BoxRec

I was trying to think of other sports where every minute detail of someones career get broken down and discussed as much as we boxing fans do with boxers.

In discussion many of us focus on one bad performance and use that to rip apart a fighters abilities. You know the posts "yeah but he got floored by a journeyman so no way he beats Tyson" or "he was knackered after 3 rounds so no way he goes this distance with Ali"

In other sports the true all time greats are often beaten, sometimes by huge underdogs, and no one really cares and they are still considered the best, still often called the greatest of all time. Losses are just accepted as part of the game yet in boxing losses are often seen as a bad thing. Examples of other ATG sport stars are Tiger Woods, Usain Bolt, Ronnie O'Sullivan (snooker), Roger Federer, Michael Schumacher and even in other combat sports like UFC fighter Anderson Silva.

So why do us boxing fans feel the need to argue and dissect a boxers career so much? Why are losses seen as such as bad thing and do we over analyse things too much?


.

I figure yes, this sport does get broken down and studied more than other sports. Why? Because it's easier to study an individual than it is to study a team. You see a great player you have to watch all the games and see what said player does when he's handed the ball (thrown the pitch, catching the pass) whatever depending on the sport. In Boxing it's one man against another man, You see his weaknesses and his strengths time and time again and you can break down what makes him successful in his sport almost to a tee. I don't figure any sport could possibly have as much heated debate as Boxing, and I personally don't give a sh*t. Boxing is pretty much the only sport I give a damn about, and I care an awful lot.

Controversial wrote:I was trying to think of other sports where every minute detail of someones career get broken down and discussed as much as we boxing fans do with boxers.

In discussion many of us focus on one bad performance and use that to rip apart a fighters abilities. You know the posts "yeah but he got floored by a journeyman so no way he beats Tyson" or "he was knackered after 3 rounds so no way he goes this distance with Ali"

In other sports the true all time greats are often beaten,sometimes by massive underdogs, and no one really cares and they are still considered the best, often called the greatest of all time. Losses are just accepted as part of the game yet in boxing losses are often seen as a bad thing. Examples of other ATG sport starts are Tiger Woods, Usain Bolt, Ronnie O'Sullivan (snooker), Roger Federer, Michael Schumacher and even in other combat sports like UFC fighter Anderson Silva.

So why do us boxing fans feel the need to argue and dissect a boxers career so much? Why are losses seen as such as bad thing and do we over analysis things too much?

I would say baseball gets as much if not more analysis, or for that matter US sports as stats are revered over there whereas elsewhere probably not so much.

Tbh, It drives me mad the way boxing fans look into every little nook and cranny for strengths & flaws when the human being is one of the most complicated living things on the planet. I stopped paying attention to lists for p4p or h2h debates long ago because it's fairly pointless. Some if not many or all fans may disagree with that statement but if you take a look at your % of predicting fights then how many do you get right. There are obvious (mis)matches that you know the result so if you dismiss these & asked how many fights were there is a possible doubt then I am willing to wager your %'s will be lower (obviously I suppose).

Someone may have been knocked down or out due to lack of concentration or lack of fitness because other things outside of the ring may have contributed to this. Sometimes a fighter gets caught & this may be a blemish/anomaly. Many fighters have been sparked out in a round but still had good careers.

In regards to fighting styles I still say Carlos Monzon's style looks easy to fight against but it's obvious it's more difficult than by just viewing. In the end you can have some idea about fighters & who they may have beat but I would rather just take things on face value instead of debating pointless what-if's.

I think one simple reason for all the dissection is the long layoffs for the best boxers. The best get in the ring probably only 2-3 times a year. So figuring say 30 rounds, you can distill a whole year of a boxer's trade to an hour and a half. A lot of fans watch that hour and a half and after that, the only thing left to do is discuss it.

Don't get me wrong I find it quite entertaining debating, I often learn things from other posters about different fighters so it helps my overall boxing knowledge. On the other hand it's all a bit pointless, especially fantasy match ups as no one can predict what would really happen in a imaginary fight.

Losses today seem much more of a bigger deal than they used to, lots of older ATGs had several losses but now fighters careers seem to go into meltdown after 1 or 2 defeats, its a shame really.

Controversial wrote: Losses today seem much more of a bigger deal than they used to, lots of older ATGs had several losses but now fighters careers seem to go into meltdown after 1 or 2 defeats, its a shame really.

Blame TV and media and the fighters for that. When fighters are only put on TV a couple times a year, and it seems most of the matchups are to generate B sides for the bigger stars of the sport, the networks react to losses like Superman reacts to kryptonite. TV wants to match people with the glossy undefeated records because they are somehow better in their minds.

The writers don't always help when they say a fighter is exposed after one loss. My favorite example of this was when Hamed fought Barrera and it seemed afterwards like his whole career was a sham based on that one loss and that he was thoroughly "exposed."

The fighters are also to blame because they don't take the short money stay busy fights to keep active anymore, they just wait for pay cable dates. When fighters fought more often, losses were more easily forgiven because they were back on TV sooner than later. Now, a loss usually means a much longer break between fights and the out of sight/out of mind mentality prevails and we as fans think more about the loss.

Yeah, I used to do the debates but it turns into an argument most of the time. I'm stubborn so people may have put valid points across & I will acknowledge them but generally someone's mind is already made up.

I more of a casual fan now in regards to modern boxing but it's an excellent point about the limited number of fights the fighters have nowadays. I have a philosophy that you see a true fighter after they have suffered defeat & attempt to regain their former standing.

dnahar32 wrote:

Controversial wrote: Losses today seem much more of a bigger deal than they used to, lots of older ATGs had several losses but now fighters careers seem to go into meltdown after 1 or 2 defeats, its a shame really.

Blame TV and media and the fighters for that. When fighters are only put on TV a couple times a year, and it seems most of the matchups are to generate B sides for the bigger stars of the sport, the networks react to losses like Superman reacts to kryptonite. TV wants to match people with the glossy undefeated records because they are somehow better in their minds.

The writers don't always help when they say a fighter is exposed after one loss. My favorite example of this was when Hamed fought Barrera and it seemed afterwards like his whole career was a sham based on that one loss and that he was thoroughly "exposed."

The fighters are also to blame because they don't take the short money stay busy fights to keep active anymore, they just wait for pay cable dates. When fighters fought more often, losses were more easily forgiven because they were back on TV sooner than later. Now, a loss usually means a much longer break between fights and the out of sight/out of mind mentality prevails and we as fans think more about the loss.

I agree. It's all about the money money money, most older fighters weren't multi-millionaires, they fought out of necessity in a lot of cases. Today fighters have 10 fights then title shots are being spoken about. Audley Harrison was a millionaire before he even threw a punch as a professional, absolutely ridiculous and that must take the hunger away. I agree about Hamed, his career went to pot after Barrera, again too much money and too much enjoying the limelight. I would have loved to see him straight back into the ring but that loss seemed to knock the stuffing out of him.

I don't think other sports are dissected as much. Often what happens is that someone doesn't like a particular fighter, so they pick out some minor thing in one fight.

On the other hand, at times dissection is warranted. The point about how rarely a fighter actually has a fight is a good one. If a fighter only has 2 fights in a year, then much more attention is going to be paid to those two fights than a basketball or football player. You really have to do that though. You can't just blow off one really bad performance a fighter had if he is only fighting once or twice a year. He should have been ready to fight at his best when he does get in the ring.