...and it’s not just because they’re that good. No undefeated fighter is in the top ten of all time. It’s the records with some scar tissue that - in the vast majority of cases - have the most substance. Some of this is indebted to the ‘come one come all’ mentality of yesteryear, but, let me be clear, I don’t deem it impossible that a modern fighter could ascend into that rarefied air. Things would just have to change. The main issue is boxing’s biggest cancer – inactivity. Terence Crawford, as good as he was/is, fought once a year for the last six years of his career. An older fighter looking at his record would assume he was repeatedly injured. For a record often criticised for lacking depth, Crawford should have fought Boots Ennis after Spence, then had a fight at middle between Madrimov and Canelo, for starters. Fighting twice a year against top ten contenders (via The Ring’s/TBRB rankings) should be mandatory. Fighters should be held to a schedule. Still plenty of time to rest up, see family, and enjoy your spoils. Strangely enough, you’ll see fans defend inactivity with sayings like, ‘He’s earnt the right to pick and choose,’ or, ‘He’s got nothing to prove...’ meanwhile said fighter keeps the belts hostage. As good as Oleksandr Usyk is, as highly as I rate him, right now, he seems to be enjoying a victory lap. The one-fight-a-year Anthony Joshua saga was frustrating. Then Dubois. More forgivable for these times. Still below par. Kabayal fight should have happened last year. Sure, Usyk's older, and he's climbed Everest, but boxing should be the jungle you either thrive in or it spits you out. Muhammad Ali - who fought six times in 1966 - was back in the ring less than five months after FOTC. And then he had nine fights in sixteen months. Naoya Inoue currently has the most integrity, fighting four times last year (thrice against top ten guys). Assuming he fights Nakatani in May, then approaches featherweight as he did super-bantam, there is a fair chance he’ll lose one of ‘em. It comes down to simple maths. The more you fight, the more room for error. If not, you can’t blame Naoya, as he rejects the part-time schedule that almost every other champ is on. Further, there is this backwards sense, exemplified with the build-up for Shakur vs. Teo, that we should be grateful for actually getting decent fights – what should be the norm. We know the score. It’s the business. It’s about timing. It’s having the luxury of remaining relevant on social media without throwing hands. It’s about building your brand. It’s about protecting that easily marketed zero. All counterproductive to building an actual legacy. What you do by regularly fighting those who’re most deserving.
Floyd, Crawford, Ward all fought very rarely. Surely, they are great fighters, but you can't imagine them having 250 fights without bunch of losses.
3 fights per year, compulsory, if you hold a belt (or any lite, wa-nky belts). Won't happen, but hey ho. Best to just watch the amateurs really. Usually better quality and more integrity.
On one hand fans heavily audit undefeated records and see it as proof a fighter fought sub standard competition. On the other hand when a fighter loses their 0 to a top opponent their career gets eulogized. "Their heart isn't in it". "Hes shot". "Hes been exposed" "He was never that good". Fans be sending mixed signals about what they actually want. Until fans learn to forgive losses this is really their fault. Fighters are doing what they need to do to avoid the consequences that fans have attached to losses. It might frustrate you but they are being rational actors here.
I wouldn't expect those kind of numbers but - with a more honest schedule - world champs would end up with around ten-twenty more fights.
Yeah, the whole protecting the zero thing creates this cyclical problem in that it's a good marketing tool, but when it goes social media can blow things out of proportion. Again, fighting more often would reduce the sting. All is solved with activity.
Yeah Ward retired young because he didn't want to lose he knew the likes of Beterbiev, Bivol and Gvozdyk were next in line. Crawford is a great fighter but didn't really ever fight other great fighters in their prime.
Same goes for Beterbiev, Usyk and Loma. Guy's are knocking on the door of 40 and don't have 25 fights. 6 great fighters for sure.
I just wonder if the next generation of ATGs will have 13-15 fights in their careers. It's possible. For example, winning Olympic Gold at 25. Turning pro at 26. Fighting twice per year until 30 (that's 8 fights) and winning the titles. Then moving up in weights or defending titles once per 1-2 years until 40. 15 fights in total
Not saying that protecting the 0 doesn't have a lot to do with it, but I think this inactivity situation is more business driven. Boxing isn't on TV anymore. Therefore, to make a fight happen you have to convince enough of the hoi-polloi to buy a PPV/subscription/whatever to make it profitable. This is not easy. It's the reason Inoue is so active. You think it's because he's just built different than all these other top level guys? Maybe it's because he fights at the lower weights where guys naturally get paid a lot less + he has an entire country (which he hardly fights away from) backing him so his fights are guaranteed sell-outs + well watched. It's easy to make an Inoue fight profitable. So dude can make a lot of fights.
To face the challange and to also take here and there a loss to come back even more powerful and fight back the belt was the spirit of the boxing sport as well the spirit of true ATG,s since ever . The idea of staying undefeated by ducking any dangerous opponents and getting away with this by paving with money the soft way to victory is not the way boxing should be . Being undefeated becomes meaningless then
Exactly. Fighters calculate risk vs reward. It’s not worth it for Usyk or Crawford to take one or two more fights against low-profile opponents for a fraction of the money they make from just one fight per year against a Joshua, Fury or Canelo. Not to mention that in today’s world, the most prominent boxing stars also generate a lot of money outside the ring through social media, endorsements, sponsorships, commercials etc. Because of that, fighting more often just isn’t as profitable anymore, especially when you factor in the all the risks.
Plenty of guys even today fight more than once a year so clearly it is still economically viable. It's probably due to lack of ambition. No reason to think they wouldn't make even more money if they were more active. How do Usyk and Crawford apologists explain Canelo and Benavidez fighting more than once a year
Twice a year. Sometimes. If the situation calls for it especially when a champ is younger and just "breaking out". Pretty sure if we ran the averages for champions though its a 1.something and not a 2.something. A lot of times I think fighting 2x or 3x a year would correlate with easier defenses. Wilder had 4 title fights in a year. And we all know how everyone feels about those.