Battle of The Worst!

[stevekrazy]

http://boxrec.com/en/event/765450/2240095

Today, the two least globally rated Super Lightweights square off, seems like an interesting match-up to say the least, LOL

[chinarich]

http://boxrec.com/en/event/765450/2240095

Today, the two least globally rated Super Lightweights square off, seems like an interesting match-up to say the least, LOL

Laight wins this, he’s a genuine journeyman and far better than his record suggests...

[oogiebe]

That's hysterical! Could be a good fight! And I mean fight.

[Lackeos]

This almost seems like some sort of error in the result-reporting system. Two guys, over 100 losses each, virtually no KO defeats between them, virtually no KO victories between them. The stone bottom two ranks in their division, and they end-up fighting each other. And the result is a draw. Honestly, this sounds more like a glitch in the Matrix than reality.

On a related note, Ryan Watson has an interesting record. Only 3 fights. He has a win over 10-192-4 Jason Nesbitt, a loss against 13-102-3 Youssef Al Hamidi, and a win over 12-256-8 Kristian Laight. Another interesting one is Sean Crowley. Only 2 fights, a win over 3-56-2 Qasim Hussain, and a loss to 11-228-7 Kristian Laight. Also, 7-56-2 Ali Wyatt has a win over currently 0-73-2 Bheki Moyo.

How about this. Youssef Al Hamidi (14-118-4) beat Johnny Greaves (4-96) who beat Dan Carr (3-85-2) who beat Craig Dyer (0-18).

[jamamb]

wheres the line btwn these guys and guys who take dives

[punchoutsb]

wheres the line btwn these guys and guys who take dives

Taking a dive means you are specifically asked/told to lose in exchange for money and you accept.

You don't need to try to win to be a professional boxer. It isn't again the rules or the law to not try to win, or to be bad or unskilled. In fact, being a professional "loser" can be quite lucrative over time. Think about it, 200 fights at just $500 per fight is $100,000 over the career. No need to train, pay for sparring etc etc etc. Granted you won't be getting $500 each fight (I got $50 for my one and only pro fight :lol) but still you get the picture.

[jamamb]

but in effect why is a guy diving considered so terrible but a guy going in there to lose isnt. its not simply not trying much, these guys know there supposed to lose and go in there to do just that

[punchoutsb]

but in effect why is a guy diving considered so terrible but a guy going in there to lose isnt. its not simply not trying much, these guys know there supposed to lose and go in there to do just that

Why is it illegal to pay for sex but buying a lady dinner and jewelry and then having sex is ok? Basically it comes down to why are you accepting the money; if I pay you to lose to me that's wrong because it removes any element of doubt. If I choose you because I know I can beat you, that's a smart career move.

[jamamb]

but journeyman go in intentionally to lose a lot of the time, there career relies on it.

lets say if a journeyman says 'ya you know i had to let him get that win, so i didnt move my hands, otherwise id stop getting work as a journeyman' is that much more acceptable then a fighter diving for a loss?

[oogiebe]

but journeyman go in intentionally to lose a lot of the time, there career relies on it.

lets say if a journeyman says 'ya you know i had to let him get that win, so i didnt move my hands, otherwise id stop getting work as a journeyman' is that much more acceptable then a fighter diving for a loss?

The crime's the same; the intent is very different. Sorry...it's been an interesting exchange.

[punchoutsb]

In my opinion, yes it is much more acceptable. You can make your own decisions (I won't try to win), but being coerced (accepting money to lose) is not ethical. That's why one is illegal and the other is not.

[jamamb]

btw its not illegal in all places to pay for sex. whats legal or not legal comes down mainly to a group of politicans making decisions, its highly questionable to assume they determine true right from wrong. there have been horrific laws that permitted horrible acts and banned harmless ones

[punchoutsb]

I never said all laws differentiate right from wrong. I was simply using prostitution as an example.

[jamamb]

but journeyman go in intentionally to lose a lot of the time, there career relies on it.

lets say if a journeyman says 'ya you know i had to let him get that win, so i didnt move my hands, otherwise id stop getting work as a journeyman' is that much more acceptable then a fighter diving for a loss?

The crime's the same; the intent is very different. Sorry...it's been an interesting exchange.

the intent in both cases is losing for greater financial return. both go in intending to lose and act accordingly

btw, i dont just mean dive as in fixed fight, dive can also be just taking a ten count after a bunch of shots to gloves

[punchoutsb]

but journeyman go in intentionally to lose a lot of the time, there career relies on it.

lets say if a journeyman says 'ya you know i had to let him get that win, so i didnt move my hands, otherwise id stop getting work as a journeyman' is that much more acceptable then a fighter diving for a loss?

The crime's the same; the intent is very different. Sorry...it's been an interesting exchange.

the intent in both cases is losing for greater financial return. both go in intending to lose and act accordingly

btw, i dont just mean dive as in fixed fight, dive can also be just taking a ten count after a bunch of shots to gloves

Greater financial return indicates greater than baseline, correct? Greater financial return in this case only comes if you accept extra money on top in exchange for a promise that you will lose. Otherwise your paycheck is your paycheck. That is the difference.

[oogiebe]

but journeyman go in intentionally to lose a lot of the time, there career relies on it.

lets say if a journeyman says 'ya you know i had to let him get that win, so i didnt move my hands, otherwise id stop getting work as a journeyman' is that much more acceptable then a fighter diving for a loss?

The crime's the same; the intent is very different. Sorry...it's been an interesting exchange.

the intent in both cases is losing for greater financial return. both go in intending to lose and act accordingly

btw, i dont just mean dive as in fixed fight, dive can also be just taking a ten count after a bunch of shots to gloves

Taking the punches and then the count is least egregious of all the above. The journeyman eking out a living is a symptom of the state of boxing in general, and not the disease.

[jamamb]

a journeyman who loses reliably enough can expect greater earnings then if hes deemed to risky. they can calculate that they will earn much more from boxing if they intentionally lose nearly all there bouts

also i dont see that moral imbalances must be present even if there are subtle variations in the financials, ppl often do this mistake, getting caught simply suggesting differences that really in no way make one far worse or better

its not simply a 'spot the difference!' magazine game

[oogiebe]

a journeyman who loses reliably enough can expect greater earnings then if hes deemed to risky. they can calculate that they will earn much more from boxing if they intentionally lose nearly all there bouts

also i dont see that moral imbalances must be present even if there are subtle variations in the financials, ppl often do this mistake, getting caught simply suggesting differences that really in no way make one far worse or better

its not simply a 'spot the difference!' magazine game

So, your point then is that they are all equally guilty of the same crime, yes?

[jamamb]

i just question such a big difference in treatment

[oogiebe]

i just question such a big difference in treatment

I can see that being frustrating. I was guilty myself of looking at them very differently. What's your view? How should they be dealt with?

[HyacinthusTurnipseed]

Is there anyone in semi-recent boxing history with a worse record than Al Hamidi but with one win against a former or future world champion? Nobody springs to mind for me at least.

[gilgamesh]

Is there anyone in semi-recent boxing history with a worse record than Al Hamidi but with one win against a former or future world champion? Nobody springs to mind for me at least.

Not a worse record, but a pretty sh*tty one is Dave Jaco, and he has a win over Razor Ruddock.

But yeah that win for Al Hamidi over Crolla is surprising.

[keirw]

Journeymen have a very fine line within which to operate.

If they beat a prospect they could find themselves being avioded by promoters.

If they get stopped they have a four weeks suspension in which they can't fight.

They are usually expected to give prospects a decent workout, but if they are awkward and make the prospect look bad, again, they could be avoided.

The best thing to do would be for the powers that be to make it compulsory to have a win bonus for journeymen, that way it will be worth the risk for them to really give it a go.

Sure, we will see the less capable prospects pick up the odd L early in their careers, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

It would also make for more interesting fights lower down on cards and if the prospects win, they would have earned it.

[BitPlayer]

There are tons of guys way worse than these ones.

Laight can actuallly box, not sure about the other, I'd say he probably can too.

Check out Dmitrijs Avsejenkovs if you want to see how bad it can get.

[Yes We Can]

There are tons of guys way worse than these ones.

Laight can actuallly box, not sure about the other, I'd say he probably can too.

Check out Dmitrijs Avsejenkovs if you want to see how bad it can get.

Both can box to a decent standard. Often some of these guys are more talented than some of the ticket sellers in the UK...just they ain't worth a dime.

There's a few good journeymen out there, who do come to fight. Warburton in the UK is often good value, there's a decent polish heavy who will give a good go fighting out the UK. Johnny greaves would often be fun.

Who can forget the goat, Augustus.