posts which verify this.

If Mitchell had been matched tougher, he may well have lost a few times and never gotten a crack at Katsidis at all.

[Counter-puncher]

If Mitchell had been matched tougher, he may well have lost a few times and never gotten a crack at Katsidis at all.

absolutely. oh and my post was more general than being directed specifically at you, James.

i don't think there is anything that could have been done to overcome Katsidis superiority over Mitchell, myself, like, he was too far overmatched physically for any level of skill to keep him i nthe fight, short of some kindly passing surgeon cutting off Mayweather's head and donating his brain to Mitchell for the day.

I like to put Mitchell in perspective as follows: he's got, judging by the Katsidis fight, about 1/4 of the chin of Graham Earl and maybe 1/2 Earl's punch.

so yeah, I can see how better matchmaking would have given Mitchell a better chance of beating the Aussie....

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Gradual matchmaking can help a boxer learn, but if he doesn't have the skills/defense/strength he will never succeed anyway and this is what let Mitchell down. Mitchell has been in a few tough fights, especially the likes of Johanssen and Prescot, which are excellent wins. HE was just too small and open for Katsidis at the end of the day and fighting Euro level fighters wouldnt have changed that, Katsidis isnt really much above Euro level himself anyway, Mitchell had the skills to beat him he just looked 2 divisions smaller

Floyd Mayweather had weak matchmaking before jumping in with Genaro Hernandez but was fine.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Gradual matchmaking can help a boxer learn, but if he doesn't have the skills/defense/strength he will never succeed anyway and this is what let Mitchell down. Mitchell has been in a few tough fights, especially the likes of Johanssen and Prescot, which are excellent wins. HE was just too small and open for Katsidis at the end of the day and fighting Euro level fighters wouldnt have changed that, Katsidis isnt really much above Euro level himself anyway, Mitchell had the skills to beat him he just looked 2 divisions smaller

Floyd Mayweather had weak matchmaking before jumping in with Genaro Hernandez but was fine.

Yes, but Mayweather is a truly exceptional talent, and had been training and boxing in a hothouse environment from a very young age.

[bigjack]

I think that mitchell is just too easy to hit,and i actually though that prescott would destroy him,however the manner of his victory over prescott made me think that he had a chance against katsidis,.how wrong was i,he was never in the fight and showed that he just isn't big enough or strong enough for lightweight imo

[yiddo14]

Still reading what sounds like excuses for why Mitchell lost.

He lost because he fought a guy he probably had no right to fight. It's a combination of being fed weak opponents, believeing his own hype and just as importantly, not being good enough(Big reason imo)
Always thought he was overrated. Average defence, not a huge puncher and although he is skilled, he isn't slick by any means(Prescott looked awful against Mitchell and that wasn't the clinic some would have you believe)

Having said that, I still didn't think Katsidis would walk through him.

He can come back for sure and forge himself a very good career, but he will always be on the end of the same treatment he got Saturday night if he ventures near world class again.

[Darling]

Look no further then Ricky Burns and John Simpson for evidence of how little that '0' means. MMA fighters don't need it, so why do boxers. Years ago maybe when an 0 was considered a sign that someone was unbeateable- but these days we're a bit wiser- the internet defintely helps. Building an education is far more important then building a record. Mitchell sat atop the biggest unbeaten streak in uk boxing but this isn't premiership football. Its not a level playing field. If you gave me the funds then i'm pretty certain I could get most prospects in the country to 30-0. In addition to this I could probably get them a couple of pentacontinental titles and maybe a WBU interim super duper title shot.

This should be a lesson, but it won't. The way certain promoters make matches isn't going to change on the back of this. A loss to world class katsidis in a packed west ham football ground is far more lucrative then a close points loss to an up for it former european champion at bethnal green. And thats the bottom line.

Great points.

[black panther]

It always goes back to some quote I read from some american guy about fighters in england, something like "In England they don't build good fighter, they build records". It is very true especially for Warren fighters as we all know and can see each time one of them gets exposed when they step up a level, having had it all their own way earlier in their career.

I believe it was the great Eddie Futch who said "In England they don't build fighters, they build records."

[whicker]

Look at the next 100 fight in Brtish rings. Take out the 5 or so that do appear to be decent, competative bouts, and of the rest, guess the winner. The favourite "hometown" fighter will take it 49 times out of 50.