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

[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.

[TIC]

i'd like to see some of these guys take the fights when they are there, rather than talking shit on twitter and the fights never happening. i could go the other way as well, with established fighters not wanting to risk a loss to a perceived prospect

[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.

[Baal]

Japanese young fighters match tough early in their career

[powerpuncher]

Japanese young fighters match tough early in their career

Good point. Probably because Japanese culture is different.

[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.

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.

Russell really ended up a shame. Started with massive promise and talent and now seems to focus on boxing with the frequency of a total lunar eclipse. Yeh and consider LaMotta v Fritzie Zivic, a series of four fights within six months..and both with 'tune ups' in between. Surprised LaMotta still had his eyesight . And the generational thing then Zivic joins the U.S Army a couple months later.