Why is boxing such an unforgiving sport unlike say..NFL?

[hobgoblin]

How often do you hear about Joe Namath, the SF 49ers, the 1996 Bulls, Michael Jordan, etc. being overrated? Do you guys know how many times these guys have fucked up? When the 49ers lose a game or a super bowl, all is quelled a week later. When Mike Tyson loses a single fight in 1990 - people begin to question his legimacy and say his career is in danger - just like that. Of course that is foolish talk but still?

The reason is because boxing is the most competitive and action packed sport of all. One man against another. People see more clearly in such a microscopic observation that boxing gives you - that the fighters are HUMAN. So a critic keeps pointing out a fighter is human by pointing flaws - well duh! A fighter can only do the best he can. Any fighter can be taken down - Louis, Ali, Marciano, etc. - they are human, criticizse them with respect to THAT. Ali did the best he could. Louis fought the best available to him. Same with Marciano. Judge them on what they did of opportunity.

So please answer the questioned posed on my title?

[thesandman]

These days, it's because fighters fight less often, so each fight has more significance.

If fighters fought 6 or more times a year, then 1 loss would have less significance.

[acb]

These days, it's because fighters fight less often, so each fight has more significance.

If fighters fought 6 or more times a year, then 1 loss would have less significance.

Good point.

Its also an individual sport so the blame falls squarely on your shoulders.

And while I generally agree with the thread starter, its not like athletes in other sports dont get hammered. I mean look at poor Bill Buckner for example. Or take the preasure put on Payton Manning before he was able to win the Superbowl.

[Zakman]

These days, it's because fighters fight less often, so each fight has more significance.

If fighters fought 6 or more times a year, then 1 loss would have less significance.

Exactly. Who remembers that Ezzard Charles had like 20 something losses, for example? No, they remember him as a great fighter from the past.

[Motor City Sam]

These days, it's because fighters fight less often, so each fight has more significance.

If fighters fought 6 or more times a year, then 1 loss would have less significance.

I think you hit it right on the head. :good

[hobgoblin]

Not in the case of Lennox Lewis...he loses on fight to McCall and then people begin to question his career and all his achievments prior as if they never happened. Especially with Mike Tyson - one fight to Douglas and people start questioning his legitimacy as a Champion - despite the big wave for 4 years prior. These guys fought 3-4 a year! Look at that thread about the 70s overratedness - so who was good?

[thesandman]

Not in the case of Lennox Lewis...he loses on fight to McCall and then people begin to question his career and all his achievments prior as if they never happened. Especially with Mike Tyson - one fight to Douglas and people start questioning his legitimacy as a Champion - despite the big wave for 4 years prior. These guys fought 3-4 a year! Look at that thread about the 70s overratedness - so who was good?

That's right, but that comes about because that's the mindset people get into overall, and they can't separate the occasions when that matters, to when it doesn't. That's what people promote too. (TV stations, promoters etc).

They'd rather have a guy 32-0 fighting scrubs, than a guy 29-3 fighting solid guy after solid guy.

You and I both know the guy with 3 losses is probably the far better fighter - but that's not how they're judged.

[theunderdog]

because nba and nfl games happen more frequently and they are team games. in boxing, when you lose it will be, more often than not, entirely yor fault. you can't say the same with basketball or football

[PH|LLA]

i think the sport most comparable to boxing is actually tennis.

because of its 1 on 1 format.

If risks of injury were not so high in boxing, boxers would be able to fight more often, in tournaments, and then a loss here or there would not be the end of the world.

Boxing should be fought in tournaments anyways, like the olympics

[Butch Coolidge]

Because a higher percentage of boxing fans have never participated in the sport. No offense intended but a lot of people who have never boxed don't realize the amount of concentration it takes to fight one whole minute, much less three, versus an opponent who, if he's done his job correctly, has spent a large percentage of his time honing his skills at knocking your head off. One minute is really a long time to fight but if you said that in front of somebody who never fought before he'd think it was a joke. It's no joke. A lot of boxing writers, keyboard warriors etc, dismiss a fighter for "lack of skill" when the truth of the matter is they don't know what skill looks like. It would be more accurate to describe the fighter as "limited" mainly because he is not as athletic or in some cases as juiced as his opponent, not because he doesn't know how to box. A lot of professional boxing writers don't know the sport well enough to truly analyze it and it gives fans who have not participated in the sport a false point of view. The writer might state Fighter A totally abandoned his jab without realizing that the reason Fighter A abandoned his jab was because Fighter B was slipping it smashing counter right hands into Fighter A's ribcage. For some reason everybody thinks he can analyze and point out a worldclass fighter's mistake in a fight when they don't see the whole picture. They could get some ideas from listening to Emanuel Steward's commentary or something along those lines but Manny is sitting outside the ring. He is not the fighter. He can only go by what he sees. The fighter he's the one who knows he has a broken hand, broken rib etc. Besides, most of these worldclass fighters have been boxing their entire lives, like De La Hoya, Mayweather, Chris Byrd. That's really a lot of experience that shouldn't be ignored. But we can drink a couple of beers, watch the fight, listen to the commentary and figure out what these worldclass fighters have done wrong with all our experience. Sure.

Truth is a tomato can would whip your ass.

Another reason boxing is unforgiving; one mistake and the fight is over. Forget to duck, drop your left, zig when you should have zagged and KO, go back to your corner and get your legs back under you and you can leave knowing that the armchair warriors in all their wisdom and experience will be more than happy to enlighten you of your fatal flaw. Does that happen in any other sport? Maybe MMA but football, baseball and golf can't end like that. One mistake and the game isn't over.

I think if boxing fans would actually walk a mile in the fighter's shoes he would have a more realistic idea about what the sport really is. A lot of guys love to go on about how tough the oldtimers were but I honestly believe this "superior toughness" actually comes from the boxing fans of the time period and boxing writers of the time period. Back then people knew what it was like to fight. They knew what it was like to go hungry. They knew what it was like to be in a war. They weren't as spoiled as most of us today. That's what makes the Golden Age of Boxing pug the greatest fighters ever, their fans and what their fans said about them. We'll never have fighters like they did because we don't want them. We're too jaded to walk a mile in their shoes.

[hobgoblin]

I think if boxing fans would actually walk a mile in the fighter's shoes he would have a more realistic idea about what the sport really is. A lot of guys love to go on about how tough the oldtimers were but I honestly believe this "superior toughness" actually comes from the boxing fans of the time period and boxing writers of the time period. Back then people knew what it was like to fight. They knew what it was like to go hungry. They knew what it was like to be in a war. They weren't as spoiled as most of us today. That's what makes the Golden Age of Boxing pug the greatest fighters ever, their fans and what their fans said about them. We'll never have fighters like they did because we don't want them. We're too jaded to walk a mile in their shoes.

Thank you for your excellent and insightful post.

[nervousxtian]

I think we overanalyze fighters these days.

Is it unfair? Yes. Is it going to stop. No.

[Dr Z]

How often do you hear about Joe Namath, the SF 49ers, the 1996 Bulls, Michael Jordan, etc. being overrated? Do you guys know how many times these guys have fucked up? When the 49ers lose a game or a super bowl, all is quelled a week later. When Mike Tyson loses a single fight in 1990 - people begin to question his legimacy and say his career is in danger - just like that. Of course that is foolish talk but still?

The reason is because boxing is the most competitive and action packed sport of all. One man against another. People see more clearly in such a microscopic observation that boxing gives you - that the fighters are HUMAN. So a critic keeps pointing out a fighter is human by pointing flaws - well duh! A fighter can only do the best he can. Any fighter can be taken down - Louis, Ali, Marciano, etc. - they are human, criticizse them with respect to THAT. Ali did the best he could. Louis fought the best available to him. Same with Marciano. Judge them on what they did of opportunity.

So please answer the questioned posed on my title?

Excellent thread. The chaotic nature of boxing has its appeal, but it is also the sports main downfall.

All of the above sports have organization.

They all have a commissioner with power, a schedule for the fans and media to follow that always produces championship match ups, and the results of the games in general are not blow or stolen by ref's and judges. Oh yeah, and the other sports don't have PPV events!

Boxing is a mess. It’s full of shady commissions, promoters who kick each other in the nuts by putting on big fight cards on the same night, and mediocre writers. So even if a legandary fighter is active, fans have an easier time ripping him. Not so much in the other sports because they have organization, rules, and a schedule that produce an un despuited champions.


The reason Ali is a legand is because he had talent and the opportunity to prove it via scheduled matches vs the best.

[Lacyace]

Boxing is a bandwagon sport. Always has been, always will be.

Look at these forums for proof.

[Rock0052]

Funnily enough, Joe Namath is genuinely overrated. And, going by his overall career, there should be a few dozen other QB's enshrined in the Hall of Fame ahead of him.

He did score some extra points in my book for being drunk off his ass and hitting on the woman interviewing him during halftime of a game a few years back, though. It's hilarious, because of the sheer irony of it- saying something he wasn't supposed to, likely after throwing a few back, is why he became famous in the first place.

[Drexl]

Exactly. Who remembers that Ezzard Charles had like 20 something losses, for example? No, they remember him as a great fighter from the past.
Hmmm....

Charles has 25 losses against some absolute nobodies and is a "great fighter".

Lennox had 2 against long-standing legit top-10 contenders (whether you like it or not, that's what they were and possibly still are) which were later avenged by stoppage, and he's "overrated"?



...did someone say "double standards"....?

[Clinton]

Hmmm....

Charles has 25 losses against some absolute nobodies and is a "great fighter".

Lennox had 2 against long-standing legit top-10 contenders (whether you like it or not, that's what they were and possibly still are) which were later avenged by stoppage, and he's "overrated"?



...did someone say "double standards"....?
Who said Lennox was overrated?He's a top 10 ATG heavyweight.However Charles had,as in the case of many fighters in his day,what,twice or three times as many fights as Lennox?The more fights you have,the more you are likely to lose.Look at Sugar Ray Robinson.How many fighters beat him that you and I know weren't better than he was.

[Polymath]

Because a higher percentage of boxing fans have never participated in the sport. No offense intended but a lot of people who have never boxed don't realize the amount of concentration it takes to fight one whole minute, much less three, versus an opponent who, if he's done his job correctly, has spent a large percentage of his time honing his skills at knocking your head off. One minute is really a long time to fight but if you said that in front of somebody who never fought before he'd think it was a joke. It's no joke. A lot of boxing writers, keyboard warriors etc, dismiss a fighter for "lack of skill" when the truth of the matter is they don't know what skill looks like. It would be more accurate to describe the fighter as "limited" mainly because he is not as athletic or in some cases as juiced as his opponent, not because he doesn't know how to box. A lot of professional boxing writers don't know the sport well enough to truly analyze it and it gives fans who have not participated in the sport a false point of view. The writer might state Fighter A totally abandoned his jab without realizing that the reason Fighter A abandoned his jab was because Fighter B was slipping it smashing counter right hands into Fighter A's ribcage. For some reason everybody thinks he can analyze and point out a worldclass fighter's mistake in a fight when they don't see the whole picture. They could get some ideas from listening to Emanuel Steward's commentary or something along those lines but Manny is sitting outside the ring. He is not the fighter. He can only go by what he sees. The fighter he's the one who knows he has a broken hand, broken rib etc. Besides, most of these worldclass fighters have been boxing their entire lives, like De La Hoya, Mayweather, Chris Byrd. That's really a lot of experience that shouldn't be ignored. But we can drink a couple of beers, watch the fight, listen to the commentary and figure out what these worldclass fighters have done wrong with all our experience. Sure.

Truth is a tomato can would whip your ass.

Another reason boxing is unforgiving; one mistake and the fight is over. Forget to duck, drop your left, zig when you should have zagged and KO, go back to your corner and get your legs back under you and you can leave knowing that the armchair warriors in all their wisdom and experience will be more than happy to enlighten you of your fatal flaw. Does that happen in any other sport? Maybe MMA but football, baseball and golf can't end like that. One mistake and the game isn't over.

I think if boxing fans would actually walk a mile in the fighter's shoes he would have a more realistic idea about what the sport really is. A lot of guys love to go on about how tough the oldtimers were but I honestly believe this "superior toughness" actually comes from the boxing fans of the time period and boxing writers of the time period. Back then people knew what it was like to fight. They knew what it was like to go hungry. They knew what it was like to be in a war. They weren't as spoiled as most of us today. That's what makes the Golden Age of Boxing pug the greatest fighters ever, their fans and what their fans said about them. We'll never have fighters like they did because we don't want them. We're too jaded to walk a mile in their shoes.

:happy

[Thread Stealer]

BC had a good explanation for this in his post above.

Still, quite a few players in team sports of the past get criticized.

When I browse basketball forums, for example, Karl Malone is always called a "choker" (and other things much worse for what he did off the court). Other great players who never won a title often get called "losers" for not achieving the ultimate goal in a team sport. Quarterbacks get criticized for not winning the SB, even though he's just one of 22 players on the field at once.

[walk with me]

my guess is you only have a limited time to prove yourself.... and theres always going to be a couple guys that you should have faced ... and you didnt..... and because of that you can always say fighter A woudl ahve lost to fighter B C D E

[BlueApollo]

I'm not sure how you could hold this position after listening to a "Who's Better, Kobe, Mike, or Lebron?" conversation. Guaranteed the word "overrated" would pop up in there somewhere.

I hear guys argue all the time over better teams historically, top 5 QB's, etc.

Maybe because it doesn't matter as much to us, it seems less poisonous, but that doesn't mean it's more "forgiving".

I'd also add that the major sports, at least in America, benefit from massive media coverage and all kinds of positive, feel good stories that boxing never gets. Once a fighter is done in the ring beating on his fellow man, that's about all anyone, including most fans, will remember and talk about. But in the NFL, all of the things that make someone like Walter Payton or Bill Walsh a great man off the field, are much more a part of the public's memory.

I'd like to see the boxing press spend a little less time following contract negotiations, and a little more time covering fighters as people, not just gladiators all the time.