Boxing coaches: What are the biggest things that Classic threads miss?

Honestly after Peter I’d say Fury was the first where it was in doubt (and that was a pretty close fight where not a lot happened, but I base that more on what I thought was some slippage by the time he fought Jennings — who was not physically equipped to beat him.

I don’t think that was cherry-picking opponents mostly (a couple like Mormeck and Pianeta were obviously ‘easy’ defenses), it was more a lack of real threats in the division (especially considering for a time that the top two fighters were brothers who weren’t going to fight each other). So I don’t think that’s just an ‘insiders know’ thing — I suspect more casuals were taken in by David Haye than insiders because Haye excited a lot of Brit fans, but that’s not special knowledge that the other guy is bigger and Haye hadn’t exactly built a great heavyweight resume.

More interesting is earlier in their careers when a Chris Byrd or a Corrie Sanders or a Dickie Ryan would beat one of them, there was never a rematch … it was ‘now you have to beat my brother.’ I think that was some selective matchmaking going on (well if this one can’t beat him, maybe the other has what it takes and because the opponent beat one of the brothers, the other brother winning will get a big boost since the guy has credibility off the first win).

 

what do you call "insiders '?
you meaning gamblers who win on every fight outcome?

 

they know same as you . most of them. some less. you follow study boxing for years yes?
it is only casual mass of fan who do not know. real fan know most outcome but won't miss the fight !! Lol
& because sometimes strange upset happen

 

sometimes who can know? upsets are real sometimes.

 

it is real. not ' gibberish""
it is fact of nature.

 

The way in which that discussion is often conducted borders the ridiculous.