Were eubank nas or benn ever underdogs

Underdog can mean one with little chance of winning. It can also mean the least likely to win, which in a two-horse race will nearly always be one or the other. Either definition is acceptable and in common use.

Not that any of this really matters to what is being discussed.

 

A far too simplistic observation.

By that token if Real Madrid were 2.1 to win and Barca were 2.0. Madrid would be an underdog, despite a minute difference in the betting odds. There will generally always be a betting favourite in boxing, as there are generally two outcomes that will occur, with the draw seldom happening. So, in a 50/50 we will always have an 'underdog' by your reckoning, unless the odds are exactly the same. I'd consider an underdog to be someone who the vast majority of people expect to get beat. In your example you could have 50.1 / 49.9% split.

 

Being petty, but I swear I've seen both fighters at complete evens with one another... 10/11 odds for both - or was it 5/6 -, can't remember the draw odds though either. The underdog would be subjective then (no underdog) according to opinion as bookies can't split them.

 

Bookies odds are always driven by the exchanges these days, it is rare that they are even.

 

In that example, Madrid would be the slight underdog.

 

That’ll never happen in boxing. Even fights which the hardcore fans think are TRUE 50/50s, the bookies always have a clear betting favourite and underdog

 

Yes.

If we didn’t have adjectives I’d imagine it could get confusing. Thankfully we do though.

 

Kid was suggesting the betting outsider and the underdog are somehow different things. Kid is 100% incorrect on this one.

 

Yeah, he probably needs to start making new words for what he is describing.