David Tua versus Jim Corbett

If film is a reliable way of predicting the outcome of fights, then presumably you make a fortune betting on the outcomes of fights?

The book makers basically stake their livelihood on getting it right, and they don’t spend endless hour ****ysing films, they essentially go on the fighters resumes!

Now I consider film to be an important tool for ****ysing fighters, but it should never be trusted on its own.

There are fighters who look incredible on film, who turn out to be disappointments, and there are fighters who look horrible on film, who confound every expectation!

 

Looking over resumes and studying film... that's about all you can do. You're still going to be wrong sometimes.

 

good point.

 

No, gambling experts spend a whole lot of time thinking about how different fighters' styles and attributes match up. That's pretty much the opposite of just going by resume or the conventional wisdom about their "greatness." Can't imagine that any of them would ever overlook film evidence if it undermined the second-hand word of mouth of others or revealed obvious limitations in a fighter.

In any event, comparing resumes and rankings of opponents holds a lot more value when you're comparing fighters who've fought the same opponents. The fact that Corbett beat X# ranked heavyweights in his day holds very little predictive value for how he would fare against men from other eras, without information about their talent, skills, techniques, and size, etc.

 

They probably use both resume and how good the boxer looks.

 

corbett can fight whatever fight he likes but is essentially a Super Middleweight and would get flattened quickly

 

If resume is reliable I asume you make a whole lot as well?

 

No because by definition the odds on the fighter with the better resume, are not going to be particularly good.

The bookmakers seem to make a lot of money by installing fighters with better resumes as favourite though!

 

Nonsense.

Who was favourite? Joshua or Charles? Abraham or Rodriguez?

And that's just this past month.

 

Let’s take the example of Joshua over Martin.

Martin did have the better credentials on paper, but he was considered to be one of the weakest belt holders of all time, and his title winning fight was seen as a bit of a fluke.

Joshua was being talked about by some as the guy who was going to dominate the division, and despite this he was only installed as a very narrow favourite.

When you factor all this in it was not a particularly bold pick.

I picked Joshua for whatever that is worth.

If you had to sum up the bookmakers picks with one word, it would be conservative.

 

Froch would get sliced up by Corbett.

https://streamable.com/eiad
https://streamable.com/sgzb

 

Is this based on the massive advances in ring science that he embodies?

 

Chris Byrd was never much more than a supermidleweight, and he defeated Tua.

 

Damn, you're right. His first two fights he was 170lb.