Would Sugar Ray Robinson Still be #1 P4P if he had Fought in a Different Era ?

[trampie]

Sugar Ray Robinson fought between 1940-65 and is most peoples number 1 P4P all time great, if Sugar Ray Robinson had fought between 1900-1925 instead of 1940-65, would Sugar Ray Robinson still be seen as the number 1 ATG ?, I dont think most people that now see him as the number 1 ATG would see him as their number 1 ATG if he had fought between 1900-1925

Nearly all ATG ranking lists, cover the modern era {1892 onwards}, there were no official World Champions till the 1920s, therefore if Sugar Ray had fought between 1900-1925 he would not have had many if any ex World Champions on his resume, and since lots of posters are obsessed with resume they proberbly would not have had Sugar Ray Robinson as their greatest ever boxer ?, infact he would proberbly not make their ATG top 20, sadly I believe this to be the case.:roll:

Sugar Ray Robinson could have exactly the same win/loss record between 1900-25 as he achieved for real between 1940-65, Sugar Ray would still be compared against exactly the same boxers ,1892 - present day, as he currently is, Sugar Ray could have faced the same strength opposition if he fought between 1900-25 as he did for real when he fought between 1940-65, Sugar Ray would have the same skills and ability fighting between 1900-25 as he had for real fighting between 1940-65, yet because he would not have fought many champions, due to there been none, his resume would have been perceived as weak {although that would not have been the case}

Lots of posters are obsessed with resume, they dont care if one boxer is better than another boxer ?:roll:, they only care about who a boxer has fought, they dont even care if the boxer loses :roll:.
As well as resume, lots of people like accomplishments, weight jumping in particular :?, I personally perfer a boxer to clean a division out and prove himself to be the best at that weight, as opossed too winning one version of a title and going up a weight and winning one version of that weight division, then claiming that they are a two weight World Champion, when they may have beaten the 'weakest' belt holders in both divisions, yet some people think that is marvellous.

What is wrong with placing a boxer who has beaten or would beat another boxer higher in a ranking list ???

Resume means nothing if the boxer has lost most of his big fights.

Accomplishments means nothing if the boxer with all the accomplishments has lost and would lose to another good boxer with slightly less accomplishments, the boxer with the slightly less accomplishments should be ranked higher, in this case.

I am not saying that Marciano, Mayweather and Calzaghe should be ATG 1,2 and 3 but head to head is not given enough credit.
{PS I recently said that if either Mayweather at 32 or Calzaghe at 37 came out of retirement they would still beat everybody as they are both excellent head to head, will that come back to haunt me ?}

Although ATG lists cover all the weight divisions, if the heavyweights and middleweights etc were picked out from the list, shouldnt the #1 beat the #2 and the #2 beat the #3 etc in the list makers mind ?
Otherwise you end up with a list that is not the greatest ever boxers in order, but the greatest boxing resumes in order or the great boxing accomplishments in order.

I say head to head rules, winning is everything, sport is about winning, boxing is about winning :D

[werety]

Sugar Ray Robinson fought between 1940-65 and is most peoples number 1 P4P all time great, if Sugar Ray Robinson had fought between 1900-1925 instead of 1940-65, would Sugar Ray Robinson still be seen as the number 1 ATG ?, I dont think most people that now see him as the number 1 ATG would see him as their number 1 ATG if he had fought between 1900-1925

Nearly all ATG ranking lists, cover the modern era {1892 onwards}, there were no official World Champions till the 1920s, therefore if Sugar Ray had fought between 1900-1925 he would not have had many if any ex World Champions on his resume, and since lots of posters are obsessed with resume they proberbly would not have had Sugar Ray Robinson as their greatest ever boxer ?, infact he would proberbly not make their ATG top 20, sadly I believe this to be the case.:roll:

Sugar Ray Robinson could have exactly the same win/loss record between 1900-25 as he achieved for real between 1940-65, Sugar Ray would still be compared against exactly the same boxers ,1892 - present day, as he currently is, Sugar Ray could have faced the same strength opposition if he fought between 1900-25 as he did for real when he fought between 1940-65, Sugar Ray would have the same skills and ability fighting between 1900-25 as he had for real fighting between 1940-65, yet because he would not have fought many champions, due to there been none, his resume would have been perceived as weak {although that would not have been the case}

Lots of posters are obsessed with resume, they dont care if one boxer is better than another boxer ?:roll:, they only care about who a boxer has fought, they dont even care if the boxer loses :roll:.
As well as resume, lots of people like accomplishments, weight jumping in particular :?, I personally perfer a boxer to clean a division out and prove himself to be the best at that weight, as opossed too winning one version of a title and going up a weight and winning one version of that weight division, then claiming that they are a two weight World Champion, when they may have beaten the 'weakest' belt holders in both divisions, yet some people think that is marvellous.

What is wrong with placing a boxer who has beaten or would beat another boxer higher in a ranking list ???

Resume means nothing if the boxer has lost most of his big fights.

Accomplishments means nothing if the boxer with all the accomplishments has lost and would lose to another good boxer with slightly less accomplishments, the boxer with the slightly less accomplishments should be ranked higher, in this case.

I am not saying that Marciano, Mayweather and Calzaghe should be ATG 1,2 and 3 but head to head is not given enough credit.
{PS I recently said that if either Mayweather at 32 or Calzaghe at 37 came out of retirement they would still beat everybody as they are both excellent head to head, will that come back to haunt me ?}

Although ATG lists cover all the weight divisions, if the heavyweights and middleweights etc were picked out from the list, shouldnt the #1 beat the #2 and the #2 beat the #3 etc in the list makers mind ?
Otherwise you end up with a list that is not the greatest ever boxers in order, but the greatest boxing resumes in order or the great boxing accomplishments in order.

I say head to head rules, winning is everything, sport is about winning, boxing is about winning :D

.......... thats kinda dumb.

H2H is nothing but speculation. If the fight never happened you wouldn't say Douglas beats Tyson. Before the fight most people favored Hoya to beat Pacquiao.

You also say that when making a list at a weight class the #1 should beat the #2 who should beat the #3 etc. Since H2H is based on prime matchups and Frazier beat Ali when they were closest to their primes you're saying he should be ranked above Ali. But wait, Foreman beat Frazier so you're saying he should be ranked above both of them. But wait, Ali beat Foreman so you're saying Ali should be ranked above himself?

......... thats kinda dumb.

[Thread Stealer]

If he was fighting today, it'd be really difficult. It's just very hard for modern day fighters to compare, resume-wise, to fighters of the past who had to fight so often.

Robinson, being a master negotiator, and not especially enjoying the sport...does anyone think he'd be fighting that often once he reached the top level? He'd probably have a nice HBO contract and fight twice a year. He'd already be making enough money.

He could be the best of this era, but it's just hard to compare to fighters who were finished with 100, 150, 200 fights.

It just depends on what criteria you go by, I guess.

[Gesta]

Sugar Ray Robinson fought between 1940-65 and is most peoples number 1 P4P all time great, if Sugar Ray Robinson had fought between 1900-1925 instead of 1940-65, would Sugar Ray Robinson still be seen as the number 1 ATG ?, I dont think most people that now see him as the number 1 ATG would see him as their number 1 ATG if he had fought between 1900-1925

Nearly all ATG ranking lists, cover the modern era {1892 onwards}, there were no official World Champions till the 1920s, therefore if Sugar Ray had fought between 1900-1925 he would not have had many if any ex World Champions on his resume, and since lots of posters are obsessed with resume they proberbly would not have had Sugar Ray Robinson as their greatest ever boxer ?, infact he would proberbly not make their ATG top 20, sadly I believe this to be the case.:roll:

Sugar Ray Robinson could have exactly the same win/loss record between 1900-25 as he achieved for real between 1940-65, Sugar Ray would still be compared against exactly the same boxers ,1892 - present day, as he currently is, Sugar Ray could have faced the same strength opposition if he fought between 1900-25 as he did for real when he fought between 1940-65, Sugar Ray would have the same skills and ability fighting between 1900-25 as he had for real fighting between 1940-65, yet because he would not have fought many champions, due to there been none, his resume would have been perceived as weak {although that would not have been the case}

Lots of posters are obsessed with resume, they dont care if one boxer is better than another boxer ?:roll:, they only care about who a boxer has fought, they dont even care if the boxer loses :roll:.
As well as resume, lots of people like accomplishments, weight jumping in particular :?, I personally perfer a boxer to clean a division out and prove himself to be the best at that weight, as opossed too winning one version of a title and going up a weight and winning one version of that weight division, then claiming that they are a two weight World Champion, when they may have beaten the 'weakest' belt holders in both divisions, yet some people think that is marvellous.

What is wrong with placing a boxer who has beaten or would beat another boxer higher in a ranking list ???

Resume means nothing if the boxer has lost most of his big fights.

Accomplishments means nothing if the boxer with all the accomplishments has lost and would lose to another good boxer with slightly less accomplishments, the boxer with the slightly less accomplishments should be ranked higher, in this case.

I am not saying that Marciano, Mayweather and Calzaghe should be ATG 1,2 and 3 but head to head is not given enough credit.
{PS I recently said that if either Mayweather at 32 or Calzaghe at 37 came out of retirement they would still beat everybody as they are both excellent head to head, will that come back to haunt me ?}

Although ATG lists cover all the weight divisions, if the heavyweights and middleweights etc were picked out from the list, shouldnt the #1 beat the #2 and the #2 beat the #3 etc in the list makers mind ?
Otherwise you end up with a list that is not the greatest ever boxers in order, but the greatest boxing resumes in order or the great boxing accomplishments in order.

I say head to head rules, winning is everything, sport is about winning, boxing is about winning :D


How would we rank boxers without using their resume, would we just look at some film and who ever looks the best is the best?

Would you say that Roy Jones Jr is the best then?, because he looks great on film (esp' beating Glen Kelly)?.

Monzon must be the worst champion ever then.

Us the public want to see the best vs the best, your system would reward all of the duckers, then People like Calzage, FMJ & RJJ would of never fought anyone , the only reason they started fighting some of the bigger names is because their resume was lacking.

[GPater11093]

i think if he was from the 20s he would be still be the best if he fought today i agree with threadstealer

[trampie]

.......... thats kinda dumb.

H2H is nothing but speculation. If the fight never happened you wouldn't say Douglas beats Tyson. Before the fight most people favored Hoya to beat Pacquiao.

You also say that when making a list at a weight class the #1 should beat the #2 who should beat the #3 etc. Since H2H is based on prime matchups and Frazier beat Ali when they were closest to their primes you're saying he should be ranked above Ali. But wait, Foreman beat Frazier so you're saying he should be ranked above both of them. But wait, Ali beat Foreman so you're saying Ali should be ranked above himself?

......... thats kinda dumb.

P4P is nothing but speculation, P4P is biased against heavyweights, P4P is biased against boxers that only operated at 1 or 2 weight divisions.

If two boxers are of the same standard and had fought H2H, I would rank the winner of that fight higher, lots of list makers rank the boxers in tiers, if two boxers come from the same tier and one boxer had beaten the other I would in most cases rank the victor higher, as this would be a known, it would be a fact.

I would not rank Frazier higher than Ali as Frazier would not be in the same tier/box/league as Ali.

{PS Ali was just back from nearly 4 years out of the ring when he lost to Frazier, not sure you could describe Ali as close to his prime in that fight}

[trampie]

How would we rank boxers without using their resume, would we just look at some film and who ever looks the best is the best?

Would you say that Roy Jones Jr is the best then?, because he looks great on film (esp' beating Glen Kelly)?.

Monzon must be the worst champion ever then.

Us the public want to see the best vs the best, your system would reward all of the duckers, then People like Calzage, FMJ & RJJ would of never fought anyone , the only reason they started fighting some of the bigger names is because their resume was lacking.

Resume is the single most important tool for ranking boxers but not the be all and end all of rankings, you could be the best boxer ever but because you operated in a weak division or a weak era you would be heavily penalised by a lot of people, that cant be right, thats all a boxer can do is beat what is infront of him, I know the public want the best v the best, so would you end up with Oscar De La Hoya as your GOAT ?, he fought all the top boxers of his era, the problem being, he lost to most of them, there is no way that a boxer like De La Hoya could be seen as a top 50 ATG as he would lose to ever other boxer on the list, yet he would be top 50 for resume and top 50 for achievements.
The problem is these list advertise themselves as the ''greatest ever boxers'', not the greatest ever ''boxing resumes'' or the ''greatest ever boxing achievements''.

[Bokaj]

If he was fighting today, it'd be really difficult. It's just very hard for modern day fighters to compare, resume-wise, to fighters of the past who had to fight so often.

Robinson, being a master negotiator, and not especially enjoying the sport...does anyone think he'd be fighting that often once he reached the top level? He'd probably have a nice HBO contract and fight twice a year. He'd already be making enough money.

He could be the best of this era, but it's just hard to compare to fighters who were finished with 100, 150, 200 fights.

It just depends on what criteria you go by, I guess.

Good post. If Robinson was fighting today I think his record would be more like that of Roy Jones. He would be avoiding some fighters (like he did Burley), some fighters would be avoiding him and in other cases it would be mutual (kind of like Eubanks/Jones, I guess). He would still look exceptional against the fighters he choose, with some Turpin-esque exception perhaps, but several good fights would not have been made and his legacy would suffer accordingly.

[trampie]

Good post. If Robinson was fighting today I think his record would be more like that of Roy Jones. He would be avoiding some fighters (like he did Burley), some fighters would be avoiding him and in other cases it would be mutual (kind of like Eubanks/Jones, I guess). He would still look exceptional against the fighters he choose, with some Turpin-esque exception perhaps, but several good fights would not have been made and his legacy would suffer accordingly.

Good post, I agree with the examples given.

So, Sugar Ray Robinson did not have the greatest ever resume, but he is seen as the 'greatest ever boxer', by boxing writers and historians, at least there is some sanity, if some of these resume/boxrec jockeys had their way, De La Hoya would be #1 and Pacman #2.

[Mendoza]

Would Sugar Ray be as good outside of his era? Good question. The talent these days at welter, jr middle and middle is very good. I think Ray Robinson might have a tougher time in a few difference decades outside of the era he fought in, but his skills would remain.

Robinson was one of the few fighters who could win by boxing, swarming or slugging. He speed, combinations, chin, stamina, and defense in his prime were great. I do think Sugar Ray would have trouble with a talented swarming type of fighter who could punch hard, or vs a much taller skilled middle.

[Dempsey1238]

Assuming he did the same in other era's, I think if he had a run in the 1920's, he still be consider for the top rank(And Greb has a good arguement here also)

Assuming he gets by Greb, Walker, Delaney, Loughran, and others, he might be rank number 1.
But that is no small feat.

[PowerPuncher]

In the 20s he'd plough through the fighters of his time because he'd be so far ahead of his opposition skill wise. However being black in these times he'd be avoided and not get the big fights. Prize fighting at the small weights of the time wasn't as popular. So Robinson would be forced to move to LHW-HW but he'd still have some success at those weights if ate his way to say a solid 170lbs

So maybe he wouldnt be ranked at the very top of all time is this era, he wouldnt get as much on his terms or get the accolades.

[trampie]

In the 20s he'd plough through the fighters of his time because he'd be so far ahead of his opposition skill wise. However being black in these times he'd be avoided and not get the big fights. Prize fighting at the small weights of the time wasn't as popular. So Robinson would be forced to move to LHW-HW but he'd still have some success at those weights if ate his way to say a solid 170lbs

So maybe he wouldnt be ranked at the very top of all time is this era, he wouldnt get as much on his terms or get the accolades.

Nice post, and a good scenario of what could have happened to Robinson in the 20's, like you said maybe he wouldnt be ranked as the GOAT, although he is still the greatest ever boxer being compared with the same other boxers, he would not be the GOAT due to resume, not his fault being black and avoided in your scenario, so the 'greatest ever boxer' would not be seen as the 'greatest ever boxer' because of his resume, this can not be right, resume is not everythink, being able to beat people H2H, man against man is more important.

[Dempsey1238]

In the 20s he'd plough through the fighters of his time because he'd be so far ahead of his opposition skill wise. However being black in these times he'd be avoided and not get the big fights. Prize fighting at the small weights of the time wasn't as popular. So Robinson would be forced to move to LHW-HW but he'd still have some success at those weights if ate his way to say a solid 170lbs

So maybe he wouldnt be ranked at the very top of all time is this era, he wouldnt get as much on his terms or get the accolades.

I not bring the color bar in this, IE he pulls a Tiger Flowers for the title or something.

The lower weight guys had a better shot than the heavyweight guys. Lets not forget that both Flowers and Siki won titles in the 20's.

Not sure if Robinson is FAR ahead. I think battles with Walker, Greb, Delaney, Loughran, Tunney, Perhaps Flowers and Siki on a good day, could beat Robinson. Most of these fights could go either way. I belive Robinson would lose the title, and regain it, like he did in the 50's vs Fullmer and Carman, and to some extant, Bo Bo Olsan.

[Dempsey1238]

Nice post, and a good scenario of what could have happened to Robinson in the 20's, like you said maybe he wouldnt be ranked as the GOAT, although he is still the greatest ever boxer being compared with the same other boxers, he would not be the GOAT due to resume, not his fault being black and avoided in your scenario, so the 'greatest ever boxer' would not be seen as the 'greatest ever boxer' because of his resume, this can not be right, resume is not everythink, being able to beat people H2H, man against man is more important.

The greatness boxer of the 20's hands down would be Harry Greb imo. Sooner or later, perhaps sooner, I belive Greb and Robinson would tango, and that would determind the best of the 20's. Greb saw no color in his fights.

[Bokaj]

Nice post, and a good scenario of what could have happened to Robinson in the 20's, like you said maybe he wouldnt be ranked as the GOAT, although he is still the greatest ever boxer being compared with the same other boxers, he would not be the GOAT due to resume, not his fault being black and avoided in your scenario, so the 'greatest ever boxer' would not be seen as the 'greatest ever boxer' because of his resume, this can not be right, resume is not everythink, being able to beat people H2H, man against man is more important.

I do not agree with this at all. Doing a H2H-scenario is always highly speculative and often unfair, since boxing have evolved. I don't think Greb would do that well if he was time-machined to the present, but there's no doubt that he was great in his own time. His record tells us that much.

Similarily, we can surmise the greatness of fighters like Langford and Wills, because of their records and of contemprary accounts, even though they suffered behind the colour line. The stars of for example like Dempsey and Jeffries have on the other hand waned in many's eyes because of holes in their records.

But interesting in this context is how many modern fighters don't get the ranking their talent perhaps deserve, since they are able to carefully manage their career around dangerous obstacles and still make huge money. Roy Jones is an excellent example of this. His talent may have been second to none, but since he steered clear of several of the most dangerous opponents and also had much less fights than the old-timers this can't be seen as a proven fact. Far from it.

If Robinson had been active today, I think he would have fallen in more or less the same bracket.

[trampie]

I do not agree with this at all. Doing a H2H-scenario is always highly speculative and often unfair, since boxing have evolved. I don't think Greb would do that well if he was time-machined to the present, but there's no doubt that he was great in his own time. His record tells us that much.

Similarily, we can surmise the greatness of fighters like Langford and Wills, because of their records and of contemprary accounts, even though they suffered behind the colour line. The stars of for example like Dempsey and Jeffries have on the other hand waned in many's eyes because of holes in their records.

But interesting in this context is how many modern fighters don't get the ranking their talent perhaps deserve, since they are able to carefully manage their career around dangerous obstacles and still make huge money. Roy Jones is an excellent example of this. His talent may have been second to none, but since he steered clear of several of the most dangerous opponents and also had much less fights than the old-timers this can't be seen as a proven fact. Far from it.

If Robinson had been active today, I think he would have fallen in more or less the same bracket.

H2H in their own era, not an imaginary H2H between different era's, I am totally against speculation, people putting their own spin on things, I like points based rankings, unlike lots of people, as if it is done right, it stops people putting their own spin on things, all boxers treated equally.
I give a lot of credit for one boxer beating another boxer in the ring.

[Bokaj]

H2H in their own era, not an imaginary H2H between different era's, I am totally against speculation, people putting their own spin on things, I like points based rankings, unlike lots of people, as if it is done right, it stops people putting their own spin on things, all boxers treated equally.
I give a lot of credit for one boxer beating another boxer in the ring.

Ok. I see what you mean.

[DINAMITA]

Sugar Ray Robinson fought between 1940-65 and is most peoples number 1 P4P all time great, if Sugar Ray Robinson had fought between 1900-1925 instead of 1940-65, would Sugar Ray Robinson still be seen as the number 1 ATG ?, I dont think most people that now see him as the number 1 ATG would see him as their number 1 ATG if he had fought between 1900-1925

Nearly all ATG ranking lists, cover the modern era {1892 onwards}, there were no official World Champions till the 1920s, therefore if Sugar Ray had fought between 1900-1925 he would not have had many if any ex World Champions on his resume, and since lots of posters are obsessed with resume they proberbly would not have had Sugar Ray Robinson as their greatest ever boxer ?, infact he would proberbly not make their ATG top 20, sadly I believe this to be the case.:roll:

Sugar Ray Robinson could have exactly the same win/loss record between 1900-25 as he achieved for real between 1940-65, Sugar Ray would still be compared against exactly the same boxers ,1892 - present day, as he currently is, Sugar Ray could have faced the same strength opposition if he fought between 1900-25 as he did for real when he fought between 1940-65, Sugar Ray would have the same skills and ability fighting between 1900-25 as he had for real fighting between 1940-65, yet because he would not have fought many champions, due to there been none, his resume would have been perceived as weak {although that would not have been the case}

Lots of posters are obsessed with resume, they dont care if one boxer is better than another boxer ?:roll:, they only care about who a boxer has fought, they dont even care if the boxer loses :roll:.
As well as resume, lots of people like accomplishments, weight jumping in particular :?, I personally perfer a boxer to clean a division out and prove himself to be the best at that weight, as opossed too winning one version of a title and going up a weight and winning one version of that weight division, then claiming that they are a two weight World Champion, when they may have beaten the 'weakest' belt holders in both divisions, yet some people think that is marvellous.

What is wrong with placing a boxer who has beaten or would beat another boxer higher in a ranking list ???

Resume means nothing if the boxer has lost most of his big fights.

Accomplishments means nothing if the boxer with all the accomplishments has lost and would lose to another good boxer with slightly less accomplishments, the boxer with the slightly less accomplishments should be ranked higher, in this case.

I am not saying that Marciano, Mayweather and Calzaghe should be ATG 1,2 and 3 but head to head is not given enough credit.
{PS I recently said that if either Mayweather at 32 or Calzaghe at 37 came out of retirement they would still beat everybody as they are both excellent head to head, will that come back to haunt me ?}

Although ATG lists cover all the weight divisions, if the heavyweights and middleweights etc were picked out from the list, shouldnt the #1 beat the #2 and the #2 beat the #3 etc in the list makers mind ?
Otherwise you end up with a list that is not the greatest ever boxers in order, but the greatest boxing resumes in order or the great boxing accomplishments in order.

I say head to head rules, winning is everything, sport is about winning, boxing is about winning :D

This wouldn't be in any way connected to your belief that Jimmy Wilde should be the GOAT now, would it?


To any serious boxing fan, resume is the single most important factor in these discussions. You have to beat proven quality to prove quality.

[Gesta]

Resume is the single most important tool for ranking boxers but not the be all and end all of rankings, you could be the best boxer ever but because you operated in a weak division or a weak era you would be heavily penalised by a lot of people, that cant be right, thats all a boxer can do is beat what is infront of him, I know the public want the best v the best, so would you end up with Oscar De La Hoya as your GOAT ?, he fought all the top boxers of his era, the problem being, he lost to most of them, there is no way that a boxer like De La Hoya could be seen as a top 50 ATG as he would lose to ever other boxer on the list, yet he would be top 50 for resume and top 50 for achievements.
The problem is these list advertise themselves as the ''greatest ever boxers'', not the greatest ever ''boxing resumes'' or the ''greatest ever boxing achievements''.

Who would you rank higher Oscar or Floyd?,

Floyd is a great champ but for his talent his resume shoud be better, how would Floyd have gone with Kostya?, Cotto? or some of the bigger names\talents, I think he would be a tough fight for anybody, but we just don't know.

With Oscar we know how he would of gone becease he fought them, lost a few but beat Sweet Pea (close), Tito etc... some great wins.

If JCC did not fight Sweet Pea he would be ranked alot higher (before the bout alot of boxing experts were saying he was the best since SRR), same if Tito had not fought Oscar or Hopkins, to a lesser degree.

I think it is unfair to penalise someone like Marvin for his divison not being the strongest middleweight divison ever, because he ruled it with an iron fist and maybe thats why there were no big names in that division.

A resume is how a boxer will be judged, it's not the boxers fault if his division is weak at that time or if the boxer is not suited to jump divisions (like Marvin jumping to lightheavy), but it is the boxes fault for not having a better resume if they had the chance, otherwise they will chose to fight boxers that they "know" they can beat.