So plenty of fighters today or in the more current era get accused of waiting until a certain fighter is shot, bad weight, past his best, whatever. An example is Roy Jones after Tarver, this is not a knock on Roy. So please do not mention anything about me hating because I'm not, I'm just using this as a point. A good rip on this is when many people (myself included) say "Well, in the old days everyone everyone fought everyone (not true of course). But the point being that you fought much more often and had a better chance of losing. But hold up, isnt it true that some fighters were able to reach peak acheivements or peak abilities in the ring even in the old days? They had more fights, took more damage, less time off, yet were still not considered SHOT in hindsight! Yet in todays world, if you lose a fight to margarito, get knocked out by Tarver, beaten my Douglas in tokyo, you become "shot" or "not as good" afterward. If these same situations took place in the old days, considering the amount of fights, they would be but a papercut to any of those old time fighters. in the end, isnt it just another excuse for the loser? Is this way of discrediting opponents only an internet phenomenon? Or has this been going on forever? thats what I think
Yes the internet has created a safe zone for cowards to hide behind and give ****ed up opinions about a sport they would not participate in to save their mothers life. If you lose you lose, it's not a team sport so fighters take the loss hard. Sergio Martinez got wayyyy better after his first loss and changed his style. Some people overcome some don't. Ricky Hatton never overcame his losses. Pacquiao did and rose to the top.
Agreed. "Shot" and "prime" among the blogger community has fairly little relation to the real world. The "green" vs "old" argument can go both ways. Too hard to tell which is predominant in the real world.
I'm the first one to point out irrationality, hypocrisy, or even a "keyboard cowboy" kind of cowardice about stupid bloggers. But I think even the worst of them would agree to appear in the ring, knowing they would get brutally ko'd, if it saved they're mother's life.
Pac can be used both ways. He got better after he was brutally ko'd. Yet people try and discredit his Cotto win for something so small as "weight draining". How unmanly have we become?
I'm willing to fight anybody for real if that's the matter. I have never called any fighter a coward or discredited his job of fighting. I only **** on certain fighters fans. I've always said that and it will never change. Anybody willing to take a chance and fight a stranger for money is a beast to me whether they are 49-0 or 0-49.
The need to have an unblemished record really seemed to have kicked in during the TV era, TV created a hunger for a shiny star to sell razors. In the early days the winners and losers were less clear being declared by way of newspaper decisions in which draws were much more common. Boxing should learn from the UFC where losses are not nearly so damning. Giving too much weight to losses encourages play it safe match making and wasting talent.
Pacquiao didn't just get better because he was KTFO. He was a teenager during those knockouts. Basically pretty much all boxers are improving as teenagers even those who aren't getting knocked out.
I'm not so sure if he got better after losing to Morales. Maybe just maybe Erik Morales was a great fighter who fair and square outboxed Manny Pacquiao at his peak. On that night he was beaten by Morales and that's all it came down too. You just have to give respect to a job well done by Morales.
Tell that to Rousey and Dana making Holm wait for Ronda to do movies and not take fights until she's finished being Hollywood.:-( Plus him ****ting on Aldo after his loss, c'mon son!atsch