For you, does a victory gain value if the defeated boxer is successful afterwards? I'll give you two examples: Mayweather vs Canelo: Certainly Canelo was world champion and had defended his title six times but when you look closely the level of his opponents was not worthy of being good world challengers. You might think that as a Mexican Sulaiman helped him by giving him a fight for the vacant belt against Mattew Hatton. We just remember Austin Trout (a very close fight by the way, contrary to the opinion of the judges) and Mosley but he was clearly at the end of the race. Honestly I'm not even sure that in September 2013 Canelo would have deserved to be top 15 PFP, but do you think Mayweather should be given credit for this win because of his accomplishments afterwards? Another example, Fury vs Wallin: I think Wallin can make his way into the heavyweight in the years to come when before his fight against Fury he was only an irrelevant top 30-50. If he does manage to become even a top 15 by beating Breazeale tonight, would that enhance Fury's victory?
I do. I think what a fighter does after a loss is just as important as what he accomplished prior. If you beat a guy that is undefeated and he never fights again, you can say the fighter was at the end, old, didn't have the fire in his belly. The flip side to that is, if the defeated fighter goes on to accomplish more things, like move up and get a decent belt, the winner should get credit. Mayweather and Pac have done just that.
Case by case basis. In the case of Clenelo, no. We're seeing the best version of Clenelo now. I mean, the guy can fight at 175. Same reason why Torrecampo and Sangsurat aren't more than a footnote in Pac's career despite KOing him.
Case by Case. I do believe sometimes a very good fighter without proper backing/hype can fly under the radar and look like a very good win down the line on someone's ledger. One example is Eddie Chambers vs Povetkin. Chambers was 30-0 with some solid wins under his belt when they clashed and while he clearly lost to Povetkin he did pretty well especially in the first half. After the fight he would go on and defeat a still good Samuel Peter and an undefeated Alexander Dimitrenko vaulting him into the # 3 rating in ring magazine for his clash with Wlad. In retrospect I believe that is a stellar win for Povetkin.
I think Manny obliteration of ODH looks better & better . Oscar is when he took Floyd to good split decision ....Manny showed us all how tough & brave Oscar was when he stopped him in the eighth ...afterwards Oscar said Manny is probably the best he has faced...
Yes. You can fight the tide all you want, but that is the way it is. If Wallin wins tonight,for example, it goes from being a bit of an embarrassment for Fury, to a pretty solid win.
Perfect current example: Joshua v Whyte. Whyte wasn't even top 40 at the time. And whilst both fighters were on the come up, I think most would agree Whyte is a much improved fighter since then. And yet some (not all) of Joshua's fans believe this is a match up that never needs revisiting and count it as a victory over a top 10 heavyweight.
Yes! Which is why Roman Gonzalez's resume is even more amazing than it looks on first glance! Guys like Rodriguez, Takayama, Yaegashi, Estrada all went on to great things after he fought them
If people are going to give Pacquiao credit for being 8 time division champ fighting village bums in SEA at the age of 16, then give credit to Canelo who was 43-0 at the time he fought Floyd. It's impressive how Floyd schooled Canelo anyway you look at it.
Agreed. Just like Hopkins first loss. But Canelo had 43 pro fights under his belt when Mayweather beat him. Big difference. Also, there are 5-6 guys that Mayweather beat that went on to get titles again, Pac is one of them. Kinda contradics the narrative that Mayweather only fought guys that weren't good or passed it.
