I have wondered out loud on the above mention question. I get it, floyd is the most hated boxer ever. But aside from pbf, whenever a boxer wins a fight, I read on this forum, how the guy that lost was, old, weight drain, past his prime, or my favorite "he was too small". I respect everyone's opinion and all of that but this is the only sport..that a guy can win and there are a list of reasons and/or excuses of why other than the better fighter won actually won. If a basketball team went 72-0 they would be a ATG. if a football team went 16-0 and won the superbowl they would be a ATG. but boxers are held to a different standard????? I know the bias some of us have, like cotto for instance when he took the gomez fight...clearly it was a mismatch but if floyd had taken the same fight...MAN LISTEN the hand picking statements would of start rolling the day it was sign. I am not saying cotto ducked anyone, I think that he will fight anyone they put in front of him. aside from the bias and your dislike or like for a fighter. why is winning never enough? Also when a rule applies to some and not others- marquez is a great fighter and by fighting the best in his weight class says alot (remember when the champions of past actually cleaned up their division? and it was the norm?) now of days it is a bonus!!!!! however no one has lashed out at hatton or pacman for not fighting the best in their weight class but have lashed out at a few other fighters for doing the same thing?
Maybe because its not a team sport..people form stronger opinions over an individuals based on personality and background (especially with media input). Could also have something to do with the fact the winner is often decided by the judges opinion rather than a totally quantitative way. ?
1 in every 2 people wins a match unless its a draw. to achieve another level of greatness and satisfication you have to win in a way which makes you stand out and differnent from others
That and the form book is so much shorter for boxers so it's easier to make excuses. In football/basketball the teams play many many times each year...in boxing we're lucky if we have 2 fights to go on in the last 12 months!
PPL are just ****ing retared, thats your answer. Pacquaio beat a weight dranied DLH??? NO DLH ANIT ****!!! THATS WHAT IT IS, ppl wanna give DLH the win just because he was bigger, its called boxing, not whos the biggest.
Im sorry, I meant the question more towards us as boxing fans....very rarely have I read on this forum that a boxer won becuase he was the better fighter...it is always an excuse of why the guy who lost rather than praise or respect for the winner. when pacman beat odh, it was said it was becuase of the weight and this and that...not many people gave pacman a chance of winning, I wanted pacman to win becuase i like alot of people thought oscar took this fight becuase it was less of a risk vs the other fighters -tony,cotto, williams. if a fighter over trains, or is drain becuase of making weight that is an excuse, fnf in the main event one of the fighters said he broke his hand, but he kept fighting and won. it seems it is becoming the norm to discredit wins that fighters get if he is not a personal favorite.
cause wins are often blown out of proportion, so people need to be kept in check. and the opposite is also true.
The reason is in Football or Tennis or any other sport you are bound to meet the best to become champion. In boxing apart from your ability to box good management is crucial. It's all about to meet the right people at the right time and to make the maximum Money. In tennis for example you go to the U.S open you win seven matches in a roll you are declare champion. In boxing you carefully build up your career and you can become a champion without fighting the top five guys in your weight class. Boxing is just too different from the other sports to compare it. And I can say that boxing fans are very disrespectful to the fighters most of the time. I don't know why. There job is not easy.