People are not seeking truth anymore, as much as they are looking to affirm their own personal prejudices. Boxing may be caught up in that same mentality?
There was a time in boxing when a clearly gifted and outstanding fighter was called a ?prospect? until he had actually faced competition with at least an even-money chance of beating him. No boxing person worth his salt would go gaga over any boxer who hadn?t yet passed a ?for real? test.
Sugar Ray Leonard, before Wilfred Benitez, was the same multi-talented elite-level fighter that he was AFTER Wilfred Benitez, but nobody was proclaiming him an all-time great before he had actually earned it.
Nowadays, though, real, honest-to-goodness ?boxing people? seem to be dying off and, in their place, doe-eyed, mega-fan cheerleaders have sprung up. And the boxing media, which is currently made up almost entirely of half-volunteer super fans and industry stooges, is no more discerning than the average fan.
So, we get silly ?is he an all-time great? talk every time someone comes along with extreme talent and a string of dominant wins over tailor-made opposition.
Gennady Golovkin was ranked among the all-time greats at middleweight by some fans and prominent ?experts? well before he had ever even faced someone rated as high as a 5-to-1 underdog against him. Let that sink in for a second. And now these same guys who were stacking him up against guys like Monzon and Hagler are walking back their na?ve enthusiasm after seeing Golovkin look human against Daniel Jacobs and Saul Alvarez, who could actually box a little and put up some sort of resistance.
Vasyl Lomachenko is the latest fighter being sold as an all-time great talent, well before having actual proof of just how good he is. Drawing comparisons to everyone from a prime Hank Armstrong to a ?better, more offense-minded? Pernell Whitaker, he?s been rushed to the front of the line by those who can?t help obsess over silly pound-for-pound lists. But, like Golovkin, Lomachenko has never really beaten anyone he wasn?t heavily favored to beat.
There are other examples of this almost child-like rush to put fighters on false pedestals. Lots of examples, actually. Just look at Ring Magazine?s pound-for-pound list and you?ll see that, really, only four of their top 10 current ?best? fighters in the world have ever won a main stage fight they weren?t heavily favored to win. And, oddly enough, those fighters take up the last four spots on their list?no. 7, Naoya Inoue (who beat Ryoichi Taguchi, Adrian Hernandez, and Omar Narvaez very early on in his career), no. 8, Errol Spence Jr. (who beat Kell Brook), no. 9 Guillermo Rigondeaux (who beat Nonito Donaire), and no. 10, Srisaket Sor Rungvisai (who twice beat Roman Gonzalez). That leaves the front six?Golovkin, Terence Crawford, Lomachenko, Sergey Kovalev, Alvarez, and Mikey Garcia?without a win against someone who could validate their greatness or, at the very least, legitimately justify the mighty praise they receive.
Maybe all of this says as much about the current state of boxing as it does about the lack of acumen among fans and media.
Network vs. network conflicts and promoter vs. promoter squabbles have made it increasingly difficult to put together high end fights among elite boxers. Toss in, also, the fact that, overall, the talent pool has shrunk, at least at the very top levels of the sport.
Realistically, because of the way things are, a guy like Lomachenko may not get a career-defining win against even-money competition in his own weight class. He?ll just have to move up in weight until he finds that match?or gets so far out of his comfort zone that a lesser fighter will present a greater risk. Great fighters who find themselves without great wins have historically gone up in weight in search of quality challenges and the money that comes along with the risk.
What?s different now is that fans and media who have fallen in love tend not to make those demands of ?their? guys.
Golovkin and his team spent years complaining about not finding a quality challenge at 160, while simultaneously pursuing big money bouts with 154 lb. imports, Alvarez and Miguel Cotto. A real ?boxing person? would?ve told them to quit whining and move on up to 168 if challenges were lacking at 160 and then to 175 if nothing was happening at 168, either.
Instead, fans got numerous Triple G showcase squashes against tailor-made opposition while actually arguing FOR him to stay put and ?clean out the division? against fighters not favored to beat him (or even be competitive). And that parade of squashes somehow earned him pound-for-pound honors as well as straight-faced comparisons with Marvin Hagler.
Same deal for Lomachenko, whose talent is unquestioned, but whose pro r?sum? is filled with guys ill-suited to do much against him and his talents. Of his marquee bouts, Lomachenko?s high-water mark performances are a solid decision over Gary Russell Jr., a competitive loss to Orlando Salido, and a victory over a severely handicapped Rigondeaux who bailed on the fight before it even became a fight. Hardly the stuff of legends.
Maybe this is just the way the fight game is these days. Maybe people are happy with virtuoso performances if real, competitive bouts either won?t or can?t be made at the elite level. Maybe it?s easier for modern boxing fans to love a fighter who ALWAYS looks like the beast they imagine him to be and not someone who looks human and vulnerable while having to overcome a difficult match-up.
It sure as hell is easier to make a steady income as a promoter if your guy is propped up by a mega-loyal fan base that tosses flowers at his feet and never holds him accountable for his level of opposition. Don?t expect any smart boxing businessman to err on the side of possibly getting his guy beat if he doesn?t have to.
The world, in general, seems plagued by this kind of mindset. People are not seeking truth anymore, as much as they are looking to affirm their own personal prejudices. Boxing may be caught up in that same mentality.
