When it comes to boxing, the discussions surrounding matchups can often stir up passion and controversy, especially when one fighter’s credibility is contested. The upcoming bout between Gervonta “Tank” Davis and Lamont Roach has ignited a firestorm of debate in the boxing community, predominantly around allegations of the fight being a “cherry pick.” Coach Stephen Edwards, who works with Roach, has taken a firm stance against this view, albeit with a notable caveat — he does not believe Roach has a genuine shot at victory.
A “cherry pick” is a term often wielded in boxing to imply that a fighter or promoter is deliberately selecting an opponent who poses minimal challenge, thereby optimizing the likelihood of a win. Critics of the Davis vs. Roach matchup argue that this fight fits that exact mold. Roach, who holds a record of 25 wins, 1 loss, and 1 draw with only 10 knockouts, is perceived as lacking the quality adversaries essential to pose a real threat to a fighter of Tank’s caliber. Furthermore, Roach is absent from the WBA lightweight rankings, further fueling the sentiment that this matchup is less about competition and more about maintaining Davis’ undefeated status.
Supporters of this perspective highlight an apparent trend in Davis’s career marked by a series of underwhelming opponents. After 11 years in professional boxing, many fans feel disillusioned with what they see as a lack of ambition in seeking out high-stakes bouts against prominent fighters like Vasily Lomachenko, Shakur Stevenson, or Devin Haney. Instead, they argue, Davis has often found himself matched against lesser-known adversaries, rendering his career a mere exercise in safe betting rather than a genuine competitive journey.
Numerous fans and analysts are vocal in their discontent with Davis’s choice of opponents, insisting this patently shielded path compromises the essence of boxing as a sport. Notably, in bouts against fighters like Rolly Romero, Frank Martin, and Isaac Cruz, Davis displayed concerningly poor boxing skills, opting instead to rely on his renowned punching power. Instances in which he appeared to concede rounds against these lesser fighters have led some to question not only his boxing acumen but also the strategic choices made by his camp in selecting opponents who won’t push him to display his full potential.
In Coach Edwards’ defense of the matchup, he argues that it’s unfair to label it a cherry pick merely because fans hold Davis in high regard. He suggests that expectations derived from Davis’ potential can skew public perception. Edwards contends that Roach’s local roots—hailing from the D.C. area—create a rivalry vibe, which some observers may overlook in their rush to dismiss Roach as a competent challenger.
Edwards also emphasizes that while others may fantasize about high-profile transformative fights for Davis, those bouts haven’t materialized, leaving fans discontented. His remarks provoke reflection on how a fighter’s perceived potential can affect public expectation and criticism.
The ongoing discontent with Davis’ matchmaking strategies encapsulates a broader issue within professional boxing: the challenge of sustaining fan engagement in a sport that thrives on competitive integrity and high-profile rivalries. When fighters opt for pathways that avoid formidable competition, it risks eroding the public’s enthusiasm for the sport, leading to accusations of manipulation rather than genuine competition.
Ultimately, the upcoming fight between Gervonta Davis and Lamont Roach will not only determine the fate of two boxers but also serve as a litmus test for the boxing community’s tolerance for what many perceive as safe matchmaking practices. As fans await the clash in Houston on December 14th, they will be looking for indicators that the sport values competition above all else—not just calculated victories that protect a fighter’s record. Whether this matchup becomes a turning point for Davis or merely reinforces the stigma of cherry-picking remains to be seen.