How Can You Accurately Measure Risk? Before Or After A Fight?

**** you.

 

Good post.

 

hmm says... all in the eye of the beholder. For the most part, a lot of us OBSERVERS can't measure risk as well as the boxer's themselves. Most skilled boxers know their limit better than we do and know how to accurately assess the level of risk before jumping head over heels (we see boxers who knowingly take the low-risk high-rewards route). Some fighters go in balls deep only to bite more than they can chew. For the most part, I believe most casual fans simply assess and measure risk on how well the fighter performed previously. The argument goes both ways (ie. Valero: he seems dangerous but his resume speaks otherwise). It's quite hard to measure IMO. A long drawn out argument normally ensues (hence the number of threads on who will beat who) that cannot be measured until they actually get in the ring.

 

hmm says... for your poll, I would vote both "yes" and "no", but I voted "no" because no matter how well of a boxing expert or analysis you can be, your prediction can still be wrong. Anything can happen in the ring; hence "no".

 

easy...

if you see tyson then run,

if you see james toney throw him a burger then run,

on the other hand if you see zab judah then smile wryly, indulge him his two rounds of showboating and then proceed to give him a thorough thrashing,...

pretty accurate risk assesment no?

 

hmm says... that's how I see it. 50-50 fights is the way to go..

 

hmm says... ^^ don't know but for sure and hopefully this year will pull through. Upcoming, I'm probably thinking...

Wlad-Haye
Cotto-Clottey
Chris John-Rocky Juarez

I dunno about Berto-Urango


What are your picks?

 

Unfortunately boxing isn't a sport.
It is nothing more than a money machine. So risk can be determined as:

Is the $ a fighter will make fighting "boxer A" be worth the possible loss/gain of income form fighting "boxer B".

 

Of course you can measure 'risk' before a fight, if you are good at evaluating you will predict the outcome of a fight most of the time, but not all the time. Odds compilers working for bookmakers do it, insurance companies also evaluate risk, but it is not an exact science.

It would be wrong to say that a boxer who won a fight he was expected to lose had not taken a risk.

The proof being - A man runs across a busy motorway/freeway which has 10 lanes, 5 lanes in each direction, he manages to somehow get from oneside of the road to the otherside of the road in one piece, with the traffic all doing 70 mph, are you really trying to suggest that just because the man got from one side of the road to the other side of the road that there was no risk, your arguement that the man surviving is proof that there is no risk,is bollocks, obviously there was a huge risk in this example, an odds compiler would tell you that the man was 90% certain to be knocked down, 9 times out of 10 that man would not have made it across the road, it just happened to be the one time in his favour.