Not just their name, but how they perform. A recent example is Pacquiao-Hoya, I don't wish to discredit him, most top boxers have these sorts of wins eg. Mayweather-Corrales, Calzaghe-Lacy, Hatton-Malinaggi etc. What does an opponent bring to the ring that night? A lot of people seem to think its too hard to tell whether it was winner being so good, or the opponent being so bad. Obviously it is a combination of the two, but if your a boxing fan you should be able to look at a fight and see what happening, even if it means rewatching it. You can see when someone has sloppy footwork, slow reflexes, isn't adapting, is not throwing punches, throws wild shots, becomes tenative, seems distracted, fights confidently, takes chances....you might not see why (training, personal reasons, lacks ability, shot?) but you can see the performance. You may focus on his past career, who he has beaten over the years, how many weight divisions he's conquered, his past wins etc. But when the bell rings he is only as good as how he performs. Just though I'd throw that our there.
It's important. This can depend on the eyes though. A very small group was talking about Mosley's performance in the Cotto fight. After Mayorga, even the blind could see. That's one example.
Same with Wlad-Ibragimov. That was a boring win only because Ibragimov was just running from Wlad and not doing much fighting.
