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

[Chepppaaa]

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.

[johnswan1]

Anybody can build a padded record, look at Tye Fields for a great example. 17-0 heavyweight with 17 KO's. 16 of which came in the 1st round.

A superb record yet he was completely unproven, as demonstrated when he got knocked out in a round round by a 2-0 opponent.

A fluke you say? Ok, Fields then regrouped and rebuilt up his record to 41-1, before stepping up to take on the mighty Monte Barrett. The outcome? Another first round KO defeat.

That's at a low level, when talking about padded record.

What you commonly here is "the more proven of the two" i.e. has overcome or performed well against more difficult opponents, or "proven at world level" i.e. has fought world class opposition and performed well, or "proven at elite level" i.e. has fought elite level opposition and performed well.

Being proven on the big stage is also a factor as a younger less experienced fighter can be thrown off their game by added pressure of a big event.

Ultimately there are good reasons for giving weight to one fighter being more "proven" than another.

[hurricanemitch14]

Shannon Briggs was 25-0 against tomatos......looked amazing fought Darrol Wilson, a guy that took his shots and fought back and Briggs panicked and fell apart. Briggs fought some tough guys afterward and turned into a solid heavy. At 25-0 he was unproven and he paid the price.

[digzee]

I know what you mean Chepppaaa, I find it very frustrating when most American's on here cant see talented fighters unless they are from America. Nobody gave DeGale and Brook a chance when they fought in America but if they were American i'm sure it would have been different.

[Datsue]

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?

[Chepppaaa]

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.

[Chepppaaa]

I know what you mean Chepppaaa, I find it very frustrating when most American's on here cant see talented fighters unless they are from America. Nobody gave DeGale and Brook a chance when they fought in America but if they were American i'm sure it would have been different.

exactly

the thing is this. people should be more concern of what a boxer is actualy capable of, than what his record is. record dont win fight, ability does.

guys like tim bradley used to be on a p4p top 10 list, based on a win over an old marquez and a robbery against pacquiao, wtf is this. when in reality the guy is weak and has 0 punching power and is overall a b level boxer at best. but a level guys like rigondeaux or lara, who are athleticly top of the top, speedwise top, solid power. but those guys get no big fights like rigo, or get big time robberys like lara against paul w and canelo.

wtf is this. same with brook, the guy is technicly so well rounded and so much better than most ww, to me he easily beat porter, but than he gets a close ud, like it was close, kiddin me.

[punchoutsb]

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.

True, but the only way to "prove" skill and athletic ability is real is against good opponents. Hence becoming "proven".

It's fairly easy to pick up on skill, and a lot of people let biases stop them. But it takes top level opposition to prove that skill carries over.

[Chepppaaa]

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.[/quote]

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?[/quote]


skills and athletic ability is no fantasy. its real.[/quote]

True, but the only way to "prove" skill and athletic ability is real is against good opponents. Hence becoming "proven".

It's fairly easy to pick up on skill, and a lot of people let biases stop them. But it takes top level opposition to prove that skill carries over.[/quote]

_____________________________________________________

thats too easy.....dumb people need a trillion fights to know somebody is good, when you are a expert like me, you know it right away.

when i predict a fight, most of the time i am totaly spot on.

[punchoutsb]

thats too easy.....dumb people need a trillion fights to know somebody is good, when you are a expert like me, you know it right away.

when i predict a fight, most of the time i am totaly spot on.

No fighter has ever had a trillion fights, so no, nobody needs that many fights.

Aside from your hilarious hubris, a fighter still needs to take on top level competition to prove his skills truly carry over. Boxing "experts" know that where there's flash there isn't always fire.

[Chepppaaa]

thats too easy.....dumb people need a trillion fights to know somebody is good, when you are a expert like me, you know it right away.

when i predict a fight, most of the time i am totaly spot on.

No fighter has ever had a trillion fights, so no, nobody needs that many fights.

Aside from your hilarious hubris, a fighter still needs to take on top level competition to prove his skills truly carry over. Boxing "experts" know that where there's flash there isn't always fire.

you realy understand irony and no, a boxers doesnt need to face top level to be prove he is very. he is very good, when he is very good, regardless of record. roy and rigondeaux, you could see that those guys were elite, when they only had 1 fight. right away.

[punchoutsb]

thats too easy.....dumb people need a trillion fights to know somebody is good, when you are a expert like me, you know it right away.

when i predict a fight, most of the time i am totaly spot on.

No fighter has ever had a trillion fights, so no, nobody needs that many fights.

Aside from your hilarious hubris, a fighter still needs to take on top level competition to prove his skills truly carry over. Boxing "experts" know that where there's flash there isn't always fire.

you realy understand irony and no, a boxers doesnt need to face top level to be prove he is very. he is very good, when he is very good, regardless of record. roy and rigondeaux, you could see that those guys were elite, when they only had 1 fight. right away.

Yes we could see they were very good...but we could have seen that before their first fight due to their extensive and successful amateur careers. Elite is a whole other thing. To be elite you have to beat elite, or at least dominate all the goods and very goods. Skill doesn't make someone elite, success does.

[Cyclops]

Thread is started by a guy who has been saying Wilder is the best heavyweight in the world for about two years. This thread is really about Wilder. He is unproven. You can "look" good against guys who are fornicating awful but get found out later on. Being unproven is a legitimate hole to poke in a fighter. You can be a fan of a fighter, but for them to be actually really good to have fight somebody else really good. Until then, they're hype and could be found out at any point.

[SNG]

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.

Right, but you have to prove those against the best fighters. I could go 50-0 against the right opponents but it wouldn't mean a thing however good I looked doing it. Broner is a perfect recent example, remember how good he looked beating guys who were a couple of weight classes smaller than him, he thinks he can do that against anyone and gets smacked around for fun by a guy as crude as Maidana.

[Chepppaaa]

you realy understand irony and no, a boxers doesnt need to face top level to be prove he is very. he is very good, when he is very good, regardless of record. roy and rigondeaux, you could see that those guys were elite, when they only had 1 fight. right away.[/quote]

Yes we could see they were very good...but we could have seen that before their first fight due to their extensive and successful amateur careers. Elite is a whole other thing. To be elite you have to beat elite, or at least dominate all the goods and very goods. Skill doesn't make someone elite, success does.[/quote]

_______________________________________________________________


just no. either you are elite or you arent.

you are born with a certain kind of genetics (for example prime jones athleticsm, either you are born with that or not, you cannot achieve this)

than if anything makes you elite, maybe even more important than fights is training

so, when you combine the both genetics + training, at the peak, than you got somebody elite. a non expert like you cant see this, but experts like me can see it.
an 85-86 tyson never beat a big elite name in the amateurs or in the pros, but he was already elite, why because he had the body and was training like a mad man.

[punchoutsb]

just no. either you are elite or you arent.

you are born with a certain kind of genetics (for example prime jones athleticsm, either you are born with that or not, you cannot achieve this)

than if anything makes you elite, maybe even more important than fights is training

so, when you combine the both genetics + training, at the peak, than you got somebody elite. a non expert like you cant see this, but experts like me can see it.
an 85-86 tyson never beat a big elite name in the amateurs or in the pros, but he was already elite, why because he had the body and was training like a mad man.

The more you have to call yourself an expert, the more clear it becomes that you're not.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about in this thread, so I congratulate on at least staying consistent with your other threads.

Hopefully someday once you've read a few books on skill development, genetics, and perhaps have some more time watching sports under your belt you can revisit your posts here and have a good laugh like the rest of us

Have a good night!

[Chepppaaa]

just no. either you are elite or you arent.

you are born with a certain kind of genetics (for example prime jones athleticsm, either you are born with that or not, you cannot achieve this)

than if anything makes you elite, maybe even more important than fights is training

so, when you combine the both genetics + training, at the peak, than you got somebody elite. a non expert like you cant see this, but experts like me can see it.
an 85-86 tyson never beat a big elite name in the amateurs or in the pros, but he was already elite, why because he had the body and was training like a mad man.

The more you have to call yourself an expert, the more clear it becomes that you're not.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about in this thread, so I congratulate on at least staying consistent with your other threads.

Hopefully someday once you've read a few books on skill development, genetics, and perhaps have some more time watching sports under your belt you can revisit your posts here and have a good laugh like the rest of us

Have a good night!

you dont understand, on top you are so narrow minded

[Tanzio]

I know what you mean Chepppaaa, I find it very frustrating when most American's on here cant see talented fighters unless they are from America. Nobody gave DeGale and Brook a chance when they fought in America but if they were American i'm sure it would have been different.

Stop generalizing. I picked both DeGale and Brook, and so did plenty of Americans.

[Controversial]

just no. either you are elite or you arent.

you are born with a certain kind of genetics (for example prime jones athleticsm, either you are born with that or not, you cannot achieve this)

than if anything makes you elite, maybe even more important than fights is training

so, when you combine the both genetics + training, at the peak, than you got somebody elite. a non expert like you cant see this, but experts like me can see it.
an 85-86 tyson never beat a big elite name in the amateurs or in the pros, but he was already elite, why because he had the body and was training like a mad man.

Being a success is much more than having skill, good genetics and being fit. It helps of course but doesn't guarantee success. Lots of great amateurs have flopped at the pro game and they have had those things. Boxing is a mental game too and it also helps if you can take a punch. As good as Tyson was he wouldn't have done as well if he had a glass jaw.

[digzee]

I know what you mean Chepppaaa, I find it very frustrating when most American's on here cant see talented fighters unless they are from America. Nobody gave DeGale and Brook a chance when they fought in America but if they were American i'm sure it would have been different.

Stop generalizing. I picked both DeGale and Brook, and so did plenty of Americans.

Do you disagree that most American's thought Porter and Dirrell would win? When you say plenty picked DeGale and Brook to win how many is plenty? 40%?

I'm not generalising, its a fact, from other forums I looked on I can tell you that there wasn't plenty of American's tipping either of those to win, most were laughing at Kell because of the first Jones fight...

[Boxing Prospect]

Frustrating when supposed hardcore fans ignore anything outside of their comfort zone. Fight fans miss out on while divisions because of some stupid reason or another.

[Ricky_]

Fighting top level opposition makes for a much healthier yard stick but ability, skill, footwork, punch power etc is always there. If anything a fighter can look lacklustre vs poor opposition rather than a world beater.

As a fan i gauge a fighter using my best judgement on skill displayed and opposition faced. Ifs not an exact science. Ive always known Golovkin was the real deal, true top p4p even when he was fighting the likes of Rosado. But take Joshua for instance, many fans see AJ as being the real deal but for some reason my gut tells me he's a hypejob. Maybe it's because i though David Price was the real deal though. Like i said 'ability' vs 'level of opposition' is never an exact science.

[Datsue]

Thread is started by a guy who has been saying Wilder is the best heavyweight in the world for about two years. This thread is really about Wilder. He is unproven. You can "look" good against guys who are effing awful but get found out later on. Being unproven is a legitimate hole to poke in a fighter. You can be a fan of a fighter, but for them to be actually really good to have fight somebody else really good. Until then, they're hype and could be found out at any point.

But whatever, the OP is clearly committed to making himself look fvcking stupid--& insufferably fvcking arrogant, as well! Lovely combo--as he goes, that's worth the electrons this is taking up on John's server, imo.

[punchoutsb]

just no. either you are elite or you arent.

you are born with a certain kind of genetics (for example prime jones athleticsm, either you are born with that or not, you cannot achieve this)

than if anything makes you elite, maybe even more important than fights is training

so, when you combine the both genetics + training, at the peak, than you got somebody elite. a non expert like you cant see this, but experts like me can see it.
an 85-86 tyson never beat a big elite name in the amateurs or in the pros, but he was already elite, why because he had the body and was training like a mad man.

The more you have to call yourself an expert, the more clear it becomes that you're not.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about in this thread, so I congratulate on at least staying consistent with your other threads.

Hopefully someday once you've read a few books on skill development, genetics, and perhaps have some more time watching sports under your belt you can revisit your posts here and have a good laugh like the rest of us

Have a good night!

you dont understand, on top you are so narrow minded

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

[Tanzio]

An actor can be gifted and trained and elite level in rehearsal but if that actor never performs on stage or film they cannot be considered elite in the industry.

A person may be the greatest sniper on the planet on the range but until that person has kills he will not be considered legitimate.

A salesperson may have been born with the perfect characteristics for sales. He may have studied every book and been to every seminar on the subject. He may perform perfectly in mock presentations. But, if he does not perform on face to face appointments he will never be considered a legitimate salesperson let alone elite.

People claim that they CAN do something all the time. They have the gifts and the skills but they never actually do that something. Meanwhile, people with far less natural ability and lesser skill actually go out, accomplish that something and reap the benefits of it.

Potential does not = accomplishment.