Is it beneficial anymore for young fighters to fight established fighters?

[powerpuncher]

Thanks for the response. In my mind, I was thinking of the the black and white days for the good old days. Although I understand many people in the 80’s and before did some of the same things.

Some fighters do get established at an early age, but I’m more thinking way back to people like Archie Moore who had to claw his way to greatness. He took tons of losses from good fighters because he wasn’t ready for them.

[TitoFan]

Ok.... if you want to go back to the black and white days. Everything was different back then. Fighters fought a HELL of a lot more times. Records of 180-25 were not uncommon. Archie Moore himself was 55-5-5 when he beat Eddie Cerda in 1943..... then proceeded to lose 4 out of the next 8 fights. Fighters fought more often. They fought for more years. Fans were different. The media coverage was different. Today's "0" worship was non-existent back then.

I don't see where Moore had to "claw his way to greatness." He just followed the old M.O. of fighting often and for a long time. Win most..... lose a few. Certainly he wasn't "pariah-ed" by fans or press after suffering his first "L". Didn't mean much in the overall scheme of things.

If anything, most fighters went about their business (career development) in much the same way. Nowadays is where the vast difference occur. You've got your Canelos and JCCs, amassing undefeated records against dismal opposition in their immediate neighborhoods...... and you've got your Vargases and your Gomezes fighting not only credible, but awesome opposition very early on.

I don't know. Maybe I'm missing the point.

[Memphis]

There are a hundred and one 'international' titles to be had of course but there's still the beaten path round these parts of British (best belt bar none) Commonwealth, European then World honors. For any young fighter coming through that would or should be the goal. Do some get thrown to the wolves so to speak, yeah they do. Generally speaking though I'd say it's more out of necessity than design. A fighter who has to take a calculated risk to kick the door down because his following/management/ doesn't demand that it's opened for him. A fighter that gets a great opportunity out of the blue etc.

I don't think there was too much different back in the day. Fighters were still commodities and many people made money off of their backs. Keeping them winning is good for business. I think it just comes down to the old adage, if you go out in the rain, you're gonna get wet. They went out in the rain more often.

[Kirkland Laing]

Back in the black and white era boxing was as big a sport as any in America and there were a lot more fighters and there was only one champion. Promoters could throw any prospect in with anybody they wanted because there were a lot more fighters coming along so if a prospect turned out to be not as good as advertised it didn't matter so much. There was such a queue of guys waiting for a shot at any one of the belts that they were going to be tested against the best many times before they got near a title fight.

Nowadays the whole promotional model is different. A promoter signs a prospect with potential and nurses him along carefully. They basically partner up with a sanctioning body to ease a careful path to a title to keep everybody making money.

Back in the day it was all gate money and no TV. Fights had to be good, who was in them was kinda secondary. The profusion of fights, fighters and cards meant a big pool of talent available and a queue of top guys with name recognition and followings waiting for a title fight. Now with so few fighters and fights by comparison and so many belts and everything meaningful on TV it's a different ball game.

[Alpha]

Young in their pro career or young in age? Sometimes a younger aged fighter needs time to learn and develop or adjust to the pros. Some experienced amateurs get moved quickly. We just saw Akhmadaliev take on unified champ Roman in only his 8th fight. Lomachenko fought Salido in his 2nd fight and lost. A loss doesn't necessarily mean the end. If a fighter has talent they can always bounce back.

The industry can however effect the progress after a fighter loses. I think the greater the risk, the greater the reward, within reason, you don't won't to put a fighter in over his head to soon. A loss to a more experienced fighter can sometimes be used as a learning curve.

Competition for me personally, is only about bettering myself. It should never be about viewing yourself as something better than anybody else.

[Spicoli]

My old man raised us with a phrase repeated at the dinner table. 'Adversity builds character'. I think it's also some of a generational thing in the big picture. 20's through maybe 50's 60's ish lets face it we were a tougher meat and potato lot. A lot of fighters were raised and trained in the circumstance and while it sounds like an over simplification, fighting regularly was a way..a necessity..of life and career. Sure you had your playboys and exceptions but in large part you had to scrape and claw for your notoriety and week to week month to month opportunity. As such it was understood and a given that it just won't be your night sometimes. They weren't feverishly 'devastated' and dismissed as a loss and more often than not wanted and needed to do it again making a rivalry. You do learn when you are denied and have to recommit. Today guys are anointed with a single KO or how many followers they have on social media ffs . We're just a different breed. There were high stakes then and huge investment in fighters but today promotion and company has regrettably come level with the fighter. Fighters are faces and force of franchise. I've always thought numbers seriously overrated and misleading. We're constantly bludgeoned with 'the 0'. Be it undefeated or a massive KO percentage. Both are only as impressive as who and the circumstances they came against.

[J_Undisputed]

Everything there is to say has pretty much already been said. So i'll say this. There are certain young fighters I wouldn't mind watching losing a tough scrap and there are other fighters that can't hold my attention in steamrolling an over-matched opponent. They blame it on the fans and say that if the fighters undefeated they more marketable to justify the baby step exhibition tune up for a tune up for a tune up. I think the UFC has already debunked that when it comes to losses in terms of pay ranking.
I think many of the young fighters sit around and wait for rivals to get old, fight a completely shot fighter or a guy with a padded record in another country simply because their ego couldn't take the loss. Their handlers know that and still want to make money off the kid. Remember when a faded one lost wonder was bounced around between trains and promoters as a reclamation project. A kid would lose a fight and automatically be sent to a Joe Goossen type trainer and get nurtured for a second career. Now those kids are chopped up and fed to the big money makers in division because half of the coyotes share (as opposed to lions) is better than starving while trying to make a lion out of a coyote.

[Kirkland Laing]

My old man raised us with a phrase repeated at the dinner table. 'Adversity builds character'. I think it's also some of a generational thing in the big picture. 20's through maybe 50's 60's ish lets face it we were a tougher meat and potato lot. A lot of fighters were raised and trained in the circumstance and while it sounds like an over simplification, fighting regularly was a way..a necessity..of life and career. Sure you had your playboys and exceptions but in large part you had to scrape and claw for your notoriety and week to week month to month opportunity. As such it was understood and a given that it just won't be your night sometimes. They weren't feverishly 'devastated' and dismissed as a loss and more often than not wanted and needed to do it again making a rivalry. You do learn when you are denied and have to recommit. Today guys are anointed with a single KO or how many followers they have on social media ffs . We're just a different breed. There were high stakes then and huge investment in fighters but today promotion and company has regrettably come level with the fighter. Fighters are faces and force of franchise. I've always thought numbers seriously overrated and misleading. We're constantly bludgeoned with 'the 0'. Be it undefeated or a massive KO percentage. Both are only as impressive as who and the circumstances they came against.

Jake LaMotta fighting SRR twice in three weeks. Back then every week there was a fight that wasn't even a title eliminator which was a better matchup than ninety percent of the alphabet belt fights we get these days. Now we've got Gary Russell Junior fighting hasbeens and neverwases once a year for an alphabet belt for more money than old time fighters could ever dream of.