Risk V Reward

[danamba7]

This phrase has been used quite a lot recently as an argument to the best fighting the best without high profiles. I can see both sides of the argument on this, the best fighting the best more often would be great for us but also I understand the risk v reward theory and that boxers deserve to earn as much money as possible in this tough sport. However, something possibly even more damaging is boxing's current obsession with the '0'. Fighters, promoters and even fans want the fighters to be undefeated and often write them off after one loss. If this stopped happening, the risk v reward argument is squashed as losing in a tough, close fight against the other top guy wouldn't be a backwards step.

[Ezzard]

Agree. Tennis players lose loads of games to each other. Nobody brings up defeats when considering how good they were/are. People just concentrate on the successes.

Should be the same with boxing. Losing is a part of the sport. And as a fan the ups and downs are what makes the journey of following a fighter so good.

[danamba7]

Agree. Tennis players lose loads of games to each other. Nobody brings up defeats when considering how good they were/are. People just concentrate on the successes.

Should be the same with boxing. Losing is a part of the sport. And as a fan the ups and downs are what makes the journey of following a fighter so good.

Exactly right

[Yes We Can]

Arguably if somebody like Sergio Martinez hadn't have lost to a Margarito he would never have gotten the chances he did again at world level.

Sometimes being seen as beatable can open as many doors as it will close, only the fighter will hopefully learn from his defeats.

[Datsue]

Agree. Tennis players lose loads of games to each other. Nobody brings up defeats when considering how good they were/are. People just concentrate on the successes.

Should be the same with boxing. Losing is a part of the sport. And as a fan the ups and downs are what makes the journey of following a fighter so good.

Arguably if somebody like Sergio Martinez hadn't have lost to a Margarito he would never have gotten the chances he did again at world level.

Sometimes being seen as beatable can open as many doors as it will close, only the fighter will hopefully learn from his defeats.

Also, as I was pontificating on t'other day, it can literally make some fighters. Even make them great.

I'll say it again as example number 1: Marco Antonio Barrera don't beat Naseem Hamed without losing to Junior Jones twice.

[Yes We Can]

Totally agree Datsue, If only Nas could have rebounded in a similar way.

To be fair, it seems this country is more obsessive about the 0 than others have been lately, apart from Mayweather and Wilder most of the stars based in the States havent got a perfect record, same with Germany, Same with Japan etc.

this is despite the fact that Froch, Khan and Haye (arguably our 3 biggest attractions) have all suffered losses.

[Benelio]

Depends how a fighter loses.

If Andy Murray loses a tennis match, he's not going to be physically damaged when he goes into his next game.

I think there's a limit to how much punishment a fighter can take - and although I have great respect for tennis players (and other sports), there's a BIG difference between a gruelling tennis match, and a gruelling 12 round boxing match.

I agree that there shouldn't be such a stigma on records that have a handful of losses on them, but I wouldn't want to see prospects get smashed around the ring before they've had time to peak.

[Datsue]

Depends how a fighter loses.

If Andy Murray loses a tennis match, he's not going to be physically damaged when he goes into his next game.

I think there's a limit to how much punishment a fighter can take - and although I have great respect for tennis players (and other sports), there's a BIG difference between a gruelling tennis match, and a gruelling 12 round boxing match.

I agree that there shouldn't be such a stigma on records that have a handful of losses on them, but I wouldn't want to see prospects get smashed around the ring before they've had time to peak.

Ain't that the sort of thing that goes without saying though mate?

I mean, the problem is in boxing that no-one fvcking fights anyone worth a toss. The problem is not--in the main, like--that "prospects get smashed around the ring before they've had time to peak". I'm trying to think of one recently--not a fighter exposed as actually not being nearly as good as his team thinks he is, or an underestimation of a dude brought in to get smashed up who upsets the odds but of an actual prospect thrown to the wolves?

Help me out here. I'm genuinely having trouble.

I realise you were only adding it as a proviso, but to me it's a bit like saying "I do enjoy a drink of water" & someone responding with "Don't you realise the terrible dangers of hyponatraemia"?

It just gives the tossers pulling the strings another layer of excuses, imo, to point out the basically obvious like this.

[Datsue]

Got one.

Daniel "Bad Boy" Rosas.

But I think they still kinda match them a little bit differently down Mexico way than they do in the UK. Just a tad, like.

& they still got him a vacant WBO title shot (which he wasn't good enough to win, it turned out) six months later.

EDIT: Also, on paper everyone & their dog thought he'd beat Guerrero, he was a mahooooosive favourite in that fight. So that's pretty much the exact opposite of being thrown to the wolves, thinking about it.

Still can't think of a recent example...

[Crazyboy]

true comments for sure, the only thing i'd add though is that in tennis, as per your example, you play every other week or whatever in different competitions and sometimes 3,4 or 5 matches in a tournament...so you can quickly rebuild and get back on track.

fighters don't fight the other top ten contenders in every competition like tennis players do

[Benelio]

I mean, the problem is in boxing that no-one fvcking fights anyone worth a toss. The problem is not--in the main, like--that "prospects get smashed around the ring before they've had time to peak". I'm trying to think of one recently--not a fighter exposed as actually not being nearly as good as his team thinks he is, or an underestimation of a dude brought in to get smashed up who upsets the odds but of an actual prospect thrown to the wolves?

Help me out here. I'm genuinely having trouble.

I realise you were only adding it as a proviso, but to me it's a bit like saying "I do enjoy a drink of water" & someone responding with "Don't you realise the terrible dangers of hyponatraemia"?

It just gives the tossers pulling the strings another layer of excuses, imo, to point out the basically obvious like this.

Yeah. I know what you mean. To some degree I'm playing devil's advocate here - as I get frustrated just as anyone else with Prospect Vs TBA , and a dull 6 rounds of 40 year old bloated Latvian Larry covering up, waddling around the ring barely throwing a shot.

Off the top of my head ... fighters that recently took a risk, a bit of a beating (though not too bad), and have now potentially had their careers hampered are:

Frank Buglioni (needed a step up, but definitely too big a step up - and took a decent amount of punishment)
David Price (more the 2nd fight - physically and psychologically damaging)

On the flip side - fighters that took a massive step up, didn't take any real punishment and/or enhanced their rep:

Lomachenko (even 1st attempt at title - though possibly would have won it if he'd had a few more fights first)
Martin Murray ( did much better than expected against Sturm, and again against Martinez, despite little prior top level experience)
Frampton - fought Molitor in 14th fight, then Martinez - few easier fights after, but now champ.

.... and the list is probably a lot bigger. But I guess most promoters are just a bit risk averse.

[danamba7]

true comments for sure, the only thing i'd add though is that in tennis, as per your example, you play every other week or whatever in different competitions and sometimes 3,4 or 5 matches in a tournament...so you can quickly rebuild and get back on track.

fighters don't fight the other top ten contenders in every competition like tennis players do

Good points.

I think British boxing needs more prospect fights like Ryder V BJS. It will only benefit our already high standard scene (my opinion), and better prepare our lads for world level fights.

[Ezzard]

Also, as I was pontificating on t'other day, it can literally make some fighters. Even make them great.

I'll say it again as example number 1: Marco Antonio Barrera don't beat Naseem Hamed without losing to Junior Jones twice.

Spot on about MAB.

Come on gents.

I don't want prospects being smashed up. But I don't want to see journeymen smashed up either. I accept the first 10 fights for a prospect will be of a certain level. But we want as many 50-50 fights, or as near to it, as we can get.

If a boxer gets blown mentally by a defeat then that's something that was always there. I think a 4 rounds point loss very early on can make a fighter...or even just a scare...can put them on the right track.

I can't wait to see Frankie Gavin back in the ring. He lost a very close fight. He will be a far better fighter and man for that experience.

I also love following David Price's rehabilitation. Will he get his shot at the title one day? I love the technical aspects of the sport but it's the drama that really matters.

Chisora comes back from defeat and seems to improve. Froch has rebuilt himself. I hope Groves can too.

[Boxing Prospect]

Japan is the perfect country to show how risk reward should work. Look at Inoue (either of them), Kosei Tanaka, Yaegashi, Ioka, and going back a little bit Tatsuyoshi, Ohashi and Gushiken, all of who took on stiff foes early on and were able to swim.

I keep hearing that a prospect can be given 10 easy bouts, why 10? How long does it take a good prospect to transition? Rigondeaux, Usyk and Lomachenko may be freaks who were amazing amateurs but Inoue and Tanaka weren't, the Chudinov brothers (as limited as they are) weren't, Shumenov wasn't a dominant amateur either.

Again going back to Japan. They have a licensing system where their licenses equate to what sort of opponent they can fight. If you're a "C" class fighter you can only box other C's in 4 (or the occasional 5) round bouts. No risk but these guys are complete novices (see Ben Watanabe as an example).
A fighter with a "B" license can fight in 6 rounders and typically competes in 6 rounders with other similarly matched opponents (see Yusaku Kuga prior to his 8 round bouts)
An "A" license allows you in 8 rounders or above, title fights and tends to act as a guidance for "this fighter has proven themselves".

Although Japan still has a lot of mismatches many of them come from sub-par foreign fighters from Thailand or Indonesian who are often banned from fighting in Japan due to a lack of skills or a tame effort.


*Note I'm not talking about fringe prospects with ABA titles but real, outstanding talents who have proven world class amateur ability.

[CheckHook]

Risk vs Reward is an important part of the business side of boxing and is often the reason good fights don't get made anymore. I completely understand why fighters don't take risks and why its obvious that certain fights cant happen. Unfortunately there's not enough incentive for good fighters to step in the ring against each other anymore. There's enough promoters, alphabet world titles, weight classes and hype surrounding every decent fighter that he can make millions without pushing himself.... I like to think that eventually things will come to a head and the incentive will be there, but it doesn't look like its going to happen anytime soon. Promoters and TV networks are great at selling their brand and as long as that continues, knowledgeable boxing fans are always going to be frustrated that the best fights don't get made, while the average guy will be happy to buy into the hype and enjoy the show.

[danamba7]

Risk vs Reward is an important part of the business side of boxing and is often the reason good fights don't get made anymore. I completely understand why fighters don't take risks and why its obvious that certain fights cant happen. Unfortunately there's not enough incentive for good fighters to step in the ring against each other anymore. There's enough promoters, alphabet world titles, weight classes and hype surrounding every decent fighter that he can make millions without pushing himself.... I like to think that eventually things will come to a head and the incentive will be there, but it doesn't look like its going to happen anytime soon. Promoters and TV networks are great at selling their brand and as long as that continues, knowledgeable boxing fans are always going to be frustrated that the best fights don't get made, while the average guy will be happy to buy into the hype and enjoy the show.

This is a big part of the problem.

[Datsue]

Risk vs Reward is an important part of the business side of boxing and is often the reason good fights don't get made anymore. I completely understand why fighters don't take risks and why its obvious that certain fights cant happen. Unfortunately there's not enough incentive for good fighters to step in the ring against each other anymore. There's enough promoters, alphabet world titles, weight classes and hype surrounding every decent fighter that he can make millions without pushing himself.... I like to think that eventually things will come to a head and the incentive will be there, but it doesn't look like its going to happen anytime soon. Promoters and TV networks are great at selling their brand and as long as that continues, knowledgeable boxing fans are always going to be frustrated that the best fights don't get made, while the average guy will be happy to buy into the hype and enjoy the show.

This is a big part of the problem.

Which is why anyone who can defend multiple titles in any way (outside of a fighter himself doing it, which I don't think I've heard many fighters go "Yeah, three WBA titles per division minimum, fooking great!") is probably a pudendum, because they're more interested in the pocket-lining aspect than the fighting.

I mean, I wouldn't mind if those doing the defending of the shower of shite went "It makes me more money, fvck off" but they never have the balls to do that. They just lie & lie & lie.

NB: They'd still be a pudendum, like. But they'd be an honest pudendum.

[Datsue]

I'm with Ezzard, BTW. The "ooh ooh but we must nurture our prospects" line is 99% of the time bullshit.

Gavin will be better for facing a stiff test, Price wouldn't be a better fighter if they'd manoeuvred him to contention w/o getting clocked, he'd just have made his promoter a lot more dosh & got clocked anyway, & we'd be the pudenda paying for it.

I think there's a division between "ooh he's been ruined" as a promoter's boy sorta thing & "Ooh he's been ruined" healthwise & boxing-wise.

& I insist on making that distinction because I'm one of the schmucks expected to pay for it all.

[CheckHook]

Which is why anyone who can defend multiple titles in any way (outside of a fighter himself doing it, which I don't think I've heard many fighters go "Yeah, three WBA titles per division minimum, fooking great!") is probably a pudendum, because they're more interested in the pocket-lining aspect than the fighting.

I mean, I wouldn't mind if those doing the defending of the shower of shite went "It makes me more money, fvck off" but they never have the balls to do that. They just lie & lie & lie.

NB: They'd still be a pudendum, like. But they'd be an honest pudendum.

Agreed.

I think the biggest problem is that there's so many ways to slice the financial pie right now that its really easy for the money men at the top of the sport to make a safe living for themselves and their fighters. When you have 4 'major' world titles per weight class then a bunch of interim, diamond, super and god knows that else titles to go after its very easy to sell a fighter who already has a fan base as something special. He really doesn't need to chase the best, just find someone who can help sell tickets and a story to casual fans.

[SAPFO]

A big network needs to get another Super 6/8 going in a few weight divs. Nobody gave a fornicate when Froch lost to Kessler. It was a cracker, and that was all that mattered.

[Broomhall]

Go youtube and listen to Meldrick Taylor talking. Then talk about risk V reward. If you can think of a great fighter the likelehood is that they died of or have some form of brain injury.

When top fighters go at it they take it out of each other big style. It would be interesting to see how long someone can remain fighting in the WSB for example where generally the best will always be fighting the best.

With all respect to Andy Murray this aint knocking a tennis ball to each other.....

[lillywhite14]

Go youtube and listen to Meldrick Taylor talking. Then talk about risk V reward. If you can think of a great fighter the likelehood is that they died of or have some form of brain injury.

When top fighters go at it they take it out of each other big style. It would be interesting to see how long someone can remain fighting in the WSB for example where generally the best will always be fighting the best.

With all respect to Andy Murray this aint knocking a tennis ball to each other.....

The tennis comparison is nice but Murray could play Federer 10 times a year. That's why a loss here and there don't matter a shite. Imagine what it would do the health of elite fighters facing each other this often!
After Andy Murrays first five losses as a pro, was he written off? Te sports cannot be compared. Boxing is unique in that respect.

[digzee]

Japan is the perfect country to show how risk reward should work. Look at Inoue (either of them), Kosei Tanaka, Yaegashi, Ioka, and going back a little bit Tatsuyoshi, Ohashi and Gushiken, all of who took on stiff foes early on and were able to swim.

I keep hearing that a prospect can be given 10 easy bouts, why 10? How long does it take a good prospect to transition? Rigondeaux, Usyk and Lomachenko may be freaks who were amazing amateurs but Inoue and Tanaka weren't, the Chudinov brothers (as limited as they are) weren't, Shumenov wasn't a dominant amateur either.

Again going back to Japan. They have a licensing system where their licenses equate to what sort of opponent they can fight. If you're a "C" class fighter you can only box other C's in 4 (or the occasional 5) round bouts. No risk but these guys are complete novices (see Ben Watanabe as an example).
A fighter with a "B" license can fight in 6 rounders and typically competes in 6 rounders with other similarly matched opponents (see Yusaku Kuga prior to his 8 round bouts)
An "A" license allows you in 8 rounders or above, title fights and tends to act as a guidance for "this fighter has proven themselves".

Although Japan still has a lot of mismatches many of them come from sub-par foreign fighters from Thailand or Indonesian who are often banned from fighting in Japan due to a lack of skills or a tame effort.


*Note I'm not talking about fringe prospects with ABA titles but real, outstanding talents who have proven world class amateur ability.

The problem here is that most are not good enough to get to the top so they get manoeuvred in the easiest possible way to get there, didn't Joe Gallagher reject Handy Lundy for Crolla? That would have been a great fight but i'm guessing they weren't confident of winning so they will wait for an easier fight that will open up a title fight, if that is right its embarrassing for Crolla and his team. Rose was the same, he took on 1 fringe world class guy then got embarrassed when he had his chance.
I don't blame the fighters its the promoters and trainers trying to make as much money out of the fighter as they can get.

[lefty]

Japan is the perfect country to show how risk reward should work. Look at Inoue (either of them), Kosei Tanaka, Yaegashi, Ioka, and going back a little bit Tatsuyoshi, Ohashi and Gushiken, all of who took on stiff foes early on and were able to swim.

I keep hearing that a prospect can be given 10 easy bouts, why 10? How long does it take a good prospect to transition? Rigondeaux, Usyk and Lomachenko may be freaks who were amazing amateurs but Inoue and Tanaka weren't, the Chudinov brothers (as limited as they are) weren't, Shumenov wasn't a dominant amateur either.

Again going back to Japan. They have a licensing system where their licenses equate to what sort of opponent they can fight. If you're a "C" class fighter you can only box other C's in 4 (or the occasional 5) round bouts. No risk but these guys are complete novices (see Ben Watanabe as an example).
A fighter with a "B" license can fight in 6 rounders and typically competes in 6 rounders with other similarly matched opponents (see Yusaku Kuga prior to his 8 round bouts)
An "A" license allows you in 8 rounders or above, title fights and tends to act as a guidance for "this fighter has proven themselves".

Although Japan still has a lot of mismatches many of them come from sub-par foreign fighters from Thailand or Indonesian who are often banned from fighting in Japan due to a lack of skills or a tame effort.


*Note I'm not talking about fringe prospects with ABA titles but real, outstanding talents who have proven world class amateur ability.

How does the japanese commission determine if a fighter is worthy of a C,B,A .... license, etc? How does it work? I like that set up by the way

[Boxing Prospect]

How does the japanese commission determine if a fighter is worthy of a C,B,A .... license, etc? How does it work? I like that set up by the way

You have to pass a written test to show you understand boxing (I've not seen one of the tests though I would assume it's basic theory and a general understand of the rules) AND a public sparring. If you look around on youtube you can find some of these sparring sessions for example Naoya Inoue sparred with Masayuki Kuroda (and really gave Kuroda a going over).

You can, of course, go up the classes by proving yourself and then taking the tests. No one is locked in at a C license.

Fighters tend to go in at a C if they are a novice, no notable amateur success etc. If you have some pro experience OR were a good amateur, Japanese amateur champion for example, you're likely to go for a B class.

For the British fighters you'd have thought Joshua, Campbell, DeGale, Groves would have all began in B class, 6 rounders. They'd not have competed in the B license tournaments but they'd have been competing against that level for 4 or 5 fights then moved towards a national or OPBF (Oriental) title fight.

Another rule the JBC have is that you need to graduate for a world title fight. If you haven't won the Japanese or OPBF title you can't usually fight for a world title in Japan (barring a few exceptions).