Why do we overlook possible improvement/development when predicting fights?

People seem to always predict fights based on previous fights. OK we can't predict improvement, but we never seem to take this into consideration. It seems to me that in general we overlook possible improvement. For me that is small minded. We just assume Fighter A will come in like in the last fight, and Fighter B will to. Neither will improve or change for the upcoming fight and always will be the same as before. So we use the last fight as a guide for the future.

An example would be the recent, Trout vs Alvarez fight. Many people before the fight picked Trout to win, they saw him as the more skilled operator. Many were saying Alvarez is a hype job. Yet nobody said, that Alvarez can improve at being at such a young age, and he can develop as a fighter. He may be young, but he is experienced. But equally nobody predicted this for Trout either. Most people thought they'd come in identically as the fight before.

Alvarez showed new things in that Trout fight, his defence was improved for instance, he was making Trout miss. We may not be able to perfectly predict that improvement for an upcoming fight, but why do we overlook it, and why are we surprised when it happens during a fight?

Why do we always seem to base of a fighters previous, especially younger fighters who are bound to grow and learn, it is a natural process that they will improve if they are good enough, but we never seem to take that into account. Is it the unknown? Is it because we don't see said fighters day in day out in the gym, growing, learning, developing, improving and that we only predict on what we have seen in the ring before from them?

Why do we overlook possible improvement(s)?

 

But its only natural fighters are going to get better if they are good enough and up to the task.

We just assume every fighter will perform like the fight before. Some may be better, some may be worse.

If we can only overlook possible improvements (like Jonsey said we cant 100% predict that) then we shouldnt be predicting fights.

 

I'm not saying you can predict improvement on the money. I'm saying it gets overlooked.

But the same can be said for predicting a result, that can't be on the money either, unless you are lucky. Its basically luck if a wild prediction like predicting a fight comes of. I'm sure some knowledge and experience plays a part, but there are so many variables.

Its small minded to assume for every up and coming fight that both fighters will be exactly the same as before. Fighters improve as well as deprove, fighters are bound to grow and develop if they are good enough especially in the young/prime years. Yet we seem to assume everything is based on the last fight. That is really just an indication of form, yet one punch in the next fight could shock the world. Boxing is fine lines. Its a lottery when so many variables and possible outcomes exist, a fight can change in the blink of an eye, one that nobody sees coming. Its why the sport is great. It is unpredictable at its very best.

Prime fighters up to the task are bound to get stronger, faster etc etc.

If we overlook that when trying to predict a result of a fight, then why are we predicting the result? Shouldn't that be overlooked aswell if its just such a lottery?

Why are we wasting time predicting fights, when we can just analyze them afterwards and put them aside. Finished. Why linger on the last fight unless there is an obvious decline or improvement?

Boxing is always changing, evolving, we should just enjoy it to the max for what it is.