Lets say a Fighter A is champion and makes two title defenses. The first title defense is against a fighter that is perceived to be the division's biggest threat by; the undefeated Fighter C. He takes on Fighter C and wins in what turns out to be a mismatch in a very one sided KO. After the bout Fighter C never recovers and picks up a couple of more losses before turning into a Trail Horse. Moving along, the second title defense is against Fighter B a little known contender who appears to be an average fighter. Fighter B is also undefeated but nobody really picks him to win or rather understands why he was given the title shot in the first place with the exception of Fighter A who sparred with him years ago and knows what Fighter B Brings to the table and trains accordingly. They fight and it comes down to the wire and Fighter A pulls out a narrow but fair decision. After the bout Fighter B picks up a couple of big wins making him a promiment fighter in his particular era, though nobody would have guess it at the time he fought Fighter A. Which is the more credible win all things considered?
In retrospect the win over Fighter B is better but that win over A sounds like it was a huge noise at the time. Maybe Fighter C was the business but an amazing performance by A finished him for good as a contender. It depends who C beat I suppose.
The perfect example of Fighter A vs Fighter C is Calzaghe-Lacy, there was plenty of hype behind Lacy and he was the favourite only for him to be outclassed and dominated. From there on he hasn't done much and has looked pretty ordinary and now people don't give Calzaghe much credit because it appears Lacy was never that good in the first place.
