Do/Can boxers ever earn 100% credit for a win?

Of course they can. This board and all those who come up with excuses are the minority. And quite frankly, mostly idiots.

 

They used to but then Internet boxing forums came along.....

 

Mosley and Margarito is still shadowed by the hand-wrap ordeal. So the credit is slightly on the downend. On top of being pounded by every WW beforehand. Him being a limited fighter that was given many wins based on circumstantial events (Clottey hurting his hand and him cheating against Cotto and Cintron).

I believe he should get full credit...but these are excuses I've heard and seen.

The VD/CM fight...well I can't find an excuse. Even if I wanted to.

 

Marquez vs. Diaz

 

what does that even mean 100% credit. Explain it.

Does Calzaghe get 100% credit for his win against Kessler? Does Pavlik get 100% credit for his win over Taylor? Do Mosely and Paul Williams get 100% credit for their wins over Margarito? Does Pacquiao get 100% credit for his win over David Diaz? Does Marquez get 100% credit for his win over Juan Diaz?

 

It is a hard one.

You'd think the underdog tag would work, but it doesn't always:

Prescott, a 9/1 underdog against Khan but KO's him in less than a minute (excuse - Khan has a dodgy chin.......which he does)

Vasquez makes a massive drive in the third fight with Marquez and pulls a win from nowhere (excuse - some people had Marquez winning anyway).

Hopkins takes out Trinidad in damn good fashion (excuse - Tito is not a MW)


And from the best fight I have ever watched:

Corrales Ko's Castillo from an impossible position (excuse - he spat out his gumshield)




I suppose one of the better examples I could find is this one:

Hopkins comes off back-2-back defeats against Jermain Taylor, jumps up two weight divisions, and easily beats Tarver, who had come off back-2-back wins against Glen Johnson and Roy Jones. That was impressive. But, of course you will have people who say Tarver was never that good anyway.

 

I'd say "yes" on pretty much all counts. Good selections. (People may have some quibbles with some, but I'd give credit on all - the better man won over a quality opponent with an admirable effort in each case.)

My interpretation of "100% credit" is simply that there aren't any reasonable (or even, really, unreasonable) excuses to degrade the losing fighter and hence the accomplishment of the winner OR degrade the winner's performance (e.g. dodgy reffing, lucky punch, etc.).

 

lol...yeah u gave pac full credit but there are plenty who never will...u r reasonable cuz these so calledSHOT fighters have all the fans in the world until they get smoked...then come the excuses...i give 100% credit to any fighter whom BEFORE the fight i deem it a good fight...100% to JMM over cas and diaz...pbf...all his wins 100% cuz he just puts on a clinic

 

if there was too bad is my opinion

 

doubt it, they have to pay tax, a manager, the promoter.
at the end I am sure they only get 30% if they are lucky

 

it would be a lot easier to award full credit to a fighter if fighters at the top fought the legitimate #2 at the proper weight. with all the different sanctioning bodies, each pushing their particular rankings, a fighter ranked at #2 in a particular oranization may actually be the 6th or 7th best fighter in that division. there could be an ocean of difference in skill between legitimate champ and 6th best fighter in said division. informed fans are forced to take these facts into consideration when determining what a win over someone whom they may consider far from #2 at that weight really means. the surest way to insure full credit is to fight the best fighter you can find in your division regardless of who the organizations propaganda machine tells you is the best.

 

In my opinion, there will always be critics and boxers will almost never get the credit that they deserve.