How long should a fighter be protected?

[Onix]

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?

[Otley]

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!!

[ElTerribleMorales]

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.

[ruthless rocco]

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

[Jody Lane]

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.

[Dark Lord Al]

All his career in the case of Joe Calzaghe.

[SEANIE]

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.