IS BOXING CRUEL ON UNDERACHIEVERS???

It's funny how guys like Steve Robinson are lauded and rightly so for winning and retaining world titles and yet guys like Camacho and Curry are considered relative failures despite having what others would describe as succesful careers....

Honeyghan is rightly acclaimed as one of the best Brits of alltime and yet achieved only a third of what the Don achieved during his career...

Camacho was a three weight world champ who was hugely talented and beat the likes of Rosario, Limon, Ramirez, Mancini, Pazienza and Haugen.......High quality wins and yet he is held in disdain and viewed as a comic figure and viewed as a underachiever....

Both should be hall of famers but the fact they are underachievers as was Michael Nunn means that overachievers such as Mcguigan etc get higher kudos for their inferior careers!!!!

Why do underachievers get such a huge rap when most of them have better careers than those lauded below them....

Why is Boxing so cruel on UNDERACHIEVERS!!!! and is it right to be?

I believe that it's human nature, Truss.

If we remember our schooldays, we can probably recall that teachers were always better pleased with lesser talented kids who tried their best to achieve reasonable results than they were with cleverer kids who were complacent and took the easy ride.

Everybody loves a trier.

Your man Curry was a wonderful talent who ultimately disappointed. Steve Robinson was regarded as a mediocre fighter who wrote his own fairytale.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Why is Boxing so cruel on UNDERACHIEVERS!!!! and is it right to be?

Taking out the obvious physical toll which is greater than most other sports, I'd say it's no more 'cruel' to underachievers than many other sports are, really.

Like O'Sullivan in snooker, Safin in tennis or Collymore in football, there are always careers which are derided for being a disappointment, despite them still achieving more than 99.99% of fans / players of those sports will ever achieve. Likewise, in those respective sports, fellas such as Ebdon, Hewitt and Bent are lauded, despite their careers generally being lesser than those mentioned, as they maximised their full potential.

It's maybe unfortunate that we sometimes dwell so much of what an individual didn't do rather than what they did, but it's natural human nature to critisize those who don't make the most of themselves and to praise those who do. I suppose you could theorise that boxing is harsh on underachievers, but no more so than any other sport in my opinion.

Interesting article though, Truss.

Good response chris..you know as well as I do that O'sullivan will be remembered for what he didn't do like Curry and Camacho and yet he's achieved more than other snooker players who will be lauded over him..

Some fighters who achieve great things just will never get their due and be remembered for their negatives..

Mcguigan in the HOF and Camacho/Curry not..Go figure!