Why didnt Monzon move up?

I disagree heartily.

 

I find myself disagreeing with all his posts. He thinks bouts should be won by the amount of magazine covers a fighter has appeared on.

 

I personally value dominating a division over moving up, even moreso now. There are a lot more John Ruiz's and Donnie Lalonde's running around now with titles to snatch. Monzon would have had to take out a Foster or a Conteh. Hagler had Spinks/Qawi. Plus there was no 168 to test the waters with. Anyone who suggests Monzon punked out by not moving up is off base.

 

That's the kind of thinking that encourages typical hometown gift decisions.

If anything you should expect more from the damn champion than the challenger.

 

Yup. Exactly.

 

:huh

 

Well so be it, boxing used to be a high profile sport when it actually was a big deal if a champion lost. Now a days this silly wrestling UFC thing is more popular amongst the under 30s, in the long term that will lead to boxing becoming even less mainstream.

Why change something if it was not broken? We love to moan, and if we felt our local hero was robbed going to Europe or America we almost loved that more than when he won.

By default the boxing fancy are of the glass is half empty variety, thus we need to feel bitter to feel good.

Look at it like this, British boxing is going though its most successful period since the mid 19th century, and yet are us Brits happy? Hell no!!!!

Naseem was a bum; Hatton is a bum, Calzaghe is a bum and Amir is a level below a bum, and we all bemoan when British boxing was really great in the 80s and 90s; when we had Benn, Eubank, Bruno, Lewis and Graham.

Yet the truth is Eubank and Benn feasted on second rate opposition most of the time, ditto Bruno and we bitched back then that things were better in the 70s....

 

To a point yes, the sport would be stronger for it.

 

So, you're complaining it could be like UFC but really you want more WWF.

 

Did we? When? Did you? :huh

 

My Fathers generation did. They were aghast at what they thought was the softening of the sport with Eubank prancing into the ring, playing up being the gay icon and Benn with his sequined shorts, allegedly trying to be the hard man.

My old man thought boxing was for men, if you wanted to see a show you went to the theatre.

 

Well kind of, I certainly do not think the sport would be harmed as a spectacle if the right man won most of the time. It certainly did not destroy the sport in the golden era of the mid 20th century where you needed as a fighter to be connected and sometimes that meant manipulating a few fights.

I personally think the problem is us on the Internet. Fighters with any talent now a days are studied from day one and they will make mistakes. Also promoters feel pressured into throwing them in out of their depth far too early and thus too many prospects go bust and that IMO does not help the sport.

I do not have a problem if a prospect fights 30 levels of perceived bums in three/four years if in the end it helps prepare the fighter for the big tests in the future.

 

But every generation is like this. The one before, the one before that, the one after, etc.

 

Which is imo right. A fight should have a clear winner or no winner at all.

 

Which was my point; boxers in Britain are the best they have been for 150 years and yet many of us (me included), hark back to what we perceive is a better era.