BoxRec

Through history we have had fighters with, like 200 plus fights without a single title shot, yet also boxers like Vasil Lomachenko who get their title tries in their second or third fight and even a few world champions who got crowned in their third bout, and others who won it on their 90th or so...

To put into perspective, in 1983 for example, we had a world champion who was 12-0 entering the year (Davey Moore) and a challenger who was about to challenge for the lineal world Heavyweight title at 10-0
(Marvis Frazier) but also one who at about 40-0 had not challenged yet (Julio Cesar Chavez Sr.) and his friend Jose Luis Ramirez who after like 75 fights would challenge for a world title for the first time on May 20th, against a guy who was 20-0, Edwin Rosario. (I was there in person rooting for my countryman Chapo)

In short, my question to you is how many bouts are adequate before sending someone for a world title??????

Obvious answer is it depends what they did before turning pro and their age.

In your examples JCC was 17 with hardly any amateur career. Loma was in his mid 20s and had won nearly 400 amateur bouts.

Foreman had Olympic Gold but not many am fights and I think took 30-40 fights before his shot at Frazier.

There’s probably an optimum amount taking age and amateur experience into account. Loma probably could have done with a few more pro fights before Cruz.

I’m sure certain fighters could’ve won world titles in their debut. Liston against Patterson probably would’ve gone the same way. Tyson vs Berbick to?

There are too many intangibles. The remarks about amateur experience and age are well founded.

I suppose you could say that it depends on the result. If a person won, I guess they had the proper number fights before they went for the title.

Interesting sidebar: Moore was 8-0 when he went for the title against a 15-0 Tadashi Mihara. Have any other two fighters had fewer combined bouts going into a championship match?

Finally, I don't think Liston and Tyson would've won if they fought for the title in their first matches, even going against Patterson and Berbick. I believe much of the latter two losing had to do with the mental aspect: They were both psyched out. If they were defending against debuting fighters, I believe they would've been much more confident. On the other hand, Floyd did get floored by a debuting Rademacher and Tyson hit Berbick so hard he went down three times from one punch, so who knows?

Generally speaking, 4 years and over 20 fights. Perhaps less if you had a great amateur career.

bwu wrote: ↑14 May 2021, 11:44 There are too many intangibles. The remarks about amateur experience and age are well founded.

I suppose you could say that it depends on the result. If a person won, I guess they had the proper number fights before they went for the title.

Interesting sidebar: Moore was 8-0 when he went for the title against a 15-0 Tadashi Mihara. Have any other two fighters had fewer combined bouts going into a championship match?

The record is an almost unbeatable 1-0 vs 0-0, won by the debutant Hyun My Choi, but that's only if you include female boxing.

As for men, I'm not sure, though we did have
8-0 vs 8-0 in one of Kazuto Ioka's early defenses for a total of 16 and 5-0 vs 11-1 (Kosei Tanaka vs Vic Saludar) for a total of 17.

We also have 9-0 vs 15-2 for a unification bout, total of 26 bouts

As for the original question there's so many variables. Age, amateur experience, weight class, depth of division. You have guys like Tanaka, Ioka and Inoue who were probably able to do it on debut, then you have guys who NEED time to mature into their bodies or wait for their experience to develop

Boxing Prospect wrote: ↑14 May 2021, 20:06

bwu wrote: ↑14 May 2021, 11:44 There are too many intangibles. The remarks about amateur experience and age are well founded.

I suppose you could say that it depends on the result. If a person won, I guess they had the proper number fights before they went for the title.

Interesting sidebar: Moore was 8-0 when he went for the title against a 15-0 Tadashi Mihara. Have any other two fighters had fewer combined bouts going into a championship match?

The record is an almost unbeatable 1-0 vs 0-0, won by the debutant Hyun My Choi, but that's only if you include female boxing.

As for men, I'm not sure, though we did have
8-0 vs 8-0 in one of Kazuto Ioka's early defenses for a total of 16 and 5-0 vs 11-1 (Kosei Tanaka vs Vic Saludar) for a total of 17.

We also have 9-0 vs 15-2 for a unification bout, total of 26 bouts

All I would say is sometimes records from places like Asia and South America aren’t always accurate or complete, so I wouldn’t be surprised if these fighters had more fights.

Controversial wrote: ↑15 May 2021, 02:49

Boxing Prospect wrote: ↑14 May 2021, 20:06

bwu wrote: ↑14 May 2021, 11:44 There are too many intangibles. The remarks about amateur experience and age are well founded.

I suppose you could say that it depends on the result. If a person won, I guess they had the proper number fights before they went for the title.

Interesting sidebar: Moore was 8-0 when he went for the title against a 15-0 Tadashi Mihara. Have any other two fighters had fewer combined bouts going into a championship match?

The record is an almost unbeatable 1-0 vs 0-0, won by the debutant Hyun My Choi, but that's only if you include female boxing.

As for men, I'm not sure, though we did have
8-0 vs 8-0 in one of Kazuto Ioka's early defenses for a total of 16 and 5-0 vs 11-1 (Kosei Tanaka vs Vic Saludar) for a total of 17.

We also have 9-0 vs 15-2 for a unification bout, total of 26 bouts

All I would say is sometimes records from places like Asia and South America aren’t always accurate or complete, so I wouldn’t be surprised if these fighters had more fights.

Certain parts of Asia from certain eras that's certainly true, for Tanaka, Ioka, Yaegashi the records are sport on, there's plenty of other sources outside of boxrec (JBC, Boxinglib, Boxmob, TV following their careers from the start) all citing the same. Would imagine Saludar, as a former top amateur was also right. The one of Ioka's opponent MIGHT be wrong, but the others aren't.

Ditto Choi's world title win,too much Korean media for that to be off. But her opponent MIGHT be wrong (China, Indonesia, Korea circa 2002, and Mongolian records are notoriously incomplete)

The amateur fights compared to pro are apples and oranges. The amateur style is point fighting and accumulation of punches. The pro style is power and knockdowns are far more relevant. There are some Lomo may fall into this category who stayed amateur too long. The other side of the argument is that my one coaching mentor used to say the closest thing to a pro fight is an amateur fight. I would say the individual boxer their progress and if they are moved properly not rushed into an opponent far over there head is key. On the other hand a test must come before the big title fight occurs. I would say that the number of fights can be deceiving as well. However the money has polluted all athletics today. In the yesteryears of boxing boxers would have many fights before they got opportunity. Today as mentioned guys are having a dozen fights and fighting for championship gold. There are some a few in fact who capture Olympic gold and are being groomed hyped and also who are stars coming into the pros. There are few that succeed Ali Leonard Patterson Frazier Foreman Leonard especially he De La Hoya. Others who won gold Howard Davis who never was really a great pro. Mancini did not have a great amateur style and was told he would never be a superstar in the amateurs. As mentioned countrymen Chavez and Ramirez all had many fights before the title but fought pro at a young age and where fairly unknown outside of Mexico. The bottom line is it mainly depends on the protege and his progress motivation and health.

AntonioMartin wrote: ↑14 May 2021, 01:29 Through history we have had fighters with, like 200 plus fights without a single title shot, yet also boxers like Vasil Lomachenko who get their title tries in their second or third fight and even a few world champions who got crowned in their third bout, and others who won it on their 90th or so...

To put into perspective, in 1983 for example, we had a world champion who was 12-0 entering the year (Davey Moore) and a challenger who was about to challenge for the lineal world Heavyweight title at 10-0
(Marvis Frazier) but also one who at about 40-0 had not challenged yet (Julio Cesar Chavez Sr.) and his friend Jose Luis Ramirez who after like 75 fights would challenge for a world title for the first time on May 20th, against a guy who was 20-0, Edwin Rosario. (I was there in person rooting for my countryman Chapo)

In short, my question to you is how many bouts are adequate before sending someone for a world title??????

Lifestyle could play an important role as well. Is the boxer dedicated motivated clean living disciplined. That trumps most. Talent is also essential. There are so so many ingredients.

Interesting topic. Of course there are a lot of variables. Nowadays, there are usually four different "titleholders". A talented. fighter often doesn't have to be that experienced to beat one of them.

Years ago, where there was one champion, usually a fighter was going to need more experience.
As pointed out, how much amateur experience is important. However, it's not just the sheer amount of amateur fights. Some guys were boxing in the gym when they 12 were 12, while others were in their late teens or even early 20s.

Somebody mentioned four years and 20 fights. While that can seem silly at first, often that is roughly accurate yardstick. After fours of professional boxing, a fighter is normally either reach his prime or is getting close. As for the 20 fights, not only is amateur experience important but so is who you are fighting in those 20 or so fights. A guy can 20-0 against weak competition and can hardly fight at all. In boxing, you can always find an opponent who is basically an automatic win.

Marvelous said he had about 40 fights and still did not get a title shot? That was unbeliavable for the 1970s decade.

Controversial wrote: ↑15 May 2021, 02:49

Boxing Prospect wrote: ↑14 May 2021, 20:06

bwu wrote: ↑14 May 2021, 11:44 There are too many intangibles. The remarks about amateur experience and age are well founded.

I suppose you could say that it depends on the result. If a person won, I guess they had the proper number fights before they went for the title.

Interesting sidebar: Moore was 8-0 when he went for the title against a 15-0 Tadashi Mihara. Have any other two fighters had fewer combined bouts going into a championship match?

The record is an almost unbeatable 1-0 vs 0-0, won by the debutant Hyun My Choi, but that's only if you include female boxing.

As for men, I'm not sure, though we did have
8-0 vs 8-0 in one of Kazuto Ioka's early defenses for a total of 16 and 5-0 vs 11-1 (Kosei Tanaka vs Vic Saludar) for a total of 17.

We also have 9-0 vs 15-2 for a unification bout, total of 26 bouts

All I would say is sometimes records from places like Asia and South America aren’t always accurate or complete, so I wouldn’t be surprised if these fighters had more fights.

French was 6-0 and defending champion shingaki was 8-1-1 so another one in the 16 fight category. That was at the start of the IBF formation, before it was taken that seriously.

Sugar Ray Robinson had 63 professional fights when he fought Tommy Bell for the welter-weight title in 1946.

If I were a manager, I'd go for at least 20 fights against a variety of styles and situations (like fighting in the other guy's hometown). I'd want two of those fights to be against top 10-20 type guys, and another two to be against top 10 guys. If there's a setback, take about 8-10 fights using the formula above. If there's another setback, keep following that formula and acknowledge that your fighter will likely never win a big one. Retire him before it's too late.

That is often how it used to be, though you often had to fight more 20 times. Made sense and gave a fighter a lot of good experience.
If you did that nowadays, you would probably have a two or three losses and be ruled out of a title shot. Now you fight 20 stiffs that you can't possibly lose to. Then get a WBS title shot against a title holder who did the same thing.

Caractacus wrote: ↑17 May 2021, 15:09 Sugar Ray Robinson had 63 professional fights when he fought Tommy Bell for the welter-weight title in 1946.

Sugar Ray had 12 more fights, Caractacus. His record was 73-1-1, with 49KOs! Unbelievable!

He was called the uncrowned welterweight champion of the world for 5 years!

Good thread and especially because of the intangibles

When I first watched boxing as a kid the top British fighters all took a very clear/marshalled route to the world title.

It was British, Commonwealth and European - maybe an away fight overseas too - and then a world-title eliminator.

Depending on the fighter this was usually a 23-28 fight journey - very neatly ordered - with certain steps up to having a shot at a bona fide world champion.

Honeyghan and Marsh are good examples - Lloyd was 28/0 by the time he faced Curry - really well-seasoned with a few fights in the States and the acid test of a fight in Italy. Plus some proper domestic bust-ups into the mix.

But the modern Brit does not want to go domestic, commonwealth, european or do the 25/26 fight route.

Some of them have the talent to skip the patient title-by-title routine....others might hugely benefit from it.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑20 May 2021, 19:37

Caractacus wrote: ↑17 May 2021, 15:09 Sugar Ray Robinson had 63 professional fights when he fought Tommy Bell for the welter-weight title in 1946.

Sugar Ray had 12 more fights, Caractacus. His record was 73-1-1, with 49KOs! Unbelievable!

He was called the uncrowned welterweight champion of the world for 5 years!

Different time different era. Hagler was uncrowned Middleweight champ years before he won the title. I can think of a few that fall into this category. If you just give them opportunity they will run with it. The money was not that great and many said that if they did not practice the trade and fight no dinner on the table. That is motivation for anyone especially back then.

Some really good posts here. As others have said the staple for a proper fighter from say the 70's onwards used to be 20 + fights having gone through the different styles, through seasoned journeymen, a fellow prospect and a couple of ex champions.

Now, with in some cases three WBA titles at the same weight, a fighter can win a belt without having to crack the top 10. They can literally learn as a prospect whilst already being a belt holder.

good point. Many current and recent "champions" are really just prospects. There simply is little motivation now to fight a decent opponent let a lone a contender on your way up. If you just bide your time beating stiffs, sooner or later you will get your shot against one of the "champions". As a result, a title fight fight between the "champion" and the contender is a fight between two guys with pretty records who have not fought anyone.

A given champion may or not have a lot of talent. They probably won't reach their full potential because they have not learned by fighting difficult opponents with different styles. It's hard sometimes knowing how good a particular fighter is because he has not been test much, if at all.

It's an interesting subject and one I've asked before. Some fighters are so unique that you can have a 100 fights and never meet anyone similar, so although the experience is good in terms of maybe facing certain situations, knockdowns, cuts etc.. it could mean little in terms of being prepared for someone style wise. Tyson Fury is pretty unique as a HW, someone that big, heavy, fast and awkward is going to be a first for anyone he fights. However for Fury, lots of HWs he fights are pretty similar in terms of skillsets, dimensions etc.

It's an interesting subject and one I've asked before. Some fighters are so unique that you can have a 100 fights and never meet anyone similar, so although the experience is good in terms of maybe facing certain situations, knockdowns, cuts etc.. it could mean little in terms of being prepared for someone style wise. Tyson Fury is pretty unique as a HW, someone that big, heavy, fast and awkward is going to be a first for anyone he fights. However for Fury, lots of HWs he fights are pretty similar in terms of skillsets, dimensions etc.

What is interesting for me is really about Tyson Fury himself and how he moved to world title fights.......

.....to some extent he was quite the traditionalist with a classic British road map to a title fight which was about gaining experience, acquiring smaller titles and then stepping-up the world rankings by degrees.

He used the Brit/Commonwealth/Euro belt title fights with Chisora and some decent bust-ups with Rogan and McDermott to his advantage and also had guys like Kevin Johnson and Cunningham thrown into the mix as well.

I thought Fury was still undercooked by the time he faced Wlad in Dusseldorf - did not fancy his chances - but he was 25-0 and had been in with some fellas and was perhaps also helped that the Euro HW scene was a much better class.

Bodyshot3 wrote: ↑27 May 2021, 14:47

It's an interesting subject and one I've asked before. Some fighters are so unique that you can have a 100 fights and never meet anyone similar, so although the experience is good in terms of maybe facing certain situations, knockdowns, cuts etc.. it could mean little in terms of being prepared for someone style wise. Tyson Fury is pretty unique as a HW, someone that big, heavy, fast and awkward is going to be a first for anyone he fights. However for Fury, lots of HWs he fights are pretty similar in terms of skillsets, dimensions etc.

What is interesting for me is really about Tyson Fury himself and how he moved to world title fights.......

.....to some extent he was quite the traditionalist with a classic British road map to a title fight which was about gaining experience, acquiring smaller titles and then stepping-up the world rankings by degrees.

He used the Brit/Commonwealth/Euro belt title fights with Chisora and some decent bust-ups with Rogan and McDermott to his advantage and also had guys like Kevin Johnson and Cunningham thrown into the mix as well.

I thought Fury was still undercooked by the time he faced Wlad in Dusseldorf - did not fancy his chances - but he was 25-0 and had been in with some fellas and was perhaps also helped that the Euro HW scene was a much better class.

He’s definitely a fighter than raises his game when needed.

That is the way it was (generally) and should be. However, unfortunately, those days are long gone.

If we have 4 WBS belt holders. They might have two title defenses in a year, which means title shots for another 8 guys. That is 12 different fighters who could fight in a title fight in a year.

If you are a contender, there is simply no business reason to fight another contender. You are going to get a title shot; probably within a year.

How do you get to be a contender in the first place? You go undefeated in 15-20 fights. Since it doesn't matter who you fight, it's best to fight opponents who have virtually zero chance of beating you.

As a result, not only has the challenger not fought anyone halfway decent when he gets a title shot, but even the champion will not have fought many quality opponents. Obviously, that affects the progress of the quality of the fighters if they have not been fighting opponents who have ability.

If you take a look at the champions and the top 10 contenders, you see a lot of guys with pretty records. However, very rarely has there been fights between two of those guys. That is hurting the sport immensely.