20-20 hindsight is bull****.

I think you can... fight bring the truth out of fighters... no way to know certain things until the fights happen....

just like kessler and ward.... ward proved to us kessler is not that great
just like pavlik and martinez.... martinez proved to us pavlik is not that great
just like pac and oscar.... pac proved to us oscar was dehydrated and dead


list goes on

 

For the only time in his career, Wladimir Kiltschko was a betting underdog against Sam Peter. Most people thought Wlad didn't have a chance against the big puncher after having fallen to Sanders and Brewster. Before the fight, Peter was the saviour of the heavyweight division; after it he was just a one-dimensional rabbit-puncher.

 

people adjust their rationale to fit their prejudices after the result

 

Boxing is so uncertain by nature that alot of times, the measure of a fighter isn't apparent until after things occur that either affirm or contradict the "now" thinking. Doesn't make it right , and credit should be given to any and all fighters who get in the ring and take care of business.

 

true true true........

 

that would be logical captain

 

Most poeple did know Mosley was past it, and it is well known that even in his prime he couldn't deal with boxers, see the Wright and Forrest fights.

 

If Jeff Lacy came back and justified his hype after being beaten, im sure Calzaghe would have been given more respect than he gets for beating Lacy.

 

I agree with your sentiments. Pavlik and Lacy are two of the best examples you could give.

 

2 out of 3 ain't bad. Taylor did beat Bhop (in a very close fashion) and then looked like crap since that fight. But ya gotta give Pavlik credit for that.

SSM was the man at WW, was considered p4p for years, and many gave him a great shot at beating PBF.

As for Lacey . . . that guy was a mirage! there was nothing there and there never was! no one should get any credit for beating him like no one should get any credit for beating RJJ after Johnson.

You really cannot compare the three fighters, one was the man, another was the man who beat the man, and the third was a nobody . . . a hype job!

 

True..... but all 3 do fall under the hindsight being 20/20 label.

 

Oh, no doubt. It is just pathetic.

It is just part of boxing though. If something does not fit, just change it.

 

There is truth to this, but a counter-argument can be made in favor of ad******g interpretations. If subsequent evidence emerges that a fighter wasn't as good as people thought at the time, then aren't thinking people OBLIGATED to re-adjust their interpretations based on new information??

This would be like saying that the flat earth theory shouldn't be discarded because evidence emerged the world was round. If, for example, Taylor was proven to be an overrated hype job with a questionable chin (although there was ample evidence before his fights with Pavlik), then we should adjust our assessments.