Boxing is the ONLY Sport where the Top guys are avoided early on in a career and only taken on when the boxer is so called ready. Is this really a good thing ? I think in many cases, a fairly green boxer meeting the very best early on and losing will help them considerably. This protecting the '0' is getting out of control Let's compare against another 1 on 1 sport, tennis. Now i know it's not the same because a boxer can only fight say 12 times a year, a tennis player can play 150 matches a year. But when a young tennis player comes onto the tour, they could go up against a Rafael Nadal or Roger Federer from day 1. They usually lose but the lessons they learn are usually invaluable I remember a 16 year old Lleyton Hewitt beating Andre Agassi in an Adelaide tournament. This set the stage for Lleyton's rise to the top giving him the belief he could be the best. as it happens Hewitt is now over the hill in his late 20s which also begs the question. ARe some boxers past their physical prime by the time they step up to top competition ?
If you lose to Nadal as a young player, you gain experience and are inspired. If you lose to Margarito as a young fighter, your career might be over...he could really hurt you before you have time to learn much.
Tennis in the same thread as boxing:huh Let me think...................Losing in straight sets to the current champ or being outclassed via ko/tko etc to the current champ.... Not much difference there:thumbsup
It's not that they are avoided, as if the top guys would even consider fighting a novice, zero money and they gain nothing but being tagged with fighting inexperienced nobodies....kind of sums up Mundines career, but he still is able to milk money for fighting nobodies.
I can't believe people are so stupid to keep coughing up money to see Mundine give 1 sided beatings to nobodies. Have these people got any clue?
