Elite-level pro boxing has become the most predictable sport on the planet

:happy:happy well said.

 

Better on a boxing favourite to win is a waste of money , mostly they are over 10-1 on favourites , betting on Canelo was like buying money but I think he was still around 5-1 so you'd have to bet a ton to make decent money and that is not a smart way to gamble

 

I never really care much for UFC/MMA. I used to watch long time ago. I think the last one I seen was when Kimbo Slice legs got destroyed by an ex football player.

 

Another unexpected upset in recent times was Takashi Uchiyama being knocked out by Jezreel Corrales. Oh, and speaking of 130 pounders, Orlando Salido has sort of made a career of upsetting the odds. He beat Lomachenko and Juan Manuel Lopez. Wasn't Matthysse favored to beat Postol? Glowacki wasn't the favorite against Huck. Duhaupas wasn't supposed to beat Helenius, etc.

 

Just because there are exceptions doesn't mean that the vast majority of fights don't involve huge betting favourites easily beating opponents who shouldn't be in the ring with them. They're exceptions that prove the rule. 95% of prefight favourites are shorter than 1/5 because 95% of fights are gross mismatches. Most fights are just setups, and if a boxing doesn't see that he's drunk the kool aid. If mismatches weren't the rule we'd regularly see favourites favoured at no shorter than about 1/3, and there would be underdog upsets every week. Matthysse-Postol and Glowacki-Huck were very good matchups, and upsets at moderate odds that we would see more of if we saw competitive matchups regularly. But they're NOT typical.

 

UFC isn't the best fighting the best. It's bush league level and people lose to anyone because no one is really that elite... If boxing's HW division was anything like UFC we would have the same 20 HWs for the last 10 years with Monte Barret and John Ruiz fighting 4 times while getting paid 50k+5k rebook sponsorship...

 

Its not always the best fighting the best but it certainly comes close to it. To gain entry to the UFC you have to have some kind of winning streak.

Its not bush league either.

The UFC HW needs some serious contenders instead of the old guys but whenever a prospect appears he loses, so its not really UFC's fault.

 

The major difference between the UFC and boxing is that fans arent waiting around years just for one match up because they usually happen.

The only problem here is that its becomes harder to build names when you can only build them up for so long.

See Overeem, Connor Mcgrogor, Ronda Rousey. Its difficult to build stars. I suspect Curtis Blaydes was supposed to be the UFC's HW saviour.

 

The UFC is a flawed concept but entertaining nonetheless. It's just a centralized promoter working within the Fertitia bros corporation controlling the fighters movements without the fighter owning his own likenesses. It's striclty owned by UFC where the fighter has little leverage in how high or low he can jump. No real haggling is possible from the fighter to the promoter.


A boxer can go to UFC if he wanted with less problems.


If you look at the 145 divsion of the UFC you have Aldo, McGregor(holds titles at this weight), Mendes, and Edgar. UFC lightweight division is the equivalent to boxing's welterweight division.


I mean you have 4 supposedly top level guys at 145. How many top levels guys do you have at 147 in boxing? I can name a few. Brook, Thurman, Spence, Gomez, Khan, Garcia,...etc... and fighters moving up from 140 due to boxing having more weight classes.


The pool is a lot smaller in the UFC vs Boxing because the drawback is the concept where fighters have to learn two to three or possibly more types of martial art. It's a flawed concept. Entertaining nonetheless.


You will never really see strictly a BJJ guy vs a BJJ guy. You may see a guy who's basically a converted striker from a boxer named McGregor fighting a wrestler. In that respect it's exciting because you're seeing a mesh of fighting styles come together. You will however not see clearly who is the best at a certain martial art.


A kickboxer vs a kickboxer. We'll find out who's the best kickboxer eventually.


UFC fanboys get very defensive if you criticize the fact the fighters don't get paid enough,...etc... the corps not making journos privy to the sponsorship deals like the reebok deal, monster,...etc...

I like both MMA and Boxing but i feel the concept of the UFC is flawed at the core(not only the in-ring action, the business goings on, too). I think it's managing well for them (for now) from a revenue increasing aspect. But what about in 10 to 15 years time? Because i feel the model is like the WWE in all honesty. Don King must be thinking what a genius idea the UFC is.


And one more point -

Check this article on the weight-loss measures in MMA. Cage fighters' weight-loss measures 'risking lives'

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/36205819[/url]

More weightclasses are needed in UFC for health reasons (probably)^ Perhaps one or two more are needed in boxing, too. For the ''No Mans Land'' fighters. 185 might be a decent weight class idea.

UFC has had no deaths because i believe the refereeing is superior in the UFC to boxing. I also think the octagon is well designed for safety.

Another thing i do like with the UFC is the fighters get pushed to fight the no.1 guy in the division etc quicker but again the pool is much smaller. It's easier to do so. And the other drawback is the fighters cannot haggle their paycheque much because it's a corporation.


I think there's many exceptions but giving the FACT you've GOT DIFFERENT MARTIAL ART STYLES fighting eachother. You will see MORE UPSETS due to the concept of UFC.

It's not rocket science. Anyway just my two cents.

I am a fan of both boxing and UFC/MMA. I do however prefer boxing, though. I don't want to come across bias which i may have in this post because i think boxing has quite a few problems, too.

Like some fans of boxing and UFC/MMA seem to think it's a crime to like both. Oh well.

 

I concur.

 

This is actually false , Nadal had like 1/1.25 to win the entire Roland Garros , and the matches themselves went something like 1/1.05 (1/20) , If you think ppl are expecting Novak Djukovic to lose to someone outside the top 4 you are crazy , in the Elite level the best stand above the rest.
I will say that Boxing has bad matchmaking , but your Tennis claim are wrong.

 

According to this article
[url]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/on-any-given-sunday-nfl-favorites-win-and-underdogs-lose/[/url]

the NBA and NFL are a lot less competitive than the NHL or MLB. Odds don't usually go more than 1 to 4 for baseball but can run to 1 to 20 for football. The article claims that while only 1 in 100 baseball games features a strong favorite with more than a 75% chance to win that happens every 4 games in football and basketball.

I sort of figured that there were stacked teams in baseball, football, and basketball. As long as I've been alive I've heard rumors about the Yankees buying their way into the playoffs and just buying up all the best players. After all they win the World Series 24% of the time. The Shaq/Kobe Lakers and the Kareem/Magic Lakers were pretty tough to beat too. There's probably also a reason that Bill Russell won eleven NBA championships in his thirteen year career on the Boston Celtics too.

 

You're either misrepresenting my point, or are only aware of the competition and odds in matches involving Djokovic, Nadal, and the few elites who stand head and shoulders above the rest and of course will be very short favourites and almost never lose against anyone lower than the top 4-6. I'm not saying there aren't matches in which favourites are signicantly short favourites (almost always of course in early rounds of tournaments) in tennis. But the the vast majority of tennis matches involve much closer betting odds than the vast majority of boxing matches.

It just takes comparing the pre-match odds of last weeks's Madrid Masters matches, noticing that upsets happen, but the odds are fairly close in most...
[url]https://matchstat.com/tennis/tournaments/m/Madrid%20Masters/2016[/url]

With the odds for upcoming fights, to see that mismatches are way more prevalent in boxing, with the favourites predictably winning against opponents who never had a chance. And every tennis match is available to bet on, if more fights were available the contrast would be even more significant...

[url]http://www.oddschecker.com/boxing[/url]
[url]http://www.bet365.com/home/FlashGen4/WebConsoleApp.asp?[/url]
[url]http://www.5dimes.eu/livelines/livelines.aspx[/url]
Or with historical odds here, but this site is uselessly organised by title...
[url]http://www.oddsportal.com/results/#boxing[/url]

Money can be made taking dogs regularly in tennis, but it's a loser's strategy in boxing. That tells it all about how messed up and almost rigged boxing is!

 

You can't even compare the level of competition in league sports to boxing. When you do boxing turns into the obvious butt of a joke. Sure teams owned by the richest owners can be stacked, and those are the teams the have built dynasties. But if baseball was boxing the New York Yankees would protect their record against minor league teams, then compete in a tune-up against the 8th best team before playing the World Series against Toronto, or whoever's 'supposed' to be the next best. And we accept this in boxing!