Are Wins Against Past-Prime Big Opponents Really That Invaluable?

Depends on how past prime.
To use an example that always comes up, Rocky Marciano
He has 4 wins against guys who are past it physically imo

Archie Moore, had already fought roughly 175 fights and was 38 years of age. He was clearly not in his prime as a young man at the height of his powers.
Yet he went on to defend his title for a long time afterwards. So it's a good win. Just not as good a win as Ezzard's over Moore.

Jersey Joe Walcott, had been in a long and grueling career, with poor management and conditions.
Yet he was at the peak of his career at 38. Great win all things considered. It's an interesting case as Walcott probably never saw his prime.

Ezzard Charles, his prime was a good couple years behind him but he still put forward a good account of himself and is a good win. But he had clearly seen better days and was 32 and extremely shop worn. So it's a good win but not as good as Walcotts

Joe Louis, totally shot. Not a good win at all, he had virtually no movement, he was slow, overweight, shot to ****. Not a good win at all. If he had a different name we wouldn't even be discussing it. That's a poor win and is an example of how there are different stages of past prime.

 

I would always give a champion more credit for beating the #1 contender, than I would for beating a younger/bigger man who was ranked significantly lower.

That shouldn't even be debated!

 

Totally contextual.

Some champions are forces even past their peak. Some guys are only hot for one night.

 

I think historians tend to give boxers "more" credit if they beat a fighter who only has a handful of fights and becomes a champ later than they do beating older names who are past it.

For example, Larry Holmes doesn't get a lot of credit for dominant wins over Ali and Leon Spinks, both former Undisputed world champs. In fact, Spinks had just stopped the number-one contender Mercado.

But people tend to elevate Holmes' wins over Witherspoon, Weaver. Berbick and Bonecrusher, even though they weren't considered very good challengers when he signed to fight them.

Of course, the obvious problem is it's easier to find former name champs than to predict what "green" fighter might one day win a belt.

If one of the champs right now signed to fight Daniel Dubois and/or Efe Ajagba, for example, and stopped them both because they're still kind of raw, they would likely be eviscerated in the media for picking on someone who is lower ranked and green. But, years from now, they could be seen as the best wins of their career.

That's kind of what Holmes did fairly regularly. Fight guys with a dozen or so fights then hope to reap the rewards later.

Sometimes the strategy worked out for Holmes, like when Bonecrusher won a WBA title later.

Sometimes it didn't, like with Marvis Frazier (who actually beat Bonecrusher).

Smith is now considered a good win for Holmes, because Bonecrusher became a heavyweight beltholder. Marvis isn't considered a good win. But Marvis was probably a better fighter than Smith and definitely a more dominant win for Holmes than Smith was.

Had Marciano knocked out a green Floyd Patterson or the "shamed" and even "greener" 1952 Olympian Johansson in 1955, instead of Don Coc kell or Moore, he certainly would have caught a lot of flack for it at the time and would've been ridiculed, but it would look better now on his record ... that he beat future champs who followed him ... as opposed to more used-up names.

 

I can see the logic to your argument.Personally i think if Marciano had fought Valdes no1 ,instead of Cokkell no2,a lot of the ammunition freely available to Rocky sceptics would be rendered unusable.

 

By interest, who do you think would've won?

 

Marciano.

 

That's true.

 

You are probably right. Although, Tua and Rahman fought an IBF eliminator (like Moore and Valdes did) while Lewis and Holyfield were fighting their unification fights, and Tua stopped Hasim (albeit controversially).

Lewis ended up defending against both Tua and Rahman back-to-back, and Tua was all but shut out while Rahman knocked Lewis cold.

So ... you never know.

Valdes and Moore's styles were quite different. Both would've posed very different problems for Marciano.

 

No,you never do.

 

Depends on how past prime. Marciano beating Charles? Fairly impressive. The guys who were beating Charles when he should no longer have been allowed in a boxing ring in the very late '50s? Not impressive at all.

 

Plus contenders vary in quality enormously ,one era's number one might not make another eras top ten!
For example;
Number one contenders,
28.Young Stribling
38. Lou Nova
39.Tony Galento
44.Melio Bettina
56.Tommy Jackson

 

It is much more impressive to beat a future champion than to defeat an old ex-champion IMO.

 

Most folks do not follow the sport closely. so they are only familiar with the old names. And do not consider things like recent form.

And the promoters just love getting the old guy to sign a contract with the pedigreed up and comer that is 12 years younger.