Not pointing to any particular fight per se, but just something to consider. Betting experts know that people tend to bet on results they would WANT to happen, rather than what is actually plausible. Everybody thinks they are above it, me included, but I am just as guilty as everybody else. In NFL, people overrate the possibility of high-scoring games, in track-and-field, people pick world records to be shattered. In mythical matchups, we tend to hope that the fighters are at their absolute peaks, that neither fighter gives up trying and that our favorite fighter pushes for the KO even if he doesn't need to. Therefore, and also because we'd like to see definite results, we tend to pick late KOs in fights that would more likely end in decisions.
Indeed. For example a perceived mismatch automatically means a stoppage in MMs whereas in real life a mismatch could go the distance as often as not (calzaghe lacy for example). In MMs a fighter that’s far more accomplished than another would stop him late even if the accomplished one is a non puncher and the other has a solid chin and decent defence. Good observation as usual
Ugo, I'd disagree. I think many more MMs are predicted to end in decisions than you may acknowledge. Some stoppages are gimmes though. For instance, the Leonard-Vargas thread. Nando never went the distance with any elite fighter, no reason at all to believe he'd do so against Leonard. Whereas, in the Pavlik-Canelo thread.... yeah, I could see that one lasting the distance considering how durable both were.
Most of the childish simplification, overstatement, and hyperbole that exists in the MM forum can be centred around a single source...xplosive. What an annoying cunt that guy is. His typical logic is like this: Fighter A fought this one that one and that one...Fighter B fought no one, therefore Fighter A knocks out Fighter B in one round He’s the embodiment of the saying, “he that knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool, shun him”
Agreed. I think the assesment of the fights are rather fair most of the time. I don't see a lot of KO being predicted in fights that should realistically go the distance
I don't believe that. Most of us like knockouts. People tend to pick results which they would prefer, even if their money was on the line. Why would we act differently when the result doesn't really matter to us?
Because we are supposed to be talking about what we think would happen not what we would want to happen
You'd have to provide specific examples of matchups where you think it's incorrect to predict the stoppage.
I don't think it's stoppages so much as guys being picked to get stopped when there's no precedent of them being beaten inside the distance, getting dropped or even wobbled in fights. I always think there should be at least some consistent examples of vulnerability before being picked to get stopped, regardless of the era the fighter operates in, otherwise they should get the benefit of the doubt.
To slice’s point, nearly every mythical matchup involving mayweather against a past great ends with mayweather being KTFO.... The man has never been officially dropped by a lunch much less been close to being stopped but apparently each of the following would have knocked him the fuck out: Leonard Duran Hearns Robinson Benitez Curry (And there’s more)
I don't think anyone think Benitez would ko him. Hell, I think even picking benitez over him is a stretch Hearns, SRL, SRR and Curry are bigger than him, while having a great combinaison of speed, power and skills themselves, so it's not a stretch to think they ko him. But wtf with constantly bringing PBF into a thread. You're turning into a caricature
I'd imagine but I'm not a gambler Not sure what that has to do with boxing guys trying to determine who would win a fight that can never actually happen... I've never made a sincere pick on here based on what I want to happen, only on what I think would happen based on what I know about the fighters
Very seldom do I ever pick a guy to get stopped if he never got stopped unless there's a real good reason (a lightweight that's been hurt a lot by non punchers but not stopped but never fought a big puncher ... suddenly his opponent is Edwin Rosario... now a KO isn't much of a stretch)
Mayweather, outgunned is excessively defensive and loses by light years on the cards If he presses his luck against Hearns, he definitely gets KOd... you could say the same of other guys that weren't ever KO'd Roberto Duran had been down twice his whole career for about 3 seconds... both to the same man... he was subsequently durable and was stopped only due to an injury and due to a criminally negligent boxing commission allowing him to fight a man half his age ... nevertheless, the most uniquely problematic Welterweight/Jr Middleweight in history utterly ruined him in about 5 minutes
I agree hearns wins a wide decision....terrible matchup for Floyd stylistically. Leonard pressed his luck against hearns and didn’t get KO’d so don’t know why it’ll be a guarantee that Floyd gets knocked out though.
Pushes a blatant Floyd agenda in every thread... When he's called out on it "Why am I always attacked? I don't bring up Floyd, you guys do!"
