ehh...i think thats a bit overstated and worthlessly dramatic. i see the point, and am a proponent of film study to a degree, but some fighters just dont need to do it and there are two good reasons why it is often an unneccesary tool
-talent that is so above and beyond averaged that you dont really give a rats ass what gets put in front of you.
-the argument pernell whitaker and floyd mayweather (^^^^^see 1st point) proposed, was that at the top level, people are always adjusting to them, so they can't even bother watching film because they are going to be facing a different opponent than the one they will see in the films. whitaker said that he figures as long as he fights his fight, he can't be beat...and guess what, he never got beat when he fought his fight, only when he tried to sit in and trade bombs with tito did he actually lose a fight for real.

i have a fight collection in the thousands, from many generations, and my television is exclusively used for boxing, but to some degree, film study doesnt work in the fight game as well as in other sports. in boxing the collision of style a and style b is what determines the ebb and flow of the fight a whole lot more than who watched who on tape. it goes beyond that though, fighters are all unique. people say sluggers are sluggers and boxers are boxers and so forth...thing is, in the words of virginia woolf, "nothing can be just one thing." everyone will bring their own thing to the table come fight time, and more than any other sport, fights fluctuate from matchup to matchup