Why don't fighters get credit anymore?

They do get credit, usually delusional ******s try to steal away the credit despite what they say previously but in the long run full credit is given.

 

I get what ure sayin'..
But IMO, just because a certain fighter can beat another it don't make him better.
(Sounds stupid I know, But it's all about styles)

 

In some cases the argyuments are valid but as a whole they are grossly overused. It seems like every fighter only has a prime that lasts about 1 or 2 fights

 

I just assumed thats just how its always been.

I don't understand it myself, people are always trying to pick holes in wins and resume, just because they happen to dislike a certain fighter.

For example, there was a popular thread over the last few weeks entitled 'Has Pacquaio ever beaten a top fighter in their prime?'

Seriously, a guy like Pacquaio, who has Morales, Barrera, Marquez, De La Hoya and Hatton on his resume (amongst other) and people are trying to pull it apart, pathetic!

 

its not black or white. You get credit, but things have to be put into perspective.

Larry Holmes beat Muhammad Ali, should we give him full credit?

 

I asked this question a while back. It seems that only a small % of fighters recieve 100% credit for winning certain fights. Most of the time their seems to be some reason/excuse to take away from the win. Be it a fighter moving up in weight, being too weight drained, injured/sick, past prime etc etc. But that's not to say that the winning fighter gets no credit at all.

 

Because thanks to fighters being babied by shitty promoters there usually are more factors in the fight other than skill. Age, size, and current form usually take the front seat these days.

 

Too many fan boys that's the problem!!

These guys are turning boxing into WWF. It seems if you think Floyd can beat Pac...you have to discredit Pacs victories!! It's absolutely ridiculous!!!

 

Because people like to *****.
But usually credit is given where it's due.

 

the circumstances dictate whether a fighter deserves full credit or not

e.g Pacquiao beat a De la Hoya connected with 51 power punches. Even tho he beat him so convicncingly its clear that DLH was nowhere near as good as he has been. Pac gets credit but does he deserve full credit for a victory over a skeleton ?

Like McBride beat Tyson. He deserves credit but nowhere near as much credit as beating a prime Tyson.

Its all relative

 

This is a perception based on too much forum exposure. The goal of 90% of the regular posters here is to 1) minimize the importance of any bout in which someone they don't like is expected to win, 2) destroy any enthusiasm anyone has for anyone. Limit your exposure and enjoy the sport more.

 

It's been this way through history.
The fighters of this era aren't as good as the ones of yesteryear etc etc. People look back on past generations through rose tinted glasses IMO. Can you believe that people in the late 80's early 90's used to complain about the heavyweights ??

People are always slagging other boxers off, it's just nowadays you hear more of it due to tools such as the internet. It's far easier for people to express their opinions on the net and to converse with others. Plus on the net you'll always find posters who like to argue for the sake of it

 

De La Hoya didn't throw 51 power punches... Where did you get that stat?

Its one thing to discredit a fighter's win based on facts and opinions, and another to do it based on lies.

 

this is a great post.....a win is a win, i dont care what the **** people say....sure you can say what you want about the circumstances.....

but at the end of the day its about the w's and the titles.