What do boxers have to do these days to please the hyper critical tossers..

On forums like this?

A fighter can be branded "dog ****" just because he's knocked out or outclassed on one occasion.

Laughably people still think khan is ****. People sneer at froch for being "limited"

Degale is written off as a no one after a very close points loss to groves. 10 pro fights that guy had and he destroyed Paul smith who regardless of what people say is a very smart and good domestic operator.

I just don't understand peoples logic. Everyone strives to be better and people do post balanced and well thought out posts giving fair assessments of what someone can do better.

But we have some perfectly good fighters who get the shaft like Ricky burns who fought the fight of his life to beat martinez.

John Murray gets **** for being "limited" too.

Kev Mitchell got the boot stuck into him after the kats loss.

Every **** comes out of the woodwork following a fight with their told you so comments writing off a guy after a solitary defeat.

We could do with taking a leaf out of ufc's book. If you haven't got a loss on your record you obviously haven't fought the right people.

We are hyper critical of guys that have got perfectly good skills. Top fighters. Why do we knock them? Did Barrera ever get "written off" after pacman destroyed him or after suffering ko loss to jones? No, the mentality is different. The styles made those fight and they just didn't suit Barrera, but it didn't make him a **** fighter over night. I dread to think of the shot he would have taken had he been q British fighter.

I suppose what I'm saying is what more is it people want from the top British fighters we have? Why not appreciate what we've got? Is being hyper critical point scoring between posters to see who can sound the most informed? Not every fighter can be what our perception of a perfect fighter is.

 

I think you're right to a point there. It's that Internet warrior mentality. I think with a lot of posters it seems to be if he's not on the path to being number one p4p then there are massive flaws in the fighter. Expectations are too high on guys who r good but not good enough to be elite or atg. Where's the shame in that?

 

But if in your opinion khan isn't on his way to being #1p4p then the argument is with the poster and not khan, because he isn't saying it. He might want to fight floyd or PAC to become one of the best and there's no shame in striving for that as a goal.
What the problem is, is that when guys like hatton fight these types of fighters and lose he becomes a bum. And it certainly happened when PAC ko'd hatton.
He was just a fat manc who'd fought "****" opposition like urango. Many derided him for his bullying win against kostya. It was a great win. Losses to floyd and PAC made him **** in some people's eyes because he couldn't defeat two of the best fighters of our generation. That's where my problem is.
You've got Carl froch fighting ward. Good chance he'll lose. But does him losing make him ****? You look at his last 7 fights and theyre against as good a quality opposition against guys who are considered threats as any other Brit is fighting right now. Got to the final of the super six. But people still treat him as if he has somehow luckily stumbled into the final.

 

Good reply!

I just want to tap into what the mentality is when people criticise fighters.

In your responses you give opinions and reasons as to what issues are. I don't agree with all of them, but opinions are like arseholes, everyone's got one.

Where opposition is concerned, burns may have had 3 relatively easy defences but his fight with martinez was a war and a risk. He had to work hard to earn the belt. Khan may have faced some dodgy opposition coming up, but getting floored against Prescott was coming because his muscle mass was distributed poorly around his body and he was weight drained to ****!
Mitchell did himself no favours not fighting, but he learnt lots from his defeat and looked re juvinated against Murray. Murray is one dimensional but does pressure fight well. Whether than can carry him to world level is debatable. But does this make him "****"?
Regards to Barrera, questions would always be asked due to the nature of the loss to jones (the ko) but he has attained god like status due to his thirst to prove himself. I think khan has a similar mentality. Nobody really questioned his heart or chin half as much as khans was questioned. It's simply because khan is a Brit and because people don't think he can be an atg elite fighter. This lessens a fighter to some people. That's what I don't understand.
Regards to degale, he may well be a dickhead, but this should have no bearing on how we consider him when he's between the ropes. I personally think the smith victory is much better than you give it credit for...plus the groves fight was well close with groves sticking rigidly to a plan, and degale switching off. What I'm saying is that he's not a write off and certainly not after 10 fights!

 

It's not standards in all fairness.

What I'm getting at is there seems to be sometimes a level of snobbery regarding boxers if it seems they are going to be limited to domestic/euro level as if that's some kind of disgrace. I'm talking about people's mentality when disscussing in general a boxers level of opposition and what a loss means in terms of can this boxer progress further due to a loss that he "should" beat etc

It's quite right people come on here and discuss technique and what a boxer can improve on. I'd never argue against that. It's the generalisation we make about boxers and knocking a fighter because he ain't world class or that at least someone thinks he isn't world class due to opposition etc.
Not everyone can be an atg. Why can't people accept this and stop the GENERAL criticism of a boxer who can't make it there as if it's a really bad thing?

 

Therein lies the problem in general with boxing regarding clev/burns (especially clev) being world champion. It's probably another debate to be honest. I won't ever knock people for beating who they are put in front of (or losing). I'll never look down on a fighter who is clearly very good but can't be a world champ or even euro level fighter because of the respect I have for boxers. I would always entertain debates regarding improving someone's performance or looking at what they did wrong or looking at why it is someone like PAC can do so well up the weights.
What frustrates me is seeing a boxer who does not use the skill they were born with.
But totally shitting on a fighter because he can't beat a fighter of the decade or at any level indeed is wrong. Boxing is about finding out. Every fighter should be applauded for wanting to put themselves under the spot light like that.