BoxRec

Getting rid of the blasted protecting of the '0' and building up of fighters in 80/20 contests.


UFC STYLE!


ENOUGH OF THE TRADE COME HERE SO TAKE HEED AND THE SPORT WILL SUCCEED!

DG. wrote:Getting rid of the blasted protecting of the '0' and building up of fighters in 80/20 contests.


UFC STYLE!


ENOUGH OF THE TRADE COME HERE SO TAKE HEED AND THE SPORT WILL SUCCEED!

To be honest, I wouldn't say many fights were "80/20" contests.

If that was the case, then the "opponent" would win on average once every five times- or roughly once or twice a show.

95/5 would perhaps be more accurate.

And more like 98/2 if we disregard wins from injury stoppages etc.

whicker wrote:

DG. wrote:Getting rid of the blasted protecting of the '0' and building up of fighters in 80/20 contests.


UFC STYLE!


ENOUGH OF THE TRADE COME HERE SO TAKE HEED AND THE SPORT WILL SUCCEED!

To be honest, I wouldn't say many fights were "80/20" contests.

If that was the case, then the "opponent" would win on average once every five times- or roughly once or twice a show.

95/5 would perhaps be more accurate.

And more like 98/2 if we disregard wins from injury stoppages etc.

It's worse than I first thought!

I wonder if FW is reading this or boxingchat aka Andy Ayling, even?

Are they gonna listen? No, ofc not!

i'm actually with DG on this

we need to stop the 0 nonsence and have fighters who are 20-5 and 30-4 etc fighting for titles and the fights being competitive even if its 12-175 journeymen fighting each other

Adamj1987 wrote:i'm actually with DG on this

we need to stop the 0 nonsence and have fighters who are 20-5 and 30-4 etc fighting for titles and the fights being competitive even if its 12-175 journeymen fighting each other

You should agree with me, ya just a kid, I will show you the way!

Adamj1987 wrote:
have fighters who are 20-5 and 30-4 etc fighting for titles and the fights being competitive even if its 12-175 journeymen fighting each other

Oh, that happens a lot.

Often a fighter won't even get his chance to box as an opponent for a European or British title until he loses a couple of fights in a row.

(It's funny because it's true.)

The 0 is important because boxing fans are by and large(including amongst the most ignorant fans in all of sport


I said it before with Khan. If he had fought a Emmanual Augustus who was given 6 weeks notice he would have been excellent learning fight for Khan. The boxrecers and Esb dded would know it, but then try and sell Augustus to the public, or to Sky for that matter

'Sexy' looking records sell fights and thus must stay

lefthook82 wrote: 'Sexy' looking records sell fights and thus must stay

Bollocks.

It is this exact mindset that is hamstringing boxing IMO.

MMA focuses far more closely on the quality of the match up - the effort put forth by the fighters - to sell their shows.

There is no need to defend these unbeaten ledgers at all costs when the paying public know they are going to get a cracking, evenly matched fight everytime out.

Just look at the Escalante v Roman main event on ESPN this weekend. Neither man is unbeaten but they put on a hell of a fight; the sort of fight that makes me remember why I love boxing.

Its fights, not records, that are important

Amir Khan (15-0) v Emanuel Augustus (25 - 20)

or

Amir Khan (15-0) v Willie Limond (28 -1 )

You honestly think number 1 would sell better than number 2 to the causual public or the sky execs

lefthook82 wrote:Amir Khan (15-0) v Emanuel Augustus (25 - 20)

or

Amir Khan (15-0) v Willie Limond (28 -1 )

You honestly think number 1 would sell better than number 2 to the causual public or the sky execs

It wouldnt take long to re-educate both the public and sky execs by putting on good quality, competitive fights throughout the card.

'Shiny' records are simply smoke and mirrors - in the golden age of boxing a loss was often seen as a necessary learning experience for a young fighter. This modern obsession with 'clean' ledgers is unhelpful and ultimately harming the sport.

@ Terry

You are absolutely right. Records shouldnt be the detrmining factor

But we - the anoraks - play into it ourselves

Take Tyson Fury for example

Fought Lee Swaby and everyone rightly gave him his props because Lee is no fool although he has an ugly record. He fights a statistically better lokking Matthew Ellis and people on here are like 'good fight on paper', Ellis has a 'good record'. Never mind the fact that Portsmouth have a better chance of getting into Europe this season then Ellis had of winning that fight

So if the re-education is going to happen it needs to begin with those who should know better

lefthook82 wrote:@ Terry

You are absolutely right. Records shouldnt be the detrmining factor

But we - the anoraks - play into it ourselves

Take Tyson Fury for example

Fought Lee Swaby and everyone rightly gave him his props because Lee is no fool although he has an ugly record. He fights a statistically better lokking Matthew Ellis and people on here are like 'good fight on paper', Ellis has a 'good record'. Never mind the fact that Portsmouth have a better chance of getting into Europe this season then Ellis had of winning that fight

So if the re-education is going to happen it needs to begin with those who should know better

Agreed. And I'm sure you could fill the thread up with more examples.

Many fighters are protected and when they get to the 'real' fights they can not cope.

Its part of what is wroing with boxing.

ANYONE CAN PUT A GOOD FIGHTER IN WITH INFERIOR FIGHTERS AND GET THEN TO 30-O.

Some called it 'building' I call it ripping off the public with glorified spars and no chance opposition.

We really do need to loose the zero/hero mentality that is deep rooted in British boxing. Cant see it happening anytime soon though. Also, i would like to see our fighters moving through the weight classes more free'ly, and not all this weight draining into the lowest possible weight class possible, and then staying there throughout a 15 year career!