Why Aren't Boxing Experts Anymore Accurate At Predicting Than Us Fans.

Good thread Mc.

I do remember Colin Hart predicting Watson to beat Benn in the 6th!
Aside from that, you have a valid point.

 

You could invoke the so-called "wisdom of crowds" I suppose. Boxing experts are at least better than economists, since at least the former don't make such ludicrously grandiose claims of specialized skills and insight. (I'm no economist, but that's okay, neither are economists.)

 

Because boxing is so hard to pick.

There was a guy in the mags of the 80's that was downright uncanny. I can't remember many of the fights he picked correctly but he called difficult fights like Spinks - Braxton and Pryor - Arguello as if looking thru a crystal ball. There were numerous others too. Guy was insane.

 

I think they might be more accurate if the judges were better at scoring. Bad judging can turn this from a fairly predictable sport to "flip a coin."

I think I'm around 75% this year with my picks in Kirk's betting league, which seems to be about as good as anyone is doing.

 

They were never that great. Sometimes we as boxing fans know more than they do and get into the intricate aspects of fighters and fights more than they do. I remember oh I forget his name. I hate getting older and forgetting names. I met the guy too.. He was a baseball expert also, and he died some years ago and he was very old. He had a thing with a cigar and I almost remembered his name.. Anyway. he would predict the easy prediction everyone did. And most of them did. And I realized, I read more about the sport than these guys do. Now when I heard what Marvin Hagler said or Ray Leonard, I thought ok they know what they are talking about.

 

I remembered his name. Bert Sugar. I met him at the Hall of Fame dinner many years back. I know he died some years ago.. He was a nice guy, but more of a personality than a boxing expert. I respect Al Bernstein. I think he was spectacular.. And some guys like Gil Clancy were great. Gil and Al together talking a fight was some of the best commentary for me, yet for a guy who is not into boxing much it wouldn't be.

 

Macroeconomists, anyway.

 

It's just a completely different skill set than what any of them have to use to be good at their jobs. And surprising upsets happen in sports all the time--they're just more surprising in boxing because fighters have so few contests each year. Boxing is also especially difficult because a fight's outcome can be determined by a lapse of a few mere seconds, at any point in a fight.

 

Also, I think that chance probably plays a much larger role in individual boxing contests than most boxing fans and experts care to acknowledge, especially at heavyweight. Sometimes the difference between a miss and a knockdown punch is only two or three inches, or a fraction of a second in reaction in time.

 

Perhaps their too close to it.

 

Psychologists will talk about "the hot hand theory", where a gambler who is on a winning streak, will intuitively expect the winning streak to continue.

I definitely see a hot hand theory at work in boxing predictions.

Remember how hard it was to imagine Wladamir Klitschko losing, when we had only seen him winning all those years?

That is just one example.

 

Well Wlad was favorite for fight after fight and given how he was travelling and how limited the division was it was hardly difficult to pick his fights?

 

1. Anything can happen in boxing. There are many factors and only 1 player on each team who can't be substituted if he gets hurt.

2. many experts are only glorified fans that managed to market themselves