Would you prefer a champ who stays very active, with four or five fights a year like Farmer and Navarrete who faces a top notch opponent not too often, or would you prefer a Canelo type who waits 6 months between fights but picks top notch opponents mostly? Basically the quality vs quantity debate with boxing champs. Edit: Just to clarify, one of those four or five fights a year would be a quality opponent, likely a mandatory but it'd only be one, whereas the other option would be for two quality fights a year.
i'd say both to a point. if they cannot make a fight with another top level opponent then they should fight more frequently. if they get a top notch opponent then 2 is acceptable hopefully that makes sense lol
Yes, understood, a bit of mix and match depending on availability. Honestly that'd be the perfect blend but we rarely if ever get that.
It's a very good question and I agree with the answer above. Activity is always better but it can be excused if the slower made fights are always big ones.
At the very top level I opt for quality. I've no interest in someone at the height of the sport taking on meaningless make-busy fights where the outcome is almost set before the fight. They have to take on credible contenders or I'm not interested.
I'd argue that you not only get to watch a top fighter square off against a contender who's at least decent as they'd be top 15 or a mandatory, but you could also have more unveilings of previously relatively unknown quality fighters. Doesn't make your point invalid though. I see the merit in it.
Are we saying top 15 in the world or top 15 according to a particular alphabet agency's list? There's a difference and no matter how many times someone tells me Tom Schwarz is rated 4 in the world by someone or other I still have the evidence of my own eyes to think the fight and the opponent stinks. I think below that very top level though its better to see the activity, because its not neccesarily clear who the best are. I just think once that there's an acknowledged leader that I'd like to see them face the very best opposition. If they're doing that I have no problem with them only fighting twice a year.
I'd prefer quality over quantity. If a fighter takes on one or two similarly top tier fighters a year, I'd prefer that than gimme after gimme with the odd test. It pads a record and top sportsmen should always seek to compete against the best, yet boxing is bizarre in this regard and it almost has to be forced at times. Usain Bolt wouldn't have been content running against school kids at the Olympics, Liverpool or Barcelona gain no kudos beating a Sunday league team, Roger Federer sees no challenge playing a part time player. They all thrive on facing the best, as it brings the best out in them. That's why sport is always at it's most poetic and inspiring when it is two people or teams battling with everything to win. Think Ali vs Foreman, Barcelona vs Man United, Senna vs Prost, Federer vs Nadal. So, no, i don't think fighters should coast along picking easy fights and stepping up here and there. You are the best, face the best...then the next best, then the one after that. That's why Tyson Fury is such a joke; making all these big claims then fighting people like Tom Schwartz and Otto Wallin.
Unfortunately it would have to be by alphabet organisation, no hypotheticals here, only sad sad reality. But I reckon this option is better than nothing. If one of those four or five fights a year was against a top opponent (which would likely be their annual mandatory) I'm sure you'd have little issue with that right?
Quality can always be mixed in with quantity. I think modern day, James Toney did it the best during his MW/SMW run. He took some stay busy ones but he also had some very high quality comp mixed in. I think it helped him with his craft immensely as well. He stayed sharp.
Not at all. But here's a question for those who know more than me about the realities of pro boxing. Is it possible to maintain your top level for 4 or 5 fights a year? Are you not at risk of shortening your time at the top by putting all those extra miles on your body from what would be almost a perpetual training camp? I would worry that we'd see burnout and subsequent drop in quality which would damage the fighter and the sport?
I still like to see underdogs get their shot as those also provide sporting epics. This is why there's such a dichotomy surrounding this issue.