As a mathematician I love spotting patterns, especially contextualised patterns people can relate to. What i'm gonna say is nothing new, just noteworthy in my humble opinion. As fans we invariably follow the same pattern with star boxers. As a young hope cutting through opposition, we all jump on the bandwagon hoping we have the next star on our hands. They get to the top and we demand a level of consistency. They reach that and we then accuse them of not doing so. Soon we begin to pick holes in the resume Eventually we accuse the boxer of pulling the wool over our eyes. Long into the retirement we then appreciate what we had all along. Sure some fans stay loyal, they connect with the boxer, but in the main we never get satisfied. This era of boxing has, imo, 4 standout stars. Hopkins, jones, floyd, pac. All of them get accused of having a weak resume whilst their fans insist they are all time greats. So where is the truth? Subjectively in the eyes of the beholder I believe. Let's take pacman. The latest number 1. As a young force he relied on his ferocity, not learning from his mistakes until roach. After his war with marquez we all hoped we had someone who could knock floyd off his perch. He did that. We now mock his latest run of fights. I think the majority agree that clottey, margo and mosley aren't good enough. But ironically, when he entered the division and fought oscar people said he could prove himself by beating those very people. Is he really cherry picking? If so you must be very highly regarded if you can cherry pick fighters of that calibre. My own personal opinion is it isn't good enough. They're mismatches. But am I expecting too much? Is it sink or swim? Most people believe pac has cracked the top 15 now. Should he risk it to aim higher? I'm sure if all those years ago when he got knocked out by a midget he'd have settled for that! So when does this quest for perfection become hate and why? I find myself picking holes in his resume, dismissing names when just 3 years ago if I could have made a path to greatness these names would all be on it. But this being said it is consensus opinion that he is in a joke fight with mosley. The same mosley who less than a year ago was perceived to be floyd's toughest ever fight. Will it remain this way? Will we nitpick till he's gone and then mourn his loss years down the line? I believe so. I think over the next year he'll become one of the most hated boxers around. And so the cycle continues. I believe the same gets applied to the other 3 names. Sure a lot of us like hopkins right now, but if he beats pascal and rules again, watch that like turn sour. In closing consider the next two stars. Donaire and martinez. Both applauded for their recent results. Fans demanding they get their due credit and recognition. But if they do, and they find themselves at the top of the tree, I hypothesise that we will all follow the same pattern and slowly but surely turn against them.
I agree with you. Fans forget the achivements of the great active boxers too soon, and only seem to fault them. Like when floyd dominated the bigger undefeated Diego Corrales. When he stopped South African Knock-out artist Phillip N'dou who had only one defeat on his recod in 32 fights. Or when he made undefeated Hatton look like an amature. List goes on. A list can be made for Pac too. Most of his boxing feats are criticized. Im not saying everyone has this attitude but it is defiently evident in the general boxing community. It seems to be all about the new stars Doniare, Alvarez e.tc.
I agree, same with bradley at present, noone has a bad word to say about him right now, but will that be the case if he's still undefeated in 3 years time?
