Is experience overrated???

Heard some interesting views on here about Jones beating a green Hopkins......Holy only having a few fights before Qawi.....basically degrading Jones and Qawi's performance..."Holy thrashed him easy in the return etc"..Not forgetting Qawi's lack of belief 2nd time around, age and the fact most gruelling struggles find the 1st fight victor doing it easier the 2nd time around (walcott-Marc, Jeffries - Corb, Fitz)

Must disagree to this green garbage because fighters always tend to go into their natural comfort zone when under pressure (khan-Maidana being an obvious example)...Did Holy fight significantly better or different after Qawi (Dokes, Cooper, Ocasio???)...Nope still the same artist who gets into a brawl when under pressure!!...

Hoppo fight much different after Jones nope!! God forbid Jones had his number...

Experience is handy in certain ways...knowing how to pace yourself, pre-fight supplementation and training (what works for you)getting through different situations by hanging on etc..Experience is good when you have time to glean from it.....Boxing isn't that kind of sport...It's more about natural instincts and decision making in the moment no real time to gleam from experience....Talent and heart based..

My "experience" watching shows that Boxers are instinct guys who revert to type under pressure......

Experience is only important when in against a guy at the same level....

Experience is also only handy if you learn from your mistakes

hoppo has in some respects.. he knows how to mug a guy....at a lower or similar level.......Holy hasn't he's always made the same mistakes..

Hoppo mugged before Jones.... Didn't work against him though..why because Jones was too good and always would be..Green argument becomes null and void when he fights the same way basically all the time..becomes more of a style issue.

How many guys try anything different if they are losing??...Very few...Experience redundant there!!

Experience is overrated and always will be....Talent and heart in this game or you have nothing..

Brilliant article Truss, and one that will really get us thinking.

Experience is obviously key to a fighter in terms of knowing when to hold, knowing when to go on the attack, and little tricks that have been picked up over the years can always help in a close fight. However, you can have all the experience in the world but still lose to someone that is naturally more gifted than you are, or a big hitter, so in that respect I agree with most of what you are saying.

I wouldn't say it was over rated, as having experience obviously trumps having none, but there are certainly more important things in the fight game. Jones vs Hopkins was a good example, by the way.

What a fascinating article.

Much of what you say makes a great deal of sense, to me, though I think there are situations whereby experience is very significant. Two which spring to mind would be the following :

Somebody like Archie Moore, who spent years fighting all comers with all styles and, consequently, learned every trick in the book ( legal or otherwise, ) would have been unlikely to be fazed by the prospect of facing a cute slickster, southpaw, brawler or devastating hitter. He would also know how to get under an opponent's skin with chit chat in the clinches or the odd gesture.

The second would be the reverse of the above. A young, talented fighter going up against Moore might be intimidated by the fact that he's going in with somebody who has been around the block a thousand times. The young gun might, therefore, fight a little more conservatively than normal.

Notwithstanding these, I believe that there's a great deal in what you say, and that some of the examples you cite to back up your view are bang on the money.

Excately look at all these boxers that have been around for years that get beat by young upcomers, I know i'm probably gonna take a lot of stick seeing as alot of them are journeymen but the point still stands that they would of racked up a lot of fights and gained alot of experience along the way.

Maybe Jones would always of beat Hopkins and i'm not counting the shambles that was their second fight

Oh and fantastic article by the way

I'll echo Fists - quality article, Truss. That said, I'm not sure how much I agree with it, particularly your point about Hopkins. Personally, when I look at the Hopkins of, say, 1993 to 1998, I see a very different operator to the one who has come to occupy a spot near the top of most people's pound for pound lists since the turn of the century. Contrary to popular belief, the Hopkins of old was a fairly ruthless and aggressive fighter, happy to stalk his opponent and force an opening rather than waiting for one on the counter-punch. He was much more of a raw talent back then - I'd say that the way he's adapted his style to make it more suited to longevity is directly down to experiece, and as such I can't agree that it's overrated, at least in the case of Hopkins anyway.

It's an interesting point you make about fighters reverting back to type when under pressure, and while it's certainly true in some cases, again I'd say that it hardly makes experience redundant when this kind of situation arises. Take a look at Khan against Maidana, or Bruno against McCall, for instance. In both fights they both had to weather a storm, buy time and hang on to survive, and they both managed it. Now cast your mind back to how they'd failed to do this at an earlier stage of their career; Khan against Prescott, Bruno against Smith and Witherspoon. Is it really that far-fetched to assume that the pair of them had learned from earlier cases (more gradually in the case of Big Frank, of course!), and hence experience had been vital to them?

I'll say again, it's a great article, mate. I just don't agree with much of it. For me, experience is huge in boxing at the highest level. Maybe not as important as talent and / or heart as you rightly say, but still very, very important all the same.

Is experience overrated???

---

Definelty not. The last piece I did was 47 and she taught me a few things I tell you

Anyway back on topic...

Good article Truss. I would say in boxing experience can be overrated. Its different in sports where age is not a factor such as snooker and golf for example

With boxing though there is always someone more hungry and in great shape creeping up behind you. There are many examples of where an old head has schooled a rookie...but at the same time there is probably just as many examples of a up and comer whooping an experienced fighter

So to summarize (Steffan style)......in boxing, experience is good. But your still only as good as your last fight

Think for me experience is not overrated if you are dealing with a fighter intelligent enough to actually learn from it and apply it. Hopkins is obviously a decent example to use, now his ability to compete and win at the top level at nigh on 50 is the result of one thing, either he is a genetic freak who defies millions of years of human evolution and actually gets fitter, quicker and stronger as he gets older, or he has gained enough experience to mitigate the effects of the ageing. Obviously it is the latter in his case as indeed it would be in anyone's case, as the former is impossible.

Personally would not confuse certain fighters inability to learn from their experiences with experience being worthless or overrated as I think there are enough guys such as Moore and Hopkins who have proven there is a massive value in it.

Its not a quick fast rule, I would argue that experience was what made Hagler a great. (Hagler v Vito 1, compare to 2?)

Hopkins too, maybe prime jones would always have his number (but I wouldn't bank on it) it's not like jones did to Hopkins what he did to Toney.

As I say, no quick fast rule as I say, and regarding Qawi v Holy, how many (non-head gear wearing) amature fights had holy?

Prodigious talents are prodigious talents, but experience counts.

Im not quite sure I follow the gist of this but for me experience is not overrated at all.

In cases where the quality gap is too wide than experience may not be enough but I think boxing history supports the idea that experience and learning is of critical importance, regardless of whatever level your talent allows you to perform at.

I think its a bit of a moot point to use examples of mismatches as evidence that experience is irrelevant. For example even if Glenn McCrory had an extra 50 fights experience under his belt its still not going alow him to be able to beat a Mike Tyson or an Evander Holyfield with only a couple of fights under their belt. The talent gap is simply too wide. But it would probably would be accurate to say with an extra 50 fights experience he might be expected to perform a little better than had he only had a handful of fights. I dont think its ever been suggested that experience alone is sufficient to overcome massive discrepincies in talent, size and so on.

Its also highly individualistic and variable in nature. Some fighters may not neccessarily improve much with experience whilst some benefit a great deal from it. On the whole I think its extremelly valuable.

Entirely disagree.

To use a recent example:

Haye
Can anyone honestly say that Haye would not have benefited from 20 more fights? Does anyone seriously believe that Haye was adequately prepared by Bonin, Barrett, Valuev, Ruiz and Harrison for the challenge that Klitschko was to face?

He hasn't learned because his style has allowed him to "get by". If he'd been forced to actually fight someone with a style to challenge him - he'd have been better prepared. He'd have been less clueless as to how to react to a stiff jab.

Zivic

Fritzie was a rough fighter - and seen as a decent test for a prospect. Fighters like Burley and Sugar were faced up against Zivic at a young age - with the understanding that they might pick up a loss - but WOULD learn a lot more about the sport.

Groves

He learnt from the Anderson fight. DeGale had fought good opposition as well - Paul Smith for instance - but DeGale had passed each test with flying colours. Chunky was not as well prepared as Groves.

====================================================

We could say that it depends upon the type of experience that the prospect is picking up. If you're Tye Fields and building up an impressive resume of early KOs - you could well not be learning a thing. Lets face it - half of his opponents looked like they were surprised to be there and had bought the wrong tickets on the way in.

If you're being tested - that experience can help you.

Experience of losing helps a great deal. Manny has been a different fighter after the first Morales loss and refined even more since the Marquez wars. Everyone loves an "0" but a learned-from-loss is actually quite valuable.

Hopkins for me alongside Moore are the two fighters who define this topic, skill wise and knowledge wise they're far better fighters in their older years but this in counteracted by the onset of age, if they had the experience they had in their 40's in their 20's they would obviously be better fighters and in both cases almost impossible to beat. On the flipside with experience came the detioriation of their athletic ability so combine the two and you have two almost perfect boxers, very tricky to determine which is the most important.

It becomes tricky to define exactly when experience actually influences a fighter.

BHop changed because father time forced his hand, much like Ali in Zaire. Is it experience to be forced to evolve? Whether it has allowed them to be more successful is debatable. Was Hopkins better after the nineties when age changed his style? debatable as his opposition improved. Was Ali better against Foreman than in his Sixties pomp?

Calzaghe ceased to be a big puncher due to fragile hands, but did his change. forced out of necessity and experience, make him a better fighter?

experience makes you get better would a boxer be able to win the world title in his first fight i dont think so

I gave Lennox Lewis a link to this article, and his comments (condensed into 140 characters on Twitter, remember), are as follows:

Not at all. Solid amateur experience is critical in the development of pro boxers. Fighters gain a wealth of experience there.

listen to lewis

Excellent article as always Truss.

I'm a bit split on this.

In the case of Hopkins I can see where the experience he gained over the years has helped him prolong his career by tweaking his style to accommodate the fact he can't be as aggressive or have the same punch output he had in the past.

Someone mentioned Hayes lack of fights saying he may have done better against Wlad if he had been in 20 more fights. I'm not having that Hayes problem was he had been in at a pretty poor level then made a huge jump in class and was shocked by how good Wlad was imo.

Kazuto Iota had only had 6 fights when he took on Oleydong Sithsamerchai who was undefeated in 30 odd fights for a World title and he stopped him. This was definitely a case of quality of experience.

This im afraid is a well put together yet baseless article. Experience is a major factor in all sports especially boxing. Why?well if USED wisely experience can be the advantage when an old hand is pitted against a young up and coming fighter. David Lemeuax was touted as the next best thing in the middleweight division before he met Rubio. Lameaux had a great ko ratio but was out smarted and stopped when Rubio schooled him. Forman was loosing on all score cards when he fought Moorer and needed a ko in the last round. Did he go out swinging from the rafters?no he waited and pawed away at Moorer until he nailed him with a straight right down the pipe, a shot that you only learn to throw over years of competing.

*Pedantry Corner*

Foreman KOd Moorer in 10, not in 12.
------------------------
Sorry bout that - entirely agree with your points onetwo

Is experience overrated? whose experience?, what experience? How high did we rate it to start with? Sorry if I sound like I'm taking the urine Truss, but come on -what's next inline for -------is overrated.
Experience counts- tht's why good promoters and managers gradually build up their fighters against increasingly good and varied opponents, each of which set a new problem or challenge for their fighter- that's how the fighter learns and the manager and trainer can judge how they are improving. Do you think that the Nigel Benn that lost to Watson didn't learn from that experience? Do you think that a fighter like Alex Stewart, who was jumped from beating nobodies to being thrown in Holyfield would not have faired better if he had better experience than ko/ing bums? If experience is overrated why not let Olympic champions fight for world titles in their first fight? sorry , forgot they tried that with Pete Radmacher, and look how well that went. Talent and Heart are the base materials Truss, but experience makes the finished product.

Steffan wrote:Is experience overrated???

---

Definelty not. The last piece I did was 47 and she taught me a few things I tell you

I didnt even know they lived for that long!

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:

Steffan wrote:Is experience overrated???

---

Definelty not. The last piece I did was 47 and she taught me a few things I tell you

I didnt even know they lived for that long!

Who do you mean? Who lived that long?

I think you know what he means Steff mate, but bite your tongue.

Yeah no worries I will mate

All read Windy

You and the mods do a great job on here so keep up the good work

Lets all have an arguement free day from here on in

i was scanning through this waiting for the sheep comment about steffs 47 year old piece and i wasn't disappointed. saved me having to fight the temptation!

I think a few people on here have made the distinction. Experience generally is a good thing, providing you are capable of learning, what it's not in boxing is the be all, and as truss mentions, there is a tendency to revert to type under pressure. Of course part of training and experience is learning how to react under pressure... some do some don't.

There is another experience factor in boxing though... the experience of losing. It may depend on the nature of that defeat, but once a fighter has lost their aura of invincibility, and an edge of self belief that may go with that, then you could argue that experience can be a bad thing.