BoxRec

"Proven" and athletic excellence cannot be separated.

You demonstrate the latter by being the former.

There are fighters out there right now who have yet to take on one fighter considered elite, yet are being hyped.

Some will be proven worthy of the praise. Others will be exposed.

But, no fighter can truly be called great without at least one victory over another great fighter, IMO.

Have a good night![/quote]

you dont understand, on top you are so narrow minded[/quote]

I understand perfectly! Like I said, once you get a little general knowledge about physical abilities, sports, genetics, etc then you'll get it [/quote]

______________________________________

"I understand perfectly", good joke

koolkc107 wrote:"Proven" and athletic excellence cannot be separated.

You demonstrate the latter by being the former.

There are fighters out there right now who have yet to take on one fighter considered elite, yet are being hyped.

Some will be proven worthy of the praise. Others will be exposed.

But, no fighter can truly be called great without at least one victory over another great fighter, IMO.

why that?

so a gorilla aint strong, when he aint had his first fight yet?

so an 86 tyson aint great, because he aint beat a big name already, although he looks tremendous and his skills are > anybody at that time.

coome on guys, you all non experts make absolutly no sense with that proven crap.

because down the line, being proven brings you absolutly nothing when the guy infront of you is simply better, even so he has a less remarkable record than you.

Chepppaaa wrote:

koolkc107 wrote:"Proven" and athletic excellence cannot be separated.

You demonstrate the latter by being the former.

There are fighters out there right now who have yet to take on one fighter considered elite, yet are being hyped.

Some will be proven worthy of the praise. Others will be exposed.

But, no fighter can truly be called great without at least one victory over another great fighter, IMO.

why that?

so a gorilla aint strong, when he aint had his first fight yet?

so an 86 tyson aint great, because he aint beat a big name already, although he looks tremendous and his skills are > anybody at that time.

coome on guys, you all non experts make absolutly no sense with that proven crap.

because down the line, being proven brings you absolutly nothing when the guy infront of you is simply better, even so he has a less remarkable record than you.

Of course a gorilla is strong. But put him up against the alpha male gorilla, the one with multiple successful defenses of his position, and your strong gorilla will end up crapping on himself.

You can't be alpha without beating other alphas.

Tyson did that. He beat future HOFers, at least one of them in his prime.

Every truly great fighter proves it against another great fighter.

Without that rite of passage, it is fair to question and debate how good a fighter really is, to find a fighter wanting.

koolkc107 wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

koolkc107 wrote:"Proven" and athletic excellence cannot be separated.

You demonstrate the latter by being the former.

There are fighters out there right now who have yet to take on one fighter considered elite, yet are being hyped.

Some will be proven worthy of the praise. Others will be exposed.

But, no fighter can truly be called great without at least one victory over another great fighter, IMO.

why that?

so a gorilla aint strong, when he aint had his first fight yet?

so an 86 tyson aint great, because he aint beat a big name already, although he looks tremendous and his skills are > anybody at that time.

coome on guys, you all non experts make absolutly no sense with that proven crap.

because down the line, being proven brings you absolutly nothing when the guy infront of you is simply better, even so he has a less remarkable record than you.

Of course a gorilla is strong. But put him up against the alpha male gorilla, the one with multiple successful defenses of his position, and your strong gorilla will end up crapping on himself.

You can't be alpha without beating other alphas.

Tyson did that. He beat future HOFers, at least one of them in his prime.

Every truly great fighter proves it against another great fighter.

Without that rite of passage, it is fair to question and debate how good a fighter really is, to find a fighter wanting.

tyson was at his best when he beat 0 big name. and than he was still prime beating big names like spinks, but that doesnt take away the fact that he was great even before.


look, i dont say "being proven" aint bad, cause sure, it is great for your career when you beat big time names, but all i wanna say is, as much as it is important to beat big names, it is important to have the skills or genetics.

i just feel that boxers with big recrods get way to much credit and guys with ultra skills do not.

because the big records with 100 + fights, most of the fights are against totaly bad opposition, but yet stilll those guys land on p4p top 10 atg lists, just because of those big time records. and i guy with ultra skills, but less big record like jones are nowhere to be found around a top 10 atg, even so they would beat anybody on that list prime vs prime, pound for pound!

Chepppaaa wrote:
"I understand perfectly", good joke

The best jokes are your threads! Keep them coming

Chepppaaa wrote: .


look, i dont say "being proven" aint bad, cause sure, it is great for your career when you beat big time names, but all i wanna say is, as much as it is important to beat big names, it is important to have the skills or genetics.

"Proven" automatically implies exceptional skill.

A skill in the sweet science that makes that fighter great and extraordinary.

If genetics was all that was needed, then every muscled guy that ever stepped in the ring would be victorious.

But, muscle alone never determines who wins a boxing match. Not even when greats square off.

Tito Trinidad could be said to be a genetically superior human being, gifted with extra-normal power.

But, he wound up flat on his ass against a superior technician, BHop.

Manny Pacquiao is an athletic freakshow.

Got cold-cocked by JMM tho.

And on and on.

Science matters first in boxing. Not brawn, brain.

koolkc107 wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote: .


look, i dont say "being proven" aint bad, cause sure, it is great for your career when you beat big time names, but all i wanna say is, as much as it is important to beat big names, it is important to have the skills or genetics.

"Proven" automatically implies exceptional skill.

A skill in the sweet science that makes that fighter great and extraordinary.

If genetics was all that was needed, then every muscled guy that ever stepped in the ring would be victorious.

But, muscle alone never determines who wins a boxing match. Not even when greats square off.

Tito Trinidad could be said to be a genetically superior human being, gifted with extra-normal power.

But, he wound up flat on his ass against a superior technician, BHop.

Manny Pacquiao is an athletic freakshow.

Got cold-cocked by JMM tho.

And on and on.

Science matters first in boxing. Not brawn, brain.

i totaly disagree....

skills = technic

genetics = athletic body/strength/speed/ power etc.

basicly always the boxer wins not with the better record, but with the better skills or better genetics or both.


tito was a 147/154 boxer and fought a taller, bigger more powerful and on top technicly better boxer and thats why he lost. so, hopkins had skills over him and as a middleweight he was stronger and bigger than the natural 147 tito.

pacquiao is an athletic freak show (thats why he beat so many top opponents with better records than him like barrera or morales) and has genetics over marquez's genetics. as far as skills marquez more sound and superior than him, thats why the fight between them were close. although marquez himself is physicly gifted, very strong shoulders, good athletiscm. yet, pac was winning on points and was beating marquez and than got KO'd by a lucky punch, that can happen to anybody.

Chepppaaa wrote:

koolkc107 wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote: .


look, i dont say "being proven" aint bad, cause sure, it is great for your career when you beat big time names, but all i wanna say is, as much as it is important to beat big names, it is important to have the skills or genetics.

"Proven" automatically implies exceptional skill.

A skill in the sweet science that makes that fighter great and extraordinary.

If genetics was all that was needed, then every muscled guy that ever stepped in the ring would be victorious.

But, muscle alone never determines who wins a boxing match. Not even when greats square off.

Tito Trinidad could be said to be a genetically superior human being, gifted with extra-normal power.

But, he wound up flat on his ass against a superior technician, BHop.

Manny Pacquiao is an athletic freakshow.

Got cold-cocked by JMM tho.

And on and on.

Science matters first in boxing. Not brawn, brain.

i totaly disagree....

skills = technic

genetics = athletic body/strength/speed/ power etc.

basicly always the boxer wins not with the better record, but with the better skills or better genetics or both.


tito was a 147/154 boxer and fought a taller, bigger more powerful and on top technicly better boxer and thats why he lost. so, hopkins had skills over him and as a middleweight he was stronger and bigger than the natural 147 tito.

pacquiao is an athletic freak show (thats why he beat so many top opponents with better records than him like barrera or morales) and has genetics over marquez's genetics. as far as skills marquez more sound and superior than him, thats why the fight between them were close. although marquez himself is physicly gifted, very strong shoulders, good athletiscm. yet, pac was winning on points and was beating marquez and than got KO'd by a lucky punch, that can happen to anybody.

Who said anything about a better record?

Stop conflating what folks are saying to you.

Proven fighters are fighters who beat other elite fighters.

And when elite fighters meet, it is usually the one best at imposing his skill over the other that wins, regardless of genetics.

Tito was a legit middleweight when he fought BHop. He was considered the physically superior opponent. And was a 2 to 1 favorite to win.

Skill, and skill alone, beat Trinidad.

Manny was always considered the better athlete to JMM...yet you hear many make good arguments about Juan winning all 4 fights.

Me? I think JMM is, in truth 2-1-1 against Pac.

And he overcame Pac's power and better athleticism with a superior skill.

Nothing about JMM's KO was lucky. There is youtube video of him practicing the very same punch weeks before the fight, flooring his sparring partner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgmtZOCNUOI

@ koolkc107


you dont know what you're talking about.

skill alone beat tito, nonsense, x was much bigger and stronger than tito that night. he was physicly superior. a natural tall big middleweight. skill and x being stronger beat tito.

did you even watch the x-tito fight , i have a feeling no, otherwise you would know how big and also athletic x was in that fight and physicly tito had nothing on x.



you talk about 1 example with marquez, i will list you 10 examples where pac beat the guy infront of him, because he was athleticly superior: barrera, morales, oscar, mosley, cotto, margarito, clottey, hatton, rios, algieri.

Chepppaaa wrote:

Datsue wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:when in reality all what matters is that your skills are better than the skills of the man infront of you, regardless of record and what happened in the past.

i dont want to take to much out of it, out of the fact, that sure he it great when you accomplished a lot against all different type of opponents, but down the line,

i just cannot understand why overall people do not recognise the greatnes of certain individuals just because they dont have a big time record like an bernard hopkins, so called proven.

forgetting the fact, that maybe it is because they are so good and therefore do not get the big match ups, because promoters know their top dog would lose against the guy.

Because consensus reality is a better way to make judgements than fantasy, & boxing's filled with so much bullshit & hyperbole that a lot of people immediately tend to the cynical when being told about things second/third/fourth-hand?

skills and athletic ability is no fantasy. its real.

It is, but there are also less definiable characteristics, such as mental toughness, durability, and will to win.

It's not skills alone that win fights. Carl Froch, though perhaps a little underrated skills wise, has beaten guys who on paper had better skills than him, because he was just tougher and his desire to win was too great for them to overcome. A big part of that is that he had been tried and tested long before he got in the ring with them.

It's a pretty great question. To me, to be "PROVEN" is a culmination of everything you guys are posting above. You could be "proven" by beating a few elite fighters. You could also be "proven" by gutting out a tough fight for the first time against an unproven boxer who's not elite. You could become "proven" by fighting a battle against yourself, like coming back from a devastating injury or defying odds stacked against certain boxers that still find success through it all. Sometimes, a boxer can become "proven" during a loss by showing tremendous heart and toughness.

I think that there are a bunch of ways a boxer can get to "proven" status and most ways involve the boxer getting over some sort of hump or milestone. With any great fighter, you can pinpoint where in that boxers career he became proven. Most great boxers have multiple instances where they became "proven".

caldo2025 wrote:It's a pretty great question. To me, to be "PROVEN" is a culmination of everything you guys are posting above. You could be "proven" by beating a few elite fighters. You could also be "proven" by gutting out a tough fight for the first time against an unproven boxer who's not elite. You could become "proven" by fighting a battle against yourself, like coming back from a devastating injury or defying odds stacked against certain boxers that still find success through it all. Sometimes, a boxer can become "proven" during a loss by showing tremendous heart and toughness.

I think that there are a bunch of ways a boxer can get to "proven" status and most ways involve the boxer getting over some sort of hump or milestone. With any great fighter, you can pinpoint where in that boxers career he became proven. Most great boxers have multiple instances where they became "proven".

finaly someone who makes sense

Amir Mansour, Seth Mitchell, David Price, Lucian Bute, Dmitry Pirog, Jeff Lacy, Alfredo Angulo, James Kirkland, Andre Berto, Brandon Rios, Adrian Broner

These fighters all had hype that vastly exceeded their in-ring accomplishments. These are a few examples of what happens when you put insufficient weight into being proven.

Amir Mansour, David Price, and Seth Mitchell were all claimed to be the future of the heavyweight division by some.
In 2011, some were saying Lucian Bute was the true #1 SMW, ahead of Ward and Froch. Based on what? Some wins over some gatekeepers maybe, I dunno.
People were saying that Dmitry Pirog was the true #1 middleweight and forced into retirement because he was so good that no one would fight him. No boxer has ever been forced into retirement because he was too good. Pirog managed to go an entire boxing career with a win over pre-prime Danny Jacobs as his only accomplishment.
In 2010, Andre Berto was supposedly this actual champion. Rated roughly #5 on boxrec at the time, but some were claiming that he may be the actual #3 welterweight behind only Mayweather and Pacquiao. A champion doesn't lose to Jesus Soto Karass, as evidenced by the fact that Karass has never possessed a world title.
Alfredo Angulo, James Kirkland, and Brandon Rios were all hyped as killers. Like actual Mike Tysons. Like Clubber Lang in Rocky 3, actual killers. I'm pretty sure Diamond Weapon was hyping all three of them. The verdict: three clowns.

Lackeos wrote:Amir Mansour, Seth Mitchell, David Price, Lucian Bute, Dmitry Pirog, Jeff Lacy, Alfredo Angulo, James Kirkland, Andre Berto, Brandon Rios, Adrian Broner

These fighters all had hype that vastly exceeded their in-ring accomplishments. These are a few examples of what happens when you put insufficient weight into being proven.

Amir Mansour, David Price, and Seth Mitchell were all claimed to be the future of the heavyweight division by some.
In 2011, some were saying Lucian Bute was the true #1 SMW, ahead of Ward and Froch. Based on what? Some wins over some gatekeepers maybe, I dunno.
People were saying that Dmitry Pirog was the true #1 middleweight and forced into retirement because he was so good that no one would fight him. No boxer has ever been forced into retirement because he was too good. Pirog managed to go an entire boxing career with a win over pre-prime Danny Jacobs as his only accomplishment.
In 2010, Andre Berto was supposedly this actual champion. Rated roughly #5 on boxrec at the time, but some were claiming that he may be the actual #3 welterweight behind only Mayweather and Pacquiao. A champion doesn't lose to Jesus Soto Karass, as evidenced by the fact that Karass has never possessed a world title.
Alfredo Angulo, James Kirkland, and Brandon Rios were all hyped as killers. Like actual Mike Tysons. Like Clubber Lang in Rocky 3, actual killers. I'm pretty sure Diamond Weapon was hyping all three of them. The verdict: three clowns.

dude, all your examples are crap, except maybe broner or bute, maybe lacy.....!!!! everybody else is totaly unathletic and were hyped for no reason. maybe hyped as a good solid b+ boxer, but none as a future a level boxer and if so, than by non experts like you.

mansour, seth, david.....c level
angulo and kirkland, solid strong guys with limits....b level
chubby rios.....z athleticly, b- overall

broner was very good and he shouldve stayed at lower weight, had he trained hard and stay at small weights he wouldve become a good boxer.

Chepppaaa wrote:

Lackeos wrote:Amir Mansour, Seth Mitchell, David Price, Lucian Bute, Dmitry Pirog, Jeff Lacy, Alfredo Angulo, James Kirkland, Andre Berto, Brandon Rios, Adrian Broner

These fighters all had hype that vastly exceeded their in-ring accomplishments. These are a few examples of what happens when you put insufficient weight into being proven.

Amir Mansour, David Price, and Seth Mitchell were all claimed to be the future of the heavyweight division by some.
In 2011, some were saying Lucian Bute was the true #1 SMW, ahead of Ward and Froch. Based on what? Some wins over some gatekeepers maybe, I dunno.
People were saying that Dmitry Pirog was the true #1 middleweight and forced into retirement because he was so good that no one would fight him. No boxer has ever been forced into retirement because he was too good. Pirog managed to go an entire boxing career with a win over pre-prime Danny Jacobs as his only accomplishment.
In 2010, Andre Berto was supposedly this actual champion. Rated roughly #5 on boxrec at the time, but some were claiming that he may be the actual #3 welterweight behind only Mayweather and Pacquiao. A champion doesn't lose to Jesus Soto Karass, as evidenced by the fact that Karass has never possessed a world title.
Alfredo Angulo, James Kirkland, and Brandon Rios were all hyped as killers. Like actual Mike Tysons. Like Clubber Lang in Rocky 3, actual killers. I'm pretty sure Diamond Weapon was hyping all three of them. The verdict: three clowns.

dude, all your examples are crap, except maybe broner or bute, maybe lacy.....!!!! everybody else is totaly unathletic and were hyped for no reason. maybe hyped as a good solid b+ boxer, but none as a future a level boxer and if so, than by non experts like you.

mansour, seth, david.....c level
angulo and kirkland, solid strong guys with limits....b level
chubby rios.....z athleticly, b- overall

broner was very good and he shouldve stayed at lower weight, had he trained hard and stay at small weights he wouldve become a good boxer.

Oh yes, "non experts like [me]". I've only ever considered you a troll, and I find your boxing opinions to be in the bottom 15th percentile of all posters on this forum. It's sad that you overestimate your expertise so much. But thank you for confirming in hindsight that Mansour, Mitchell, and Price are c-level years after they were exposed, which while we're on the subject, most of the fighters in my list were exposed years prior to you even becoming a member on boxrec. I'm sure you have an impeccable track record for detecting hype jobs, even though you have no track record at all.

Why do people put so much weight into being "proven"?

Because until a boxer has found their level, e.g. Price vs Thompson, Lacy vs Calzaghe, Bute vs Froch, Broner vs Maidana, Green vs Miranda, it's impossible to know how good they really are. You can only tell so much by watching a boxer win in dominating performance against lackluster opposition. Boxing is so much more than athleticism and god-given talent and you really can't tell how someone is going to deal with adversity until they face it in the ring.