Is it possible for a Boxer to have good record (20+ wins ) and never get a title fight ?

I saw it...just redirecting back to why the OP sounds incredulous about what is a very ordinary and mundane phenomenon. Idk whether he's from the UK but even if he is, strange to assume that what's standard there is going to be commonplace in the rest of the world.

 

Fair point
Touche!

 

Also, do we mean world title fights? If so, then I don't even buy that about British fighters. You don't automatically get handed a shot when you hit a certain numerical record. It matters who you beat (and specifically, who you beat to get yourself ranked in a given org, preferably by defeating guys that are highly ranked themselves).

If you mean a shot at some regional or national or continental level belt, then, eh, yeah. That's different.

 

I can't understand why most guys don't just continue the security guard/uber driver/waiter/toll worker tour for at least 40 fights? Seriously, if I was a blue chipper I'd fight 30 gimmies in like 3 years and jack up my record to 30-0 before I ventured out onto the contender stage.

This is just how it is. The disservice that guys like Calzaghe and Mayweather did to the sport seems to have given everybody a massive, raging, boner for padded records. You have guys like Usyk who if they were 43-0 instead of 17-0 would be talked about as if he had walked on water. If only he had turned pro years earlier and fought an extra 25 no hopers.

 

I can think of MANY fighters, especially heavyweights, that knock over a few dozen tomato cans without ever approaching the world title mix. There was that one American guy a while back, David Rodríguez, got up to about 36-0 (34) and the highest any worldwide sanctioning body ever ranked him was like #13.

 

From a promotional standpoint if you find yourself employing a blue chipper why would you not feed him 25-30 tomato cans before putting him in there with the tougher opponents, especially if they are young and time is on their side?

Fans today, especially casual ones see a guy with a 20-0 record and think/say, maybe one day he will prove himself worthy enough to be called a top level fighter, but come on he's only got 20 fights.

Why would you not jack up your record? It makes you more marketable.

 

In some cases it might be because everyone they beat sucks, but some guys beat 20 guys that suck and get title shots. Like the last question you asked, the answer is who you know. Or, who your manager knows, and who respects his opinion. Things like that matter more than just about anything else because you can have all the ability in the world and waste it spinning your wheels if you don't know somebody that knows somebody that can move you forward.

 

I didn't assume anything, I clearly stated I was talking about the UK. This is a world forum, I would have been interested to hear peoples experiences from other countries.

Nobody said that they did. What was stated is there are not many unbeaten fighters who have more than 20 wins and no defeats who have not had a title shot. In fact the three I posted are the only examples I could find of active British fighters.

 

Look, can it. You're not the OP. I was addressing WillieWild in the first place, and you responded to my response to his premise (which presumably is meant to apply to all fighters globally, as he didn't post this in the British forum) with your hyper-specific "what's normative in Britain" nonsense, which I don't care about nor care to further go down a tangential garden path about.

 

Also, nowadays with fighters dropping belts like flies you can be shut out because guys won't even fight their mandatories anymore. They will avoid for multiple years and finally the organization will drop the hammer and threaten to strip and they will just drop the belt.

 

Having a bad day?

 

No, actually I'm busy doing a live RBR and it peeves me to have to keep fending off persnickety and pedantic arguments on a topic which really isn't all that controversial. Anybody that follows boxing on a global scale very closely knows there's absolutely nothing whatsoever strange or unusual about fighters going deep into double-digits (even dozens of bouts) undefeated and not ever challenging for a world title. Anybody that doesn't, should defer to any of us that do, and not pip in with "but here's some anecdotal bunkum from my narrow little fishbowl!!" - because it doesn't matter.

 

Get a grip man.

 

I don't think the sport is what it used to be in that respect. Gone are the days when a young prospect used to turn pro in their teens with time on their side and routinely fight 30-40 times before getting a title shot. Guys like Mayweather, Fernando Vargas and David Reid made fighting for a world title within 15-20 fights the norm. Then guys like Usyk, Beterbiev and Lomachenko took it even further by starting a trend towards staying amateur until your mid-late 20s and shooting for world titles within 10 or so fights. I also think that with the amount of money highly touted blue chippers are paid these days, fans won't accept them just fighting can after can. The promoters also want to get them on PPV as soon as possible.

The days when the likes of Chavez Snr and James Toney, for example, used to jack up their records by fighting every couple of months against no hopers in between title fights are also gone. Nowadays, the amount of money involved in the top end of the sport and the quality of training, nutrition, science etc... is completely different, plus there's this culture where a loss is seen as being exposed and the end of the world rather than a learning exercise. The end result is that top fighters are fighting twice a year with three month camps, rather than 4-5 times a year like, say, De La Hoya used to do in his early days as a world champ.

Just my thoughts anyway.

 

Padding out records isn't even the only consideration, though. You get that, right? Do you have a sense of how many boxers there are internationally (at least in some divisions) - or how many countries have professional boxing? A given fighter being 20-0 means absolutely nothing as far as being ranked goes. If you beat guys in say, the WBO's top 40...then you get a WBO ranking, and you climb up (by defeating more guys...the higher they're ranked, the quicker you'll climb) - and if you get high enough up the ladder, as in within 10-15 spots of the champ, then maybe if you're lucky you get tapped for a title shot. Even guys that are legitimately world class (which maybe 1% of 20-0 boxers are) don't always get title shots bc of boxing politics.

It's frankly weird that I have to explain such rudimentary stuff as this. Is this thread in the Twilight Zone?