Quote:
Originally Posted by Flea Man
I might make the argument that purely athletic talents get on better in an era without lots of technical types around. Any weight in that you think?
Check out George Benton. He faced the best. Beat the best. Lost to the best. Lost to the not so great some nights. Very experienced, fighting from 49-70, seeing middleweight champs as varied as Ray Robinson, Paul Pender, Gene Fullmer and Dick Tiger without facing a single one of 'em.
Oh, and he went on to train Whitaker, Holyfield, Taylor with mixed success admittedly. But mainly success of the highest order. Make some massive mistakes, but that happens at that level.
So why are fighters built up to have the '0' nowadays?  |
because they don't fight frequently enough or against top competition enough to warrant it
when you sooooo carefully pick your opposition and fight only once MAYBE twice a year, every lose is held under a microscope and used as evidence of their weaknesses and inferiority.
if you're fighting top ranked opposition 8 or 9 times a year, a loss is expected and a learning experience. if you fight one bum and one top 5 guy a year, a loss, fair or not, is extremely damaging to a champion