"Beyond the W-L Record"

[TitoFan]

Funny how you look at some prospects' records, and you see a bunch of 2-10, 4-25, no-name, absolute fillers. You gotta wait till they're 20-30 fights into their professional careers before you see an opponent with a winning record. At that point they're undefeated, with a glossy W-L record that in the end doesn't mean diddly squat.

Meanwhile, you've got these other prospects that from the beginning are fed live opposition. Ten fights into their careers they're already tested against 25-5 veterans, or other undefeated young fighters making their way up also.

This is when you have to look beyond the W-L records of these prospects and see how they're being brought along. The casual fan doesn't understand this... and easily falls prey coverage of "media darlings." The casual fan doesn't understand quality of opposition, or the concept of increasing that quality at something other than glacial speed.

That's when the dreaded "0" comes into play. It becomes the dominant factor, rather than the career development and quality of opponent itself. Coddled fighters latch onto that "0" no matter what the cost. They'll fight bums left and right, as long as they're guaranteed a win. A loss is seen as a major career blow... so the fighter and his team avoid risks like the plague.

But it's the difference in career starts that blows me away. I've seen way too many 30-0 fighters who haven't seen anyone with a pulse... and I've seen other, 12-0 fighters who are already fighting tough, credible opposition.

What are some examples of each?

[Master]

People like the zero and if there is a loss they immediately look at who they lost to and not who they beat.

Ryder was the underdog a couple of weeks ago against the undefeated Parker and he pulled off the upset. In reality he faced better opposition and had more experience for the big occasion to win the title.

[Primo Carnera]

People like the zero and if there is a loss they immediately look at who they lost to and not who they beat.

Ryder was the underdog a couple of weeks ago against the undefeated Parker and he pulled off the upset. In reality he faced better opposition and had more experience for the big occasion to win the title.

Not a great example, the fight ended with an injury.

[TitoFan]

Ok I think we can do better than that.

Let's mention someone everyone knows about... Deontay Wilder.

I like him NOW... and he's shown some gumption in 3 fights against Tyson Fury.

But let's not forget he had a gaudy, unbeaten record until not long ago. Based solely on that... he was rated maybe higher than he should have. Most of his early career was made up of nothing but bums.

Case in point:

For his 14th professional fight, he fought 11-38-0 Dan Sheehan.

Now... I know nothing of this Sheehan character. But I'll venture to say that anyone with an 11-38-0 professional record was either picked off the nearest pub... or he's halfway decent with some horribly wrong fight judging along the way.



Ok. Next.....

[Spicoli]

About 10-15 years ago it really started to open my eyes when it comes to glossy pushed/hyped undefeated guys and how numbers are so easily manipulated. More so in boxing specifically. We fall into this falsehood of '0' translating to immediate quality. We're a society based or maybe reliant on instant stats. The problem is we really tend to stop on the surface and not do what is much easier to do now...look beyond the numbers, dig into them. As mentioned with Wilder, a case like so many others where it reads like a literal manufacturing of glossy numbers. But instead of turning the page and looking into opposition line by line, all we hear is "omg he knocks everyone out". Well yeh. That's the idea. Of course you KO who you're set up to KO. That's the recipe. Thought the same of a Victor Ortiz as they pushed him as some one man wrecking crew. And then reality comes in the form of Maidana. And not to slag on Wilder alone. The field is littered with padded records with full design to get among the very top and see how it works out. Edgar Berlanga anyone . And now hype jobs like Berlanga have to "learn backwards" at a higher level and that can be a disaster. The time to take a calculated risk and work on a reasonable defense, stamina, actual combination punching are the early years. Wilder had to do it. Berto? A glaring example today are guys like Munguia (41-0) but as empty as my midnight plate at the Casino buffet. Zurdo Ramirez just laid an egg and looked like he had no idea after running up 40-0. You simply do not go from the kiddie pool where all things line up your way with soft touch after soft touch and then climb in with a master-class like Bivol. Andrade to a degree as we speak. Another unblemished record but when it was time to shit or get off the pot i.e take a real challenge he literally ducked out. Now he goes from being next for Canelo (?) if he took/won the Ryder fight as proposed..to now fighting a guy Berlanga beat a year ago . Talk about shooting a career in both feet. Another and I hate to say this but..Jaron Boots Ennis. I love me some Boots and think he has all the undeniable talent to worry the very best. But that record man. I mean, again a case of looking beyond the numbers. Great 29-0 but fan or no fan you have to be honest about it. Beyond Lipinets and being the only man to ko a tough as nails Abreu..there's not alot of there there. Padding and fluffing records is nothing new though. And every fighter has their fair share. But in boxings case numbers can lie. And it's on fans to dig into them. Getting back to quality over quantity would be a great start for many up and comers. KO's and W's are beautiful...but exactly who are you beating in the first place. Have to think on the quality over quantity type guys. The ones taking decent guys early to build on.

[TitoFan]

Berlanga and Ramirez are two good examples.