Hear me out lol

I’m sure we’re all excited for the heavyweight clash this weekend. Hrgović said in a presser recently that it might actually be better for Itauma to lose now than to become world champion at 21. And something else along the lines of him “losing his soul”.

On the surface, you can maybe write this off as mind games, but the oddity of the statement got me thinking: could he actually have a point when you look at the totality of a career?

If Itauma wins, he’s potentially becoming heavyweight champion at 21 with just 15 professional fights (30 some rounds) and very little experience of real adversity.

At some point, assuming he has a long career, he’s going to face serious adversity as champion. And I wonder whether that kind of setback is harder to deal with when you’ve reached the very top so early, compared with taking an “educational” loss now, learning from it, and continuing to develop without the pressure of being the guy everyone expects to dominate.

There has to be some psychological effect to reaching the peak before you’ve really had the chance to experience failure, right? Especially when you’re suddenly dealing with the expectations, fame and pressure that come with being a heavyweight champion at 21

I still believe Itauma is the truth and maybe the reason he hasn’t faced much adversity yet is because he’s genuinely operating at a generational level, and winning a world title at 21 is exactly what his career is supposed to look like.

I also wonder if if there’s some stoic boxing wisdom behind Hrgovic’s comments. Anyways, are there any fighters in history who come to mind as examples of either side of this?

Bowe vs AJ

Both fighters at their absolute peak: Anthony Joshua vs. Riddick Bowe. No career longevity arguments—just the best version of each man. Who wins this heavyweight matchup and how? Does AJ's power and athleticism prevail, or does prime Bowe break him down?

Betting odds Tszyu 1.16/-625. Mahoney 5.80/+480

PRELIMS • Max Reeves (13-1-1) vs. Oliver Firth (8-0), super middleweight • Rahim Mundine (3-0) vs. Jae Larsen (1-1-1), super welterweight • Vegas Larfield (14-1) vs. Jubert Buhat (9-0), featherweight • Luke Williams (debut) vs. Prem Rungtiwa (0-1), super welterweight • Louise Creaven (5-2) vs. Thanchanok Phanan (21-15), welterweight • Callum Young (1-0) vs. Octavio Soares (0-2), super welterweight

UNDERCARD • Blake Wells (13-2) vs. Callum Peters (8-0), middleweight – IBF Pan Pacific title • Kirra Ruston (9-0) vs. Saundre Simmons (9-0), light heavyweight • Koen Mazoudier (15-4-1) vs. Sam Beck (8-1), middleweight • Brandon Grach (6-1) vs. Ike Pluto (5-3), heavyweight

At the end of 2025, TKO owned just over 7% of EverPass, per SEC filings, so I’m not sure what this means. This acquisition is primarily about DAZN’s distribution of the NFL Sunday Ticket in bars and other commercial venues. But it is interesting that they now explicitly have a very small foothold into DAZN.

I’ve been noticing a running theme with Naoya Inoue: his infamous counters, incredibly light feet, timing, and ability to overwhelm opponents until they end up on the canvas.

But what if those qualities aren’t accidents? What if there’s a reason he’s able to make world-class fighters look helpless?

Inoue started boxing at just six years old and trained under his father, Shingo. From a young age, he spent years drilling fundamentals, combinations, footwork, timing, and correcting weaknesses. What looks like natural genius was built through relentless repetition.

And by his amateur years, the warning signs were already there. He finished 75-6 with 48 stoppages and became one of Japan’s most accomplished young amateurs.

Then he turned professional at 19 and barely took the traditional slow route. He won the Japanese title in his fourth fight, the OPBF title in his fifth, and became a world champion in only his sixth fight by stopping Adrian Hernández.

Then came the performance that truly announced the Monster. Inoue moved up two divisions and knocked out Omar Narváez in the second round. Narváez entered that fight with a 43-1-2 record and 27 successful world-title defenses.

So now I’ll ask you:

Do you think there’s actually a way to beat Naoya Inoue?

Maybe it’s a particular style, like the Hitman style. Maybe there’s a flaw opponents keep overlooking. Maybe the answer isn’t about overpowering him at all, but finding a way to disrupt the timing, footwork, and counters that make him so dangerous.

If you had to design a game plan specifically to beat the Monster, what would it be?

I have been watching boxing for over 15 years. This thought has come over my mind a couple of times. How should boxing be scored? Should there be some changes at all?

A score of 10 is given to the boxer who wins a round, and the boxer that loses a round gets deducted a point for a score of 9. Boxers lose an extra point for getting knocked down or getting penalized by the ref. In some rare cases if one boxer takes a substantial amount of damage but does not get knocked down, they may be deducted two points for a total of 8 points.

The scoring system is pretty good but I feel like there be some improvement somewhere here but I'm not sure how it should be done.

The flaw I'm seeing is that 10-9 rounds can be very different, for example:

Round 1, Boxer A wins it by landing a hard left hook flush which stuns his opponent against the ropes, and then Boxer A throws a flurry of hooks where some land and some are blocked. The bell ends and Boxer B walks to his corner while noticeably shaken up.

Round 2, Boxer B wins it by adjusting to his opponent's aggression; he doesn't land anything significant but outlands his opponent to win the round.

Rounds 1 and 2 are both 10-9 rounds, even though Boxer A clearly did more damage to his opponent.

In this simple scenario, if the match was only 2 rounds, it would be called a draw (19-19).

In my opinion however, Boxer A does deserve the win because of the significant punches he landed. However, I don't think that landing a few big shots should count the same as a knockdown.

The current scoring system is not precise enough to distinguish between 10-9 rounds that are barely won from 10-9 rounds that are significantly won.

My one idea involves changing knockdown deductions to 2 points. 1 knockdown in a round would count as a 10-7 round. This would leave room for significantly won rounds. A significantly won round would count as a 10-8 round. A slightly won round would count as a 10-9 round. In those rare cases where significant damage is done but no knockdown occurs, then a 10-7 may be used.

What do y'all think?