Are sucessful title defences underrated ?

As I stated in a previous thread I think a long line of defenses of an undisputed title should receive more credit. Just about every challenger will be at his best at that particular night while it's just another defense for the champ. There's always going to pop up at least one Douglas over a long title reign, but if the champion is good enough and committed enough he will overcome those hurdles.

 

I think it depends really. You have to take into consideration the competitions skill level regardless of the fact of how hungry they might be. There may simply be a poor group of contenders such as the case in the heavyweight division. Vitali Klitschko barely breaks a sweat to defend his title these days at almost 40 years old, and Calzahge for many years was fed a steady diet of very poor opponents, some just straight up comical really. Midwestern US tomato cans as title defenses that had no business being in the ring with him.
Bernard Hopkins on the other hand, faced a pretty solid group of middleweights, and didnt really have a big strength advantage over his opponents, so he was truly earning his keep in my opinion.

 

Dominance should factor in and defending your title often is part of that.

 

I think they do get underrated yes. The kind of good/decent wins against contenders that get overlooked all contribute to a stacked resume.

 

I do too, but revenge over an equally matched opponent, such as the case in Bowe Holyfield, certainly elevated Holy to a higher level.

 

Well, there should of course not be too much made out of defeating a guy you had no business losing to in the first case. But a very convincing revenge goes some way to stating that it was a one off. That's all really.

There's one thing to have an off night against a second rater, and another completely if this second rater actually has your number. If Bowe had defeated Golota emphatically in the rematch, for example, there would be less room to make much out of the first one.

 

A revenge match also shows that you overcame the style you felt victim to the first -- excuses are a dime a dozen, and the validity of them all become one big blurr over time. Better to just prove it, imo.

 

Definitely underrated as long as they are against fighters who are above average\competent.

How often have we seen record's dismissed out of hand on this forum(mostly in general to be fair)because they didn't beat many or any "ATG'S!!!!!".

 

I wrote: "goes some way to prove it was one off". It's better than not to have it. Louis' demolishion of Schmeling in the rematch didn't erase his loss, but it still makes his record look better.

This I agree with.

 

Yes but up until that point, Bowe was still a huge question mark regardless of what Futch was telling everyone. That win did a lot for Bowe, and didnt take away too much from Holy because Bowe proved not to be a Buster Douglas type flash in the pan. The rematch made Evander even bigger with the win. I dont think it would have been the same had Evander gotten the nod, because people could have dismissed it as an off night for Evander against an underachieving opponent.