BoxRec

its been said that jamie pittman was thrown in too early for a title shot.

jeff fenech had only 6, yes SIX pro fights and about 21 (?) amatuer fights before he bashed satoshi shingaki to win the IBF bantam title.

anthony mundine had only 10, yes TEN pro fights and only 2 or 3 amatuer fights before he gave a valliant effort against the great sven ottke before getting tired and careless and ko'd in the 10th.

who can say that pittman was thrown in too early? he had an extensive amatuer record, (hundreds of fights?), and 18 pro fights. he was ready. perhaps not peaking, but ready.

It all depends on the fighter. Some guys who have had extensive amateur backgrounds may only need a handful of pro fights to get a feel for the changes such as longer rounds lighter gloves etc before they technically could be ready. Its also a mental thing ar ethey ready mentally? Or do they need a few more confidence building Wins?

Every individual is different. Then theres the other side of the coin guys like Tye Fields for example who have had almost 40m pro fights but are yet to step up the comp.,

N2 Shape wrote:It all depends on the fighter. Some guys who have had extensive amateur backgrounds may only need a handful of pro fights to get a feel for the changes such as longer rounds lighter gloves etc before they technically could be ready. Its also a mental thing ar ethey ready mentally? Or do they need a few more confidence building Wins?

Every individual is different. Then theres the other side of the coin guys like Tye Fields for example who have had almost 40m pro fights but are yet to step up the comp.,

it just depends on how GOOD they are....

It's never as black and white as "you've had 10 fights, so in you go". A lot of factors involved in a lot of different and varying situations.

Horses for courses.

It depends on the fighter, Fenech is going to be a hall of famer and is our best fighter for a long time comparing him with Pittman is stupid. Pittman hadnt fought anyone decent and had never fought out of Australia. He needed far better oppostion than he had and at least should have fought our own top 160 pounders to see were he was at.
Mundine was also a good example of stepping up too quick, He was KOd by a guy who Mundine claimed hit like a woman.

It also depends on the calibre of the opposition provided. It is no good being feed a diet of no-hopers; never-wasers and stumble-bums to boost up and inflate a record so that it looks great on paper.

There is no mathematical formula to guide how many fights one needs to win that title. You need to face opposition that always allows you to develop as a fighter and show continuous improvement. If you fight and defeat a steady stream of equal to or better than credientialed fighters, you are well on your way to earn that title shot.

But earning that title shot is so much easier these days due to the proliferation of alphabet organisations sprouting to be sanctioning fight bodies, eg. WBF (What a Bloody Farce), to whom managers can hawk around their fighters and promoters and stage "Claytons" title events under their banner.

there was a young latino fighter (dont remember his name though) who fought for a world title on his debut (cant remember which weight either)...ill try and find out who he was.

someone in another section reminded of his name - rafael lovera.

fought for the vacant wbc light flyweight title (and got tko'd in 4)...interestingly it was his only fight ever (according to boxrec)

I wouldnt say it all depends on how "good" you are. There are to many factors to pinpoint it on one thing.

N2 Shape wrote:I wouldnt say it all depends on how "good" you are. There are to many factors to pinpoint it on one thing.

I though I'd look at the caliber of Fenechs first six opponents as a clue. The combined record prior to his world title shot was 62-53-15. Hardly awe inspiring. He was either hand picked (rather poorly I might add) or had good management/promotion to get the shot after 6 fights.

What I am getting at is that I agree, there are so many factors that make the right number of fights. Just bear in mind that Shingaki had only had 10 fights when he fought Fenech. Opponents witha total number of fights between them of just 16 is unbelieveable for a world title fight.

Then Jeff went on and won two world titles in heavier divisions. Could his stellar amateur career have set him up?

Brute wrote:Then Jeff went on and won two world titles in heavier divisions. Could his stellar amateur career have set him up?

good point. he had about 20 amatuer fights, and most of them finished early....

He was robbed of a medal at the Los Angeles Olympics. He won on the judges card, but some clowns called a "jury" reversed the decision. The "jury" was one of many unsuccessful attempts to clean up Olympic boxing, but the same corrupt judges got on the juries.

Johnny Famechon won his title in his 57th fight. it was a lot harder to get a shot in the sixties.

I think the main thing is quality, not quantity, of opponents. Give a fighter 10 club fighters followed by 6-10 good-very good fighters and I think they could be legitimately ready.

Mundine got his title shot due to good management. Probably even similar to Green-Bayer. Kostya and Briggs earned their's (from memory).

And refering to a prev post, the WBF is an embarrassment IMO.

It's such a shame we can't have more structure and less shady deals to determine proper title shots and rankings in boxing.

adamheight wrote:there was a young latino fighter (dont remember his name though) who fought for a world title on his debut (cant remember which weight either)...ill try and find out who he was.

Poor old Rafael Lovera. Claimed to have had a great record in Paraguay and thrown in against the great Luis Estaba for the vacant WBC Light Flyweight title in 1975. It did not take "Lumumba" long to worK out that the kid could not fight and he put him out of his misery in four.

It took the WBC a long time to recover from that embarrassment.