...is it true. An example, lets say Bhop retired after losing to RJJ, what would that win mean for Roys resume? Sweet fark all, because people wouldn't see Bhop become an ATG. But the fact is Roy beat that version of Bhop, regardless of what he did later on. So why does it matter what happens after? I think the performance of both guys is the most important thing, because its the only thing that will remain constant.
doesn't work. There are so many factors and subtleties in boxing that you have to take into consideration when watching a fight that at the end of the day you have to go on resumes because its the only cold hard fact. or else its all just hearsay
It matters for the same reason ****ing a celebrity before she becomes famous matters... you get to say...yea i ****ed that *****...now she thinks shes the **** but shes human and easy just like any other girl same token here...Roy defeated a B-Hop that was a younger, wilder, hungrier, untested B-Hop and came out on top...now that he's gone on and made a name for himself...it just makes THAT particular victory look that much greater...because of the fact he beat a guy that was touted as an ATG you're correct about the performance as well, but there are so many factors in looking into a boxer's greatness and achievements... things arent as black and white in life...and neither in boxing...there is FAR more to a boxer's life and work than just his resume if we just looked at boxing with a distant scope...it wouldnt be the emotionally charged sport of honor that it IS (or arguably once was).
The thing is that noone can judge it. As you said if Hopkins had retired, then it would not be concidered a big win for Roy. Hopkins didnt look that good in the fight or anything, but now later we can see that he was and the logical conclusion is that it was Roy's skill that beat Hopkins and meant Hopkins couldn;t shine. For many fights after the RJJ fight Hopkins was still a nobody. It was really only when he fought Tito that people took a second look. Therefore we cannot just judge the performance isolated. I agree that in a perfect world where everyone were able to clearly judge a fighters performance, it would be the best. But in the real world we cannot rely on this.
Some good points there, but I still think performance is key. "...you have to go on resumes because its the only cold hard fact." This I have to respectfully disagree with. In terms of debate, resumes are cited as facts and are used most extensively for simplicities sake, but surely boxing fans know that a resume is not a good representation of a boxer. You can fault resumes, the corruption in boxing means that most top boxers have misleading resumes (robberies, gifts, innacurate scoring etc.) but a performance is constant. The RJJ - Bhop fight for example. "Hopkins didnt look that good in the fight or anything, but now later we can see that he was and the logical conclusion is that it was Roy's skill that beat Hopkins and meant Hopkins couldn;t shine." Basically my argument is the reason Bhop didn't shine with skill was because he was younger, less experienced and less skilled. He went on later to improve his tools and become an ATG. Roy didn't beat an experienced champion that Bhop became. And performance shows this (resumes don't). But you can still see a young Bhop fight for 12 rounds, take some good shots and keep trying. At the same time you see RJJ and his performance, you see a skilled, athletic and dynamic fighter. So instead of doing what 90% of fans do and dismiss Hopkins as **** (eg. Who is this hopkins bum? who's he beaten? exposed?) if you look at performances you could see that he wasn't poorly skilled or a bad boxer, just outclassed by a better boxer RJJ. RJJ won a 12 round decision against a capable opponent who was outclassed by a young Jones and his capabilities. That will not change no matter what happened to either guy.
