Is it possible to completely dominate good opposition?

What defines a weak period/era of fighting?

 

What about Froch V Ward? That was pretty one sided as well...

 

i agree but i think froch won 2 or 3 rounds i dont think abraham won 1 even.
although il get bitched at another was calzaghe v lacy 12-0 in a unification fight.yes i know im naming brit boxers but being british these are the fights i remember most.

 

I think as a general rule, you're absolutely on point. You can't fault a fighter for losing rounds and showing moments of vulnerability against consistently high-quality competition. But it does happen, and you can't use the competitiveness of the bout as an isolated proxy to determine the quality of opposition. Jones-Toney and Jones-Hopkins were virtual shut-outs, and that was some of the best competition around those weight classes ever. Hearns went the distance with lesser fighters than Palomino, but stopped him early. Likewise, Mayweather can looks sensational against Gatti, but that's far from his best win. So while I agree with the premises of your argument, it's not "impossible" to dominate against the best opposition you have in front of you.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEq_fPIxRsk[/ame]

12-0 if not for disgraceful scoring.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

Must have been average all along.

 

I guess you can call Dawson - Adamek complete domination despite the flash knockdown in the tenth

 

Going by your own definition would you also say that young Foreman and Tyson have no great wins?

 

They see them statistics they hating.

This content is protected

 

barrera v naz.

 

Are you the spastic who writes that blog?

 

to be fair Floyd cherry-picked most of his opponents.

 

Communism falls suddenly Americans start losing all their titles.
They see the numbers they hating

This content is protected