I understand the title is confusing. There is no way I can convey my point accurately in just the subject line, so I gave up trying. For instance -- I, and a lot of others with me, rank the victory of Roberto Duran vs Iran Barkley as a very significant one, primarily because Duran was physically outgunned in every way and boxed his way out using tremendous heart and skill. Now, Oscar De La Hoya started at Featherweight, lower than Duran (due to cutting weight). He at one point beat Vargas and Mayorga, two fighters that started at significantly heavier divisions. So, looking at it on paper, these would seem to be comparable victories. But they're not. Not to most people. Partly because DLH is a naturally heavier fighter than Duran, but since both made weight for all their sanctioned fights. Partly also because Iran Barkley was a huge middleweight and Duran an average-sized natural lightweight, so the difference seemed much greater. (and was, imo) Now let's use a better example for the exact question I would like to ask -- Roy Jones Jr. He beat light-heavyweights, aplenty, and even a heavyweight beltholder, but he seems to get less credit because he attained these victories because of physical advantages that made boxing matches almost seem unfair -- superhuman reflexes, speed of foot, handspeed, one-punch knockout power with either hand. As fans, we seem less sympathetic to them, and that's understandable, but... Is it fair, when clinically ranking fighters, to let such widely held subjective opinions influence proceedings? Is it perhaps not just as 'lucky', that one fighter had God-given mental toughness and poise as it is for one to have superior physique? DISCLAIMER: I do not have an axe to grind, love Roberto Duran and do not care much for Roy Jones. This is not about the examples listed, but rather the concept.
For whatever reason most people seem to give mental toughness the significant edge over physical superiority. Look at Marciano, Frazier, Ali three fighters who are known for their mental toughness. They tend to get the benefit of the doubt in most fantasy match ups simply because of their "mental" edge. A quick swift victory in most cases is given less credence than a tough long fight.
That's another point -- Fighter A might get more credit for getting into a deep hole and bravely battling himself out against imaginary fighter Dobberson, but when Fighter B totally outclasses that same Dobberson on that same night, it might be done away with as a standard win over a 'bum of the month' type. One victory is attained by mental strength, the other by physical superiority. While both are merely attributes of the total package, one can get you significantly higher up on the ATG-list, while the other has you eternally searching for an arch-rival.
I disagree. Almost nobody forsaw Darchinyian's victory over Mijares and the majority were backing Taylor to beat Froch.
But pea he was 14 or 15 year old when he started so he wasnt fully developed and didnt fight the top of bantam weight as he grew quite quickly out of it
Yeah, and that's why very superior perfomances tend not to always get their full due. Ali/Liston, Ali/Foreman, Leonard/Duran II, RJJ/Hopkins, RJJ/Toney and even RJJ/Ruiz are examples of this.