99% Of fights are won in the 1st round... Agreed???

Whether you win or lose the first round you generally know If you are going to win I reckon.....You may be a slow starter or a fast one but all mystery and suspense tends to go out of the window.....

Like in all bad horror films the monster either is exposed as a dud..........Or like in Jaws, Alien..The thing etc the great horror films... you realise you are in over your head and think oh dear!!!

Obviously there is the 1% that do something silly or the 1% that desperately turn it around a la Leonard- Hearns....

But I'll guess any money that you get a sixth sense!!!!

Hagler knew he'd beaten Hearns after the first round I'm sure...Douglas took the confidence from the first round and believed he could beat Tyson from then on I'm sure of also!!....

99% of fights are won in the first round...Agreed????

Or I might talking the same usual crap!!!!

To an extent it gives an indication, but think of a fighter like Mayweather, for example.

In several of his fights, Castillo, De La Hoya, Judah just to name three, he has started the first few rounds on what looked like an even keel, only to work them out, adjust his gameplan and then completely outclass opponents (granted Castillo he perhaps should have lost, and De La Hoya can't be called 'outclassed') but you get my drift.

Floyd is a rare fighter and a rare talent, so it is a bit of an exception to the rule, but there have been others throughout history that have been similar.

interesting piece truss, summed up beautifully in the last sentence.

I don't think its as clear cut as you say, especially if the fighters are reasonably well matched, but the basic premise behind it, i.e you get a sense of what you're up against pretty quickly and whether you can handle it is true. Certainly, you can have psyched yourself up into believing you have a chance... and the harsh reality can hit home (literally) pretty quickly. True in many sports, but few i imagine as harshly as boxing.

Afternoon Truss,

I think you are on to something with this but I would probably stick the percentage at around 80% of the time. I suppose a fighter would have to take in to account their opponents conditioning/stamina if they did start the fight poorly. Also, if you were a power puncher you would always have a punchers chance throughout the fight. But I think you make a good point as from reading boxing biographies I have seen fighters state that they know in the early exchanges or even during the ring walk/intros if they are not feeling it on a particular evening.

To look at it from a fan perspective i think it takes a couple of rounds to gage whether a fighter is just a slow starter or it's not their night/they haven't got it anymore. I would use Lewis vs Tyson as an example of this, after the first round i remember thinking Tyson looks up for this, could be a cracker was only after the next couple of rounds i realised Tyson wasn't really there and was just going through the motions.

I think the first round is a huge confidence booster.....

I did say as regards Mayweather that you can lose the first round kind of willingly but know you are going to win.....

no doubts against Castillo..DelaHoya that Floyd thought he'd won and knew he was going to win......

One example where it didn't work was Pacquiao v Marquez 1, Marquez down 3 times in round 1 but I thought he hardly lost a round after that, remarkable turn around.

Fists of Fury wrote:To an extent it gives an indication, but think of a fighter like Mayweather, for example.

In several of his fights, Castillo, De La Hoya, Judah just to name three, he has started the first few rounds on what looked like an even keel, only to work them out, adjust his gameplan and then completely outclass opponents (granted Castillo he perhaps should have lost, and De La Hoya can't be called 'outclassed') but you get my drift.

Floyd is a rare fighter and a rare talent, so it is a bit of an exception to the rule, but there have been others throughout history that have been similar.

Lot of fighters take their time to work out a fighter e.g. JMM is a great example of this

Nico the gman wrote:One example where it didn't work was Pacquiao v Marquez 1, Marquez down 3 times in round 1 but I thought he hardly lost a round after that, remarkable turn around.

I had him Losing 5 (overall) so 4 after 1st

See i think a lot of fights are won before the bell......and I think the first round either reinforces the notion.....or the other guy thinks I've got the tools to beat this guy...

"I can take his shot..he's slower than I expected...He's open when he jabs....he looks worried..."

Think the 1st round is huge!!

Maybe the 99% is a bit out!!

However in my limited career I tended to know If I was going to look good for the chicks ringside (The beefster groupies)

Or I was going to look like Roxbury's biggest silly billy!! after the first!!

I would say true about 90% of the time.
Another exception would be Benn vs McClellan.

Yes but you can also say that after the first round Benn thought.... I've took his best and I'm still here!!

but I take your point..

Skimpton....sounds like one of them quaint English villages you see in them old Hammer horror movies!!!

Keep your windows closed at night Mate!!

I think Tyson had the beating of many of his opponents even before the first bell, but I think it can be a mixed bag. Like Alma said, Calzaghe sprang to mind when I first read the article. Be interesting to know the actual % of fights won by boxers who bagged the first round though.

I think some people have maybe misunderstood the op. I take it to mean that regardless of the actual result of the first round, the boxers involved will have a clear idea after the first round of the likely outcome of the fight. So for example in the case of benn and mcleland, even though mcleland obviously won the round maybe he felt a touch of panic that he had thrown everything at benn but failed to stop him.

I would probably think that this couldalso be true after the first two or three rounds instead of exclusively the first round.

i dont tend to agree. i find the 1st round to be the most nervy touchy-feely round where fighters are often not in their rhythm or willing to take a risk.

I don't think Mclellan will have had any doubts after the first round that he would win that fight. .
He would have thought "I've thrown everything.. ok he's still there but i can definetly hurt him, continue as I am and all will be well". I doubt there would have been much panic after the first.
A boxer would only become disheartened if he has a low skill level and relies solely on power.. with his punches having zero effect! However, if he can box then he always has plan B.

Fights are lost in the first. But are harder to win. It all depends on heart...

If your'e taking a pasting in the first you might realise you are in too deep. This negative mind set becomes a self-fullfilling prophecy..and you lose. However, it might strengthen your resolve. Saying that, having determination alone without the necessary skill set is not a guaranteed condition for the win.

Ultimately, you can win in the first round if an opponent loses heart and resigns himself to defeat (though this should be rare in top level fighters). Alternatively, you can take a pasting and maintain your determination though victory is not nailed on with grit alone.

Also fights can be considered as 12 miniture boxing matches each lasting three minutes, and all with a seperate winner and loser. Each round is fought with the intention of winning it and if it doesn't go to plan then you always have the next to put it right.
Anyone who thinks he has won a fight after the first round is either an idiot, inexperienced or supremely confident and probably unbeaten.

...and anyone that loses a fight in the first is a coward

You are very quick to brand people cowards.

Whoa..thats unjustified!! In 78 posts I've used that word twice, i think? One when referring to Donaire for not fighting Rigo in the future, the other just there. Fact is, if you lose heart in the first round and give up the fight, you are not a fighting man. Simple.

Joe walcott lost heart in the first round against Marciano....

Maybe you're a tad harsh Mate....Fear can sometimes overcome individuals who usually show real stoicism in the face of adversity!!

Not everyone can be a beefster...................

What about Lacy? He lost the fight in the first round and knew it was over but took his beating throughout the fight? What about Eubank who gave up trying to win agaist Watson until he got knocked down and his adrenaline surged for that KO? Mosely gave up the ghost 30 seconds into the first round against Manny, yet you'd be hard pressed to call him a coward. Pavlik against Hopkins - he immediately knew he was out of his depth but fought on. Lot of fighters lose heart right in the first round and give up but fight on just to salvage whatever pride they can. RJJ against Calzaghe knew it was over come the second or third round and still fought on. How is that cowardice and you cant deny all these people are fighting men.

Davey Moore quickly realised he was going to receive a right beating against Duran but fought on valiantly until the end as did Rosario against Chavez and Gatti against Mayweather.

Having fought Darchinyan and Montiel I find it fairly absurd to call Donaire a coward for not fighting Rigondeaux.

Anyone who refers to a boxer as a coward needs to get a reality check. A shameful thing to call a boxer. Even Audley and Nelson in his #pomp'.

Kind of agree...But I guess someone who deliberately cracks an opponent while he's down could be considered cowardly....

But you do have a point..

Is that where your dislike of Benn stems from??

In retrospect, having re-read the comment it was harsh and I'm a little embarrassed. I didn't mean to cause offense. I'm just prone to the odd outburst of passion at times. Coward was the wrong choice of word. Lacks heart, self-belief or determination in the face of adversity may have been better descriptions.

There are lots of examples of people accepting a beating, Tyson Vs Lewis for example. And many reasons, one such reason is a pay day (alot of K2 opponents), but these fights are lost before the first round.

The fact of the matter is, fights can be LOST in the first round... but they CAN NOT Won.

I know it sounds like a paradox? "If they can be lost in the first, then they must be won also, right?". Well exactly. They are won if one concedes. Which you would hope, with correct match making, would not occur. Therefore, if one fighter does not accept defeat then the fight is not won or lost in the first.

The majority of boxers do not accept defeat after the first round. Therefore, the statement 90% of fights are won in the first round is untrue.

The exception is over-matching, i.e prospects o the next big thing being fed fodder. Though these show's always contain a multitude of honest evenly matched pro's trying to make a living and WIN....even after the first round!

From the observers perspective it's easy to say "it was obvious he was going to lose after the first round", therefore concluding that fights are won or lost in the first. However, us as fans knowing the result after the first is not the same as the boxer realising or accepting the inevitable outcome.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Davey Moore quickly realised he was going to receive a right beating against Duran but fought on valiantly until the end as did Rosario against Chavez and Gatti against Mayweather.

Having fought Darchinyan and Montiel I find it fairly absurd to call Donaire a coward for not fighting Rigondeaux.

Darchinyan was a rubbish bantam. Personally i dont think Montiel can box for toffee, there was only going to be one winner in that fight. He was a better flyweight because of his power at the weight. I don't think we will ever agree on Rigo mate

He didn't fight Darchinyan at bantamweight while Montiel was a ranked top ten pound for pound man.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:He didn't fight Darchinyan at bantamweight while Montiel was a ranked top ten pound for pound man.

I thought they fought at bantam shows you what i know eh? I think Montiel is rubbish, hard punch, strong, limited boxing ability. Donaire was always going to destroy him with reach, ability, power and speed. He will lose to Rigo. Period. We will discuss after they fight in the future? One of us will have bragging rights

I'm not predicting anything at the moment but it's ludicrous to call Donaire a coward for not fighting a relative novice who hasn't proved anything in the pro game. Easy to say in hindsight that Donaire was always going to destroy Montiel but prior to the fight opinion was split with many unsure if his power would carry up to overcome the size disadvantage.

Im only telling you my prediction. This is how it was derived... i didn't know anything about montiel before the fight. I watched a few VT's on the net. That was enough to come to the conclusion he couldn't box, had a bit power and would lose conclusively. Maybe because I didn't know much about him and didn't frequent forums at the time i was not swayed by oppinion.

No, don't agree with the topic.

99% is way to high. First round is often a 'feeling out' round and not much is established, if the fighters went in fairly evenly matched.

With boxing and the way fighters build their records - its often before they get in the ring that they know they have won.

I recently covered, from ringside, a Welsh title fight (Churcher vs Jones) and I don't think the 1st round indicated who would win. The eventual winner was the man trailing on the cards.

He was very much a WBO lower tier champion for much of his career but his win over Hasegawa legitimised him somewhat but what impressed me most with Donaire was the manner of victory.

I don't think Ali won the first round against Foreman, neither did Foreman win the first round against Moorer in fact I'd be surprised if he won any round but the result was pretty decisive.

ShahenshahG wrote:You are very quick to brand people cowards.

Shah could you comment on what i wrote above that one please, the one which is one topic. I wouldn't mind your opinion on that rather than the throw away comment (which was wrote in the heat).

Imperial Ghosty wrote:He was very much a WBO lower tier champion for much of his career but his win over Hasegawa legitimised him somewhat but what impressed me most with Donaire was the manner of victory.

Again ghosty, I'm a little ignorant because I don't even know who Hasegawa is.

I never said you had to win the first round!!!!!

However you tend to have an idea of what you're in with and your chances...

Some great fighters never won the first round..

Michael Spinks generally gave it away!!!

I seem to remember the OP writing multiple articles about knowingly losing rounds to win the fight.

Anyway, I would agree the better fighter in the first round often wins. Of course it isn't 99% but if someone did the stats I would take a wild guess that over 75% of fights would be won based on the winner of the first round.

What has knowingly losing rounds got to do with the thread?????????

Dear oh dear....

It's not about winning the 1st round...It's about finding out all you need to know!!!!!

You have written threads about fighters knowingly losing opening rounds as part of a master plan. My point was quite a simple one that doesn't require a lot imagination to link it to this thread. What about the guy who thinks he can sit back and bide his time but never gets into the fight.

There are many twist and turns in a fight. When evenly matched fighters meet there is often ebb and flow to the fight with one fighter beginning better than the other only for the fight to turn around in the final rounds.


The majority of fights are mismatches and that is why it is clear from the opening rounds that one fighter is clearly better.

Then he's part of the 1%.....a la Hagler v Leonard...

Generally after a round you know what you're up against.....which is my point....

A lot of mountaineers should have the owning of Everest..

Most do.....now and again some make mistakes.....

Exceptions to every rule.....

I remember speaking with Mike Watson after his fight with Benn. I asked him when he definitely knew he had Benn. His response was that after 2 minutes of the first round, he knew because Nigel wasn't the cleverest boxer.

If he'd have lost, his answer would have been different. Hindsight applies to boxers as much everyone else.

TheMackemMawler wrote:If he'd have lost, his answer would have been different. Hindsight applies to boxers as much everyone else.

That's very true. No doubt Nigel would have said exactly the same thing had he won.

haha!