BoxRec

How important is it for a fighter to have multiple fights? Some fighters were beating world class fighters early in their career (Loma and De La Hoya) and others had little to zero amateur experience (Marciano, Holmes, Qawi etc) but had great success. Some people like to make the point that old timers were far more experienced and skilled but in reality there are other great fighters that didn't have many fights, Frazier, SRL and Lennox Lewis to name a few. They were likely to beat or be competitive against any fighter in history.

I've said on other threads I wouldn't have been surprised if Mike Tyson beat Berbick in his debut. He didn't have much experience when he fought Berbick anyway. In terms of building up their fitness to go the championship rounds of course hard rounds are needed but how many fights do you need for that? Most world class fighters are sparring better opponents than they fight in the early years as a pro. Or they fought better opponents as an amateur, the easy early opponents they are fed are a step down in most cases.

So does it really matter how many fights someone has, if you are good enough then you are good enough?

I would think even a guy with great fighting instincts, and all the natural tools to make it as a boxer would still be well served to have at least 30 to 40 amateur fights under his belt just to get a feel for the ring, and everything.

However since the Pro game and the Amateur game is such a different beast, if you're determined to be a Pro I could see shifting into that after 3 dozen fights or so. That's the experience you're gonna have to get used to anyway.

The ability to feel comfortable, and think clearly in the ring is huge. I wouldn't think too many people are gonna have nerves of steel enough to just be completely at ease without some prior experience before diving into the Pro game.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑30 Jul 2023, 19:20 I would think even a guy with great fighting instincts, and all the natural tools to make it as a boxer would still be well served to have at least 30 to 40 amateur fights under his belt just to get a feel for the ring, and everything.

However since the Pro game and the Amateur game is such a different beast, if you're determined to be a Pro I could see shifting into that after 3 dozen fights or so. That's the experience you're gonna have to get used to anyway.

The ability to feel comfortable, and think clearly in the ring is huge. I wouldn't think too many people are gonna have nerves of steel enough to just be completely at ease without some prior experience before diving into the Pro game.

Yes, it's difficult to imagine that a boxer, no matter how talented, could take on the absolute best pros in the world right from the start, if he hadn't had at least a few amateur fights, to test/learn the most basic things. The reason why boxers like Loma, Rigo and Usyk could more or less go up against top opponents right away - is of course because of their huge amateur careers at the highest level. When they turned pro, they were already more or less the finished product.

Now you will of course come across posters, who believe guys with only 20-25 pro fights can never be great - because they will never be able to accumulate the huge numbers, we associate with many of the ATGs from days gone by. I don't agree with that... I'm more of the opinion, that if you're exceptionally good after only a couple of dozen fights, then I don't think an ekstra 50-100 matches against nobodies, will make you much better. I mean, does Inoue look like someone, who is lacking proper technique - which he might have picked up, if only he had had another 50 or so "stay busy" fights? I don't think so!

So many other factors at play besides experience too. Some opponents are unique in skill, abilities or size that someone may have never experienced anything similar to them even with numerous fights under their belt. Some guys never face a southpaw. The guys who faced a young Ali for example or the HWs who had Mike Tyson in front of them. Tyson Fury said before fighting Whyte that he was just another 6’4” and 17 stone opponent and he’s fought them his entire career, once you’ve fought one they are all pretty much the same whereas how many fighters have fought someone like Fury?

I can’t remember what British HW said recently that his early pro career is a step down from what he was used to in the WSL where he was boxing the best amateurs in the world and sparring with world class pros. That makes sense, what is he really learning blasting out some unknown fighter with a losing record in one round. Lots of fighters first 10-20 fights are against pretty dubious opposition that just allows them to build up a knockout reel and a load of wins.

When Tyson turned pro the champions were Holmes, Page and Pinky Thomas and the guy we see fighting Hector Mercedes on his debut obviously wasn't ready for any of them. I doubt he could beat Berbick in 1985. He was a teenager coming off losses to Henry Tillman! He needed all the confidence-boosting knockouts and the learning curve of Ferguson, Tillis, Green and Ribalta, not to mention the rigorous sparring against quality heavyweights.

Tyson was obviously a quick learner and very hungry, in addition to having uncommon gifts for a heavyweight, but he would have been ruined and his development stunted had he been thrown in with the best in the world immediately. The guy ripping through challengers as heavyweight champion had sky high confidence which had been earned thru experience.

Some fighters probably are physically capable of competing at the top from the start. However, the right learning fights are going to be important to them fulfilling their full potential IMO.

Fury and AJ are a good example. Both have a lot of natural advantages but Fury had a lot of good learning fights before beating Wlad in Germany. Whereas AJ was rushed with an eye on earnings, faced his first big crises against the likes of Klitschko and Ruiz and seems to have been (possibly) ruined mentally as a result.

Bundana wrote: ↑31 Jul 2023, 03:22

gilgamesh wrote: ↑30 Jul 2023, 19:20 I would think even a guy with great fighting instincts, and all the natural tools to make it as a boxer would still be well served to have at least 30 to 40 amateur fights under his belt just to get a feel for the ring, and everything.

However since the Pro game and the Amateur game is such a different beast, if you're determined to be a Pro I could see shifting into that after 3 dozen fights or so. That's the experience you're gonna have to get used to anyway.

The ability to feel comfortable, and think clearly in the ring is huge. I wouldn't think too many people are gonna have nerves of steel enough to just be completely at ease without some prior experience before diving into the Pro game.

Yes, it's difficult to imagine that a boxer, no matter how talented, could take on the absolute best pros in the world right from the start, if he hadn't had at least a few amateur fights, to test/learn the most basic things. The reason why boxers like Loma, Rigo and Usyk could more or less go up against top opponents right away - is of course because of their huge amateur careers at the highest level. When they turned pro, they were already more or less the finished product.

Now you will of course come across posters, who believe guys with only 20-25 pro fights can never be great - because they will never be able to accumulate the huge numbers, we associate with many of the ATGs from days gone by. I don't agree with that... I'm more of the opinion, that if you're exceptionally good after only a couple of dozen fights, then I don't think an ekstra 50-100 matches against nobodies, will make you much better. I mean, does Inoue look like someone, who is lacking proper technique - which he might have picked up, if only he had had another 50 or so "stay busy" fights? I don't think so!

But even Loma is an example of how important experience is. He lost to Salido, not because Salido was a better fighter or more talented but because he didn't know how to deal with what Salido who was using a lot of 'tricks' that aren't persistent in the amateurs'.

Controversial wrote: ↑31 Jul 2023, 03:57 So many other factors at play besides experience too. Some opponents are unique in skill, abilities or size that someone may have never experienced anything similar to them even with numerous fights under their belt. Some guys never face a southpaw. The guys who faced a young Ali for example or the HWs who had Mike Tyson in front of them. Tyson Fury said before fighting Whyte that he was just another 6’4” and 17 stone opponent and he’s fought them his entire career, once you’ve fought one they are all pretty much the same whereas how many fighters have fought someone like Fury?

I can’t remember what British HW said recently that his early pro career is a step down from what he was used to in the WSL where he was boxing the best amateurs in the world and sparring with world class pros. That makes sense, what is he really learning blasting out some unknown fighter with a losing record in one round. Lots of fighters first 10-20 fights are against pretty dubious opposition that just allows them to build up a knockout reel and a load of wins.

Not a lot. A bit of time to adjust to the style differences and the environmental differences but 10-20 fights against no hopers gains them nothing other than some physical maturity while they are young before they have a proper test.

That has pretty much been par for the course for a long time. It used to be that a prospect would fight other prospects and capable veterans on their way up. Then a at least a couple of contenders before getting a title shot.
Naturally a fighter would get gain more experience than fighting no-hopers.

Unfortunately, now the norm is to fight nothing but no-pers until a title shot against one of the champions. That champion himself might not be very well tested.