Why Do Boxers Face So Many Cans?

[Trillione]

Can someone please explain why every boxer has to go like 25-0 vs a bunch of nobody before they even get to face a B level fighter? Is it really that hard to tell if a guy is talented or is it just to pad their record to trick the public into believing they are as good as advertised?

 

[BrooklynBomber]

Because unless you're a middleweight in the 20's or 40's, a heavyweight in the 70's, or a welterweight in the 80's, you can't fight a star every time out.

You know, just like how MMA guys always fight superstars every time out.

 

[ix ir]

A combination of promoters being able to promote impressive sounding stats more easily than explaining that the 60% wins guy has had fights vs really good opponents, and that losing in boxing costs you some of your ability and health.

 

[Sinister]

Every combat Sport has that, not just Boxing, so I sincerely hope this isn't an attempt to troll.

The word you're looking for is "experience." Oh yes, it's important, especially when a fighter competes all over the World. A good Fighter will spend time as a journeyman and travel, fighting outside of the Country. But, you ignorantly assume that the Fighters a prospect is facing are "cans" or "nobody" as you state. To the contrary, many of them are good reliable fighters, just not World Class, and they put in work. They take fights on short notice, aren't very protected, and will show up in-shape to put on a show for the audiences, but they lack something that makes them elite.

That's called the class system in Combat Sports. And it exists in EVERY combat Sport, kickboxing, MMA, and the grappling Arts (Who do you think guys take on in tournaments? Bunch of "nobody.")

However, some promoters do like to take young prospects and pad their records, keeping them in just one area where the competition is weak, then put them in with one of those respectable journeyman I made mention of earlier, and bet the farm against them. This happens in every combat Sport as well. The stupidity of fans helps, like how Chuck was a 3-1 favorite over the guy who KO'd him. A lot of people who knew what was going on with that fight made a LOT of money on Chuck losing.

 

[CemetaryTump]

its called HYPE !

they feed fighters cans to build up there reps

just like cro cop fighting all those cans in japan to make his record look alot more deadly that what it realy is

 

[Henry Swanson]

Can someone please explain why every boxer has to go like 25-0 vs a bunch of nobody before they even get to face a B level fighter? Is it really that hard to tell if a guy is talented or is it just to pad their record to trick the public into believing they are as good as advertised?

It's experience. They gradually move up to higher opposition and during the process they become accustomed to fighting longer fights. You don't just start out fighting 10 rounders.

 

[Sinister]

its called HYPE !

they feed fighters cans to build up there reps

just like cro cop fighting all those cans in japan to make his record look alot more deadly that what it realy is

You fail.

 

[mozfonky]

what may look like cans, may very well be, but many times they are just lesser talented fighters to gain proper experience. Not so much these days, but they used to bring fighters up with fighters who were of different styles, puncher,boxers,etc., who would be good enough to learn from but not too much for a young fighter. At any rate, it's about marketability, there is a plus to being undefeated.

 

[Sinister]

lol I still don't get why anyone thinks it's about "marketability". Is that what it looks like from TV?

Did anyone take Walter Matthysse seriously against Cintron because of his record? He had only lost to Paul Williams previously. Was he fed cans? No, he only lost to two World Class fighters.

Simoltaneously Augustus always gets on TV when he fights, but his record sucks. Paul Malignaggi was undefeated heading into the fight with Cotto, did that make him more marketable? No. People still felt he was going to get killed most-likely.

Sergio Medina had never fought outside of Argentina and the HBO Commentary made it seem as if because of that Bautista should walk right through him. Turned out that despite not leaving his homeland, Medina was arguably one of the best Fighters IN Argentina at the time and gave Bautista all he could handle.

No one believes the undefeated record so much anymore. Fighters fight because that's how they make their money. Some of them are protected, some of them aren't, it all depends on who is investing in them (from the standpoint of that some guys have all their bills paid by their promoters), but at the same time if your fighter has wins over cab drivers then people will know immediately in today's day of information.

 

[mozfonky]

we know, but people who really don't care about boxing, like that kind of thing.

 

[TadPoleChoke**]

Like many said its for experience and it also helps build up a budding star and helps make them huge draws later on. The public is enamoured by undefeated fighters as well and promoters know this.

Also many fighters get easy fights to help them adjust to the professional style there is a huge difference between pros and am's that is why many guys who did well in the am's didnt do well in the pro's and then some guys who didnt do to well in the Am's did well in the pros like chris eubank.

Also the want to see if the fighter has got the good did you know many of the legends fought cans as well? thats why some of them had 200 fights they would fight every other week just to make ends meet.

 

[mozfonky]

everyone also turns against a prospect with a loss, quickly, look at hector jr. or bojado. People turn on em.

 

[BrooklynBomber]

everyone also turns against a prospect with a loss, quickly, look at hector jr. or bojado. People turn on em.

People didn't turn on Camacho, they didn't like him from the beginning. He didn't help his cause refusing Leija a rematch after he was clearly beaten.

People didn't turn on Bojado either. He got moved along way too quickly and wasn't ready to be serious enough to handle it.

 

[TadPoleChoke**]

everyone also turns against a prospect with a loss, quickly, look at hector jr. or bojado. People turn on em.

yes but hector jr sucks ass lol

bojado was more of a dissapointment, and cintron lost but he clearly will be a future star. It depends on the circumstances and how the fighter bounces back and how they fought when they lost. If they got out boxed people and went the distance and put up a fight and it was close the public wouldnt hold that against them. But if they did like Bojado did and camacho jr and cracked under the pressure against a Vet like jesse james then they might turn there cheek.

 

[Falked]

cuz boxing doesn't have a whole lotta optiuons these " what? you wanna fight, Get in there "

 

[SuperSuperRambo]

Frankly I think the TS's observation comes from being primarily an MMA fan like myself. I don't follow boxing nearly as much, but I understand what you're saying. A guy you see fight on ESPN friday night might have a 17-0 record. In MMA, if you have a guy who's 17-0, he's a bona fide superstar, it's rare that you see an undefeated record that high. Conversely, GSP fought Hughes for the WW title the first time when he was like 7-0 or something, and in the boxing world I doubt we'd ever see a 7-0 boxer contending for a legitimate world title.

So bickering aside, I think we can all admit there's a disparity in records between the two sports for fighters that are at the same level in their respective sports. That might lead a MMA fan to think that a boxer's record is padded or something to that extent.

I don't think that's the case, I just think there's a deeper pool of challengers in boxing, when you consider that it's really worldwide. Like I said, if a guy is 17-0 and in the UFC he's either a champ or fighting for the title in his next fight. But in boxing, there's probably a bunch of guys with good records like that. They can't all fight for the title, so they fight other quality guys and the ones who end up challenging for titles usually are proven against tough competition. Look at any good boxer's record and you can clearly see that the quality of competition increases gradually as the fighter keeps winning, just as in MMA. But a boxer increases his competition more gradually, either because there's more guys to face, or something to that extent.

Just my thoughts. Please, someone correct me if I'm totally off base.

 

[5acrossYOeye]

its called HYPE !

they feed fighters cans to build up there reps

just like cro cop fighting all those cans in japan to make his record look alot more deadly that what it realy is

NO!

 

[5acrossYOeye]

People didn't turn on Camacho, they didn't like him from the beginning. He didn't help his cause refusing Leija a rematch after he was clearly beaten.

People didn't turn on Bojado either. He got moved along way too quickly and wasn't ready to be serious enough to handle it.

Speaking of Camacho Jr.

http://www.fightnews.com/fightnews_2/headlines//EElVyAkFlExSBnnNaP.html


Bojado's previous handlers deserved to be shot. Might have ruined the kid. We'll see.

 

[TadPoleChoke**]

Frankly I think the TS's observation comes from being primarily an MMA fan like myself. I don't follow boxing nearly as much, but I understand what you're saying. A guy you see fight on ESPN friday night might have a 17-0 record. In MMA, if you have a guy who's 17-0, he's a bona fide superstar, it's rare that you see an undefeated record that high. Conversely, GSP fought Hughes for the WW title the first time when he was like 7-0 or something, and in the boxing world I doubt we'd ever see a 7-0 boxer contending for a legitimate world title.

So bickering aside, I think we can all admit there's a disparity in records between the two sports for fighters that are at the same leel in their respective sports. That might lead a MMA fan to think that a boxer's record is padded or something to that extent.

I don't think that's the case, I just think there's a deeper pool of challengers in boxing, when you consider that it's really worldwide. Like I said, if a guy is 17-0 and in the UFC he's either a champ or fighting for the title in his next fight. But in boxing, there's probably a bunch of guys with good records like that. They can't all fight for the title, so they fight other quality guys and the ones who end up challenging for titles usually are proven against tough competition. Look at any good boxer's record and you can clearly see that the quality of competition increases gradually as the fighter keeps winning, just as in MMA. But a boxer increases his competition more gradually, either because there's more guys to face, or something to that extent.

Just my thoughts. Please, someone correct me if I'm totally off base.

Good points.

I think in MMA they are rushing the fighters along wayyyyy to early. But thats what is so enticing for a young fighter. The idea of not having to take the long and winded road a boxer must take to get a title shot by building up his record with wins.

In mma you can fight a champion with only 5-10 fights on your record and become an instant star.

I wish MMA would have a universal system like Boxing so they can finally have a real Amatuer program and build up fighters thru there and help them hone there skills and build up like Boxing does with the Am;s before they turn pro.

So they can weed out the guys like danny abbadi, forrest griffin, stephen bonnar, andy wang,Gabe rudeger etc....

 

[BrooklynBomber]

Frankly I think the TS's observation comes from being primarily an MMA fan like myself. I don't follow boxing nearly as much, but I understand what you're saying. A guy you see fight on ESPN friday night might have a 17-0 record. In MMA, if you have a guy who's 17-0, he's a bona fide superstar, it's rare that you see an undefeated record that high. Conversely, GSP fought Hughes for the WW title the first time when he was like 7-0 or something, and in the boxing world I doubt we'd ever see a 7-0 boxer contending for a legitimate world title.

So bickering aside, I think we can all admit there's a disparity in records between the two sports for fighters that are at the same level in their respective sports. That might lead a MMA fan to think that a boxer's record is padded or something to that extent.

I don't think that's the case, I just think there's a deeper pool of challengers in boxing, when you consider that it's really worldwide. Like I said, if a guy is 17-0 and in the UFC he's either a champ or fighting for the title in his next fight. But in boxing, there's probably a bunch of guys with good records like that. They can't all fight for the title, so they fight other quality guys and the ones who end up challenging for titles usually are proven against tough competition. Look at any good boxer's record and you can clearly see that the quality of competition increases gradually as the fighter keeps winning, just as in MMA. But a boxer increases his competition more gradually, either because there's more guys to face, or something to that extent.

Just my thoughts. Please, someone correct me if I'm totally off base.

Very fair assesment.