why do fighters refuse to fight?

he should've asked Hagler what it feels like when other fighters don't wanna fight you and I'm sure he would sing a different tune then Leonard.

Leonard didn't have that problem cause he was the cash cow compared to everyone else.

 

"In a recent interview with the sports journalist Elie Sechbeck, boxing legend and five weight world champion Sugar Ray Leonard was asked how frustrating it was being over looked by opponents who refused to fight him and how he dealt with it?"

Leonard should have fought Hagler much earlier than he actually did and it's my understanding tha this was more down to SRL than it was Hagler.

No one ducked Leonard as he was a cash cow.

Aside from that, I agree with the sentiments of the article that the best need to fight the best on a regular basis. This is true and the more articles etc that make this point then the more pressure is put on the sport as the fans' voice becomes heard.

Do you want specific comments on the article itself? A few minor typos (eg, one of Norton's quotes begins with a lower case letter and I think "there" is mistakenly used instead of "they are" or "they're"). My main issue is with the article are things such as;

"Pacquiao’s refusal to take a blood test is a glaring reminder of another shameful part of the sports history but what’s more worrying than Pacquiao\'s possible drug abuse is the seeming power that both Floyd and Manny posses when deciding who and when they fight."

This belongs in a post on a forum rather than an article. Unless we're in the room at the time, we have no idea what happens in negotiations. Pure conjencture.

"there’s no question he's [khan] avoiding anyone with any weight behind there punch and fans are starting to turn their back on him"

Maidana fight is confirmed apparently. And just as many fans think that Khan will school Maidana as those who think Maidana will knock Khan's head off. To say "fans are starting to turn their back on him" is inaccurate. Khan has never been that popular in the UK and in my opinion, his popularity at home is growing rather than shrinking.

Dont want to sound like i'm having a go. It's a good article and I agree with the overall point of it, props to the writer. I just think there should be a distinction between 'posts' where you can say whatever is on your mind and 'articles' which I think need to be pretty flawless to be credible.

 

Ha! You posted this as I was writing my reply (interupted during work)!

:good

 

Fair points mate. And as I say, I agree with the overall message. Of course writers are entitled to their opinions and it's what makes the sport great that two people can watch/read the same thing and come out with two entirely different conclusions as to what they've seen/read.

I dont want to labour the point, but regarding the Manny thing, Pac has never been found to have used any kind of banned substance. You mention that Pac refused to take blood tests which Marquez and Mosely both took. Fair enough, but why does Mayweather get to call the standards rather than the governing bodies? Why does Floyd get to move the goal posts? Is there a difference in saying "We want Olympic standard drug testing rather than the testing that has been used, and not complained about, for the last [x] amount of years" to, for example, "We want bigger gloves, a bigger ring and lead weights on the sole of our boots". I dont see how an athlete gets to have a say in the rules of the sport in which he competes? Floyd has raised this issue, with nothing to back it up. We cant blame Manny for that.

And it's sort of that reason that I raised the point initially. It's not that you have or havent implied that he is a drugs cheat, it's that your intial article says "Pacquiao’s refusal to take a blood test is a glaring reminder of another shameful part of the sports history". My interpretation would be "Floyd's complete disregard for the rules put in place have brought into disrepute, not only, the reputation of Manny Pacquiao but also the credibility of the sport".

That's the point I'm making mate. Obviously you're entitled to your opinion. And maybe it is a fact that the fight fell through because of the blood testing, but that one line regarding Pac's 'refusal' turns the point from being one of fact to one of implicit blame.

My advice (and do with it what you will, I'm no author so you're welcome to embrace/ignore or completely lambast me) would be to just make it a little more neutral by saying somthing like "The fact that the biggest fight on the planet didnt materialise and the reasons given were around the arrangements for blood testing serve as a glaring reminder of another shameful part of the sports history..."

I just think it's a little unfair on Manny to throw that line in an article.

On the Khan issue, I take your point that he hasnt faced a puncher since Prescott. But he's got Maidana next (if the reports are substantiated). And as for Roach, he says a lot of things, but he doesnt make the fights. A great trainer but not always great at PR.

I'm not accusing you of being biased in any way mate, I just think that there are some things in there which you need to either provide a counter argument for or just leave out completely.

 

Fighters refuse to fight because they may be...

• scared
• got injured in practice
• not feeling 100%
• just not done with vacation yet

 

they don't want their earning potential to drop, obviously.

 

Ha! I have my suspicions too. Mainly because he started off fighting at like 6 stone and now is the same size as Cotto. You dont get that through eating pasta! As for the articles, I've always been interested but I'm too lazy to actually follow it through!!

Armchair critic does me nicely :smoke