No, not another absurd mythical matchup but a question about the relative value and benefits of context and hindsight when discussing fights and fighters. I see a lot of posts here which strip the context away from a fight or fighter and are wise after the fact about how obvious it was that Fighter X was never all he was cracked up to be, often by people who weren’t around to see that fighter in his prime. Or the relative lack of merit of certain classic matchups, stripped free of their historical context. I have no problem with people commenting on fights and fighters they weren’t around to see (we all do it), but I do have an issue with people removing context when evaluating fighters and fights. So what are some of the questionable statements on here that you feel are made without taking context into account? And do you agree that hindsight is overrated and context is key?
I had a debate with someone on here few weeks ago, I won't mention names but his comment did kind of rub me the wrong way. He said "Holyfield struggles against Southpaws because he went 1-3 vs them" Yes that statement is true but as you just said he was leaving out the "context" of those fights. For 1 Holyfield was in his 40s for 2 of those losses, and the other loss to Moorer was clearly more due to Holyfields heart issues, rather than Holyfield struggling against Moorer's Southpaw style.
Anytime someone discounts a fighter's greatness because of the number of losses on their record. Losses mean different things in different eras. That fact goes right over some heads.
Very good point. When you total way over one hundred bouts and take on anyone and everyone,you will lose the odd one here and there. No shame in that.
What really gripes m is that when discussing a champion fighter from a different era, the matter of competition comes out, he is not as good as this that or that champion. Another one is that these Steroid filled fighters were better from the past boxing greats, they call it Modern Nutrition fed fighters. Another one that really gets my goad is that when we are discussing a hypothetical thread of a fantasy matchup, then a youngster poster will interject with all this overwhelming greatness of a modern fighter that we were not discussing. He will go on to say this overhyped hero could whip the fighter that we are talking about. It seems like they are afraid that we will forget their favorite modern day fighters who have not even earned their stripes in the ring. They need to visit the General Forum, take their modern heroes and put then into the General Forum, this site is Classic forum.
Some people fail to grasp that a boxer can be good or very good in his prime he loses a fight. Then maybe he starts losing more fights. Thar might lead some to believe he was never all that. It depends on how he lost that initial fight. Did he take a beating? Or did he drop a close decision? Think of John Mugabi or even Fernando Vargas, Meldrick Taylor. They could be 25 years old it doesn't matter in boxing.
Some debates around age and Prime really boils my brain sometimes. Like when two ATGs fight when they’re older and past their peak days, some people will say that the winner of that fight would also have won when both were in their prime because since both were 36 at the time of this contest, it stands to reason that if both were 26 the result would be the ssme! An absolutely ludicrous conclusion! These people…and I’ve come across many…don’t factor in that fighters age at different rates and for different reasons. For instance some fighters can be way past their best at 29, maybe due to fighting more often and having more brutal contests which took their toll heavily and earlier. While others who fought less, and fought more cautiously, can go on and on and on, still fighting at a high level, well into their 30s and 40s. But some just don’t look at it in any sort of context, especially if it suits their narrative not to do so.
