Thread: How long should a fighter be protected?

As boxing fans its natural for us to always want to thrown in the best fighters against each other, and when they dont fight we're quick to call them names to say they are ducking etc. But, I have also read articles and threads saying that certain top prospects shouldnt be brought up to quick.

So which is it? When is it right that a younger fighter should be guarded against heavy hitters or veterans and at the same time how long is too long?

what do you guys think?

If they are good enough....maybe 15 to 20 fights...and then let them off the leash.....even if they lose I think if the fighter has any thing about himself he would have learnt more from that 1 lose than 20 pointless fights.....I think a fighter should fight every month....learn from his experiences and up his competition...unfortunately good fighters get protected so much that that one lose can be the ending of a good career and hurt them mentally and don't come back from it. To be honest having a handful of defeats to your record doesn't mean a thing in my eyes....I respect a fighter more if he can do great things after a few defeats.....the thing is its OK to lose if you learn from the experience....having a perfect record don't mean anything....just ask Michael Grant and the likes...it means NOTHING!!


Job Biscuit (get me)!!!


eh eh!!

i think it all comes down to the fighter himself, the people around him need to know their fighter and should have an idea what he can handle up to that point, i have nothing against moving up a fighter GRADUALLY, but i'm completely against padding records just to milk off of a fighters popularity perfect example Chavez Jr.

fernando vargas took all comers and it meant his career crashed alot earlier than if he had been more cautious. looking at his record and his age you'll see if he had slowed down a little he would have been able to stretch(the successfull part of) his career several more years.

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hum...7205&cat=boxer

Gerry Cooney is an example of a prospect too protected too long, then fed to a lion--Larry Holmes. He was spoon fed 20 some fights then given Lyle and Norton who were washed up and boom a year later had his ass handed to him. Could he have been champion? He might have beaten Mike Weaver. Then again Weaver gave Mike Dokes a war in their second fight, someone with greater boxing skills than Cooney ever had.

All his career in the case of Joe Calzaghe.

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

All his career in the case of Joe Calzaghe.

Agree..

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

All his career in the case of Joe Calzaghe.

What is funny is, in the similar threads section at the bottom, it comes up with a Calzaghe thread..

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...e-so-long.html

No shit...

Depends on how much money the promoters have invested in the fighter in question. That's the reality of it.

How it should be is that based on their amateur background at first a fighter like Rigondeaux should have no more than 5 fights before he starts really going for challenges, as opposed to George Foreman XXVI or whichever one he is, should get in probably 15-20 fights before stepping up. After stepping up it should be like a video game constantly facing new and more effective styles until they lose back up start again.

Originally Posted by OnixAA

As boxing fans its natural for us to always want to thrown in the best fighters against each other, and when they dont fight we're quick to call them names to say they are ducking etc. But, I have also read articles and threads saying that certain top prospects shouldnt be brought up to quick.

So which is it? When is it right that a younger fighter should be guarded against heavy hitters or veterans and at the same time how long is too long?

what do you guys think?

If a boxer can fight don't hold em back. Roy Jones JR beat a 16-1-1 boxer in his third fight.

He probably could have won a world title in his next bout he was that good.

Then again anyone remeber George Collins? Fought bums for like 100 fights then got twatted by Gary Jacobs and Kirkland Laing. He should have been held back his entire carrer.

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

All his career in the case of Joe Calzaghe.

Interesting sig you've got there didn't that guy whats his name hmmmm oh it doesn't matter but didn't he lose both his shots at becoming great? Ahh yeah and what Joe Calzaghe didn't lose once WOW WOW we just stumbled over some interesting facts there! I've never heard of Uriah Grant....?

Every fighter is different and it really depends on his amateur background...Protect a fighter too long and they become a protected fighter that in their first loss can't cope and end up from a shining prospect to wasted talent....

Trow him in too soon the same as mentioned above could happen but also as was the case with Vargas...He swims in the deep water withy the best but takes too muchg abuse because he is too young and cock strong...

By a real fighter with any hope of a future in the sport by time he has 15 or so bouts you should be seeking a minor title even a stepping stone belt like NABF, NAMA, NABO etc....

By his 25th bout he should most certainly have a world title shot and this is assuming they are not a 2 fight a year fighter but one that fights 4 or so times at minimum the first couple of years....

I don't believe in protecting fighters it just ends up bad in the end no matter what they end up doing...I do believe in grooming a fighter after giving him 8 or so fairly easy bouts in the start to grown confidence then after that each bout is a slight step up....

I mean realize that this is a sport for young men...at 35-40 when the avverage fighter today retires he still has a long life to lead....No reason to have him end up a former punching bag...if he is going to fail find out by time they hit 25-30 so they can at least pursue something that will help them in the real world