Are sucessful title defences underrated ?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Unforgiven, Nov 17, 2009.


  1. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,576
    Nov 24, 2005
    Yes, and that's exactly my point in starting this thread.

    We need to give a lot of credit to fighters who successful defend against decent and good and motivated opponents. Even if we can find a hole here or there, a "question mark" against the challenger, we've got to make a judgment and say "Yes, he was a good challenger who came to fight and the champion saw off his challenge. Big credit to the champ."

    You've totally proved my case by rightfully pointing out that Holyfield beating Bowe in '92 would not have garnered as much credit as what occured in '93. I propose that - with the hindsight with have now - it would have been a tougher win to pull off (ie. against the best version of Bowe '92), so maybe we should bear that in mind when looking at champions who beat good challengers.
     
  2. lefthook31

    lefthook31 Obsessed with Boxing banned

    20,862
    138
    Jul 6, 2007
    Definitely and thats a point that a lot of guys are making lately. A loss can be acceptable if its competitive and against another fighter who is on the same level. Losing by a one sided knockout to a guy you shouldnt have is not in the same category.
     
  3. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,119
    13,060
    Jan 4, 2008
    This is how I see it as well. A long reign, taking on what's there to fight, should get a lot of credit.
     
  4. Rise Above

    Rise Above IBHOF elector Full Member

    8,038
    39
    Sep 20, 2007
    Depends on the quality of the opponents. In saying that most of the guys who have had a heap of successful defences have fought most f the better guys in there division at the time. The quality of the era plays a big part as well I think.