Well? For example Floyd Mayweather was accused of ducking Vivian Harris, in hindsight Vivian Harris really isn't that good and its pretty certain Mayweather would win. Another example is the Calzaghe-Lacy fight in which Lacy was hyped coming into the fight but its clear he wasn't as good as thought, or Calzaghe ruined him (A combination of both IMO). So in regards to ranking how important is it? Another well known example put forward many times by a well known poster, is of Larry Holmes and Greg Page. During the 80's Holmes ducked Super Greg Page, in hindsight Page appears to be pretty **** , How much should this affect his ranking? Discuss
Huge IMO, if you rate active fighters.... I always did, until the mid 90s, then stopped, but have started again, with fighters who have fought for at least 10 years. The reason is from 1988 to Buster, I had Mike Tyson as my all-time #2 Heavyweight Hindsight shows, Tyson was a fine fighter, but is a fine all time top 15 Heavyweight, not top 2, perhaps even not top 10. Also it is almost impossible to rate retired fighters without hindsight. If you did not use hindsight,(for example) perhaps Holmes would be all time #1 Heavy purely on his victory over Cooney, the pre fight spin was so intense. Hell Cooney was spun as being that awesome, that a place in the top 10 all-time Heavies would be his without hindsight...
We should all strive to strike a balance. View things in a balanced way. Some guys are hyped up a lot, but when they get beat by a better fighter we shouldn't automatically dismiss them as "never much good to start with". Also, if a guy losses a few fights in 2008 and 2009, then it's not a reflection of how good he was in 2003 and 2004, or even 2006 and 2007. Too much use of "hindsight" is bad, but we have to keep our feet on the ground in the here-and-now, dont believe all the hype. Personally I'd rather slightly underrate some current fighters and move them up slightly over time, rather than rate them really highly now and then drop them dramatically in a "hindsight" backlash when I decide they are not as good as I had previously thought.
Very good point, that is why I try now with the 10 year thing. There are exceptions of course, but I think most fighters 10 years into their career are past the hype stage and have either proved or failed themselves as boxers.
We don't have to berate a guy too badly for failing to face a fighter who later turned out to be a flop, but we can't totally give him a pass for ducking that fighter either. Holmes for example had an obligation to meet Greg page in either 1983 or 84, but chose not to. While Page's career went south soon after, his credentials and abilities were solid between 1982-1984. In fact, I'm not even so sure that his career taking a dive was a result of "never being that good to begin with", so much as it was a loss of dedication in the later stages. This is why hindsite is a bit of an unreliable source of judgement, and it certainly doesn't excuse a champion for ducking a mandatory.
Interesting thread. I agree with you. If fighter A is accused of avoiding fighter B , and fighter B was hyped and beaten by lesser guys, I really dont penalize fighter A much for not meeting him in the ring. If some of the fighter As opponents have already beaten fighter B , the alleged ducking really loses some of its steam in a hindsight review. Such is the case with Holmes and Page. As it stands right now, I dont think Page was among the 5 toughest opponents for Holmes. I believe ring records, primes, style match ups, activity, and performances of common opponents vs the field should factor into ratings within an era. I do give extra credit for a few things: I give extra credit for the 1st man to take away a ranked opponents un-defeated record. I give extra credit for beating a ranked contender in his home town / country. I give extra credit to KOing or pitching a near shut out on the cards vs a ranked fighter in his prime.
