Why so much emphasis on how people do after other people defeat them.

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Talivar, Dec 22, 2009.


Page 1 of 2
  1. Talivar

    Talivar Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,022
    52
    Jan 22, 2008
    My example is Kessler and calzaghe. Now kessler has been beaten pretty easy many are trying to say this weakens calzaghes resume, yet none of them are saying Calzaghes resume got stronger after Hopkins beat pavlik. This isnt just about calzaghe its about any fighter, why do only peoples losses effect someone elses resume and not wins?
     
    Talivar, Dec 22, 2009
    Talivar, Dec 22, 2009
    #1
  2. MattMattMatt

    MattMattMatt Guest

    This is wrong. People said that Hopkins win strengthened Calzaghe's resume:

    http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=97469
    http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=97415
    http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=97306
    http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=97314
    http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=97323
    http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=97293

    Just a random selection of the many threads that implied, or outright stated, that Calzaghe's resume was improved by Hopkin's performance against Pavlik.
     
    MattMattMatt, Dec 22, 2009
    MattMattMatt, Dec 22, 2009
    #2
  3. horst

    horst Guest

    Nah, it goes both ways and always does. The fact that Calzaghe did not receive widespread acclaim when Hopkins beat Pavlik is because many people felt Calzaghe did not beat Hopkins. But everyone agrees that Calzaghe beat Kessler. If Kessler recovers to win the Super Six, the value of Calzaghe's win over the Dane will rise again.
     
    horst, Dec 22, 2009
    horst, Dec 22, 2009
    #3
  4. Talivar

    Talivar Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,022
    52
    Jan 22, 2008
    Ok well it shows there is a divide then with people who value hopkins win for calzaghes resume and those who dont think it effects it. Im just cursious if these opinions stay consistent with other boxers.
     
    Talivar, Dec 22, 2009
    Talivar, Dec 22, 2009
    #4
  5. Talivar

    Talivar Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,022
    52
    Jan 22, 2008
    I personally think people just grow to like/dislike certain boxers and then struggle to remain objective. And this applies to all boxers of all nationalities and race. Maybe its just human nature and the way things work.
     
    Talivar, Dec 22, 2009
    Talivar, Dec 22, 2009
    #5
  6. horst

    horst Guest

    Maybe it isn't. Maybe it's that many people do not believe Calzaghe beat Hopkins. If that is the case, then why would Hopkins beating Pavlik affect Calzaghe's resume in their eyes? You are looking for a global conspiracy where there isn't one.
     
    horst, Dec 22, 2009
    horst, Dec 22, 2009
    #6
  7. Talivar

    Talivar Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,022
    52
    Jan 22, 2008
    But maybe they beleive he didnt beat him because before the fight started they had already picked their winner?. Only a clear UD or KO would make them admit their chosen fave had lost.
     
    Talivar, Dec 22, 2009
    Talivar, Dec 22, 2009
    #7
  8. horst

    horst Guest

    Maybe they scored the fight round by round and had Hopkins the winner. It was a close fight, and many neutrals called it to Hopkins. If you don't think it was a close/controversial fight then perhaps you should examine your own objectivity.
     
    horst, Dec 22, 2009
    horst, Dec 22, 2009
    #8
  9. itrymariti

    itrymariti Cañas! Full Member

    13,728
    47
    Sep 6, 2008
    Are you kidding? Before Pavlik/Hopkins, the fight was being viewed as a more or less trivial stepping-stone to a veritable monster-fight in Pavlik/Calzaghe. Pavlik was expected by most to beat Hopkins and by many to absolutely walk all over him. When Hopkins took a lopsided victory, all the Calzaghe fanboys as well as half of ESB took the view that Calzaghe would have beaten Pavlik worse than he did Lacy. Calzaghe cashed in FULLY on his stock. The only dampener on it has been, and always will be, that he didn't win the fight.
     
    itrymariti, Dec 22, 2009
    itrymariti, Dec 22, 2009
    #9
  10. Talivar

    Talivar Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,022
    52
    Jan 22, 2008
    I called it very close but gave it go calzaghe on workrate.
     
    Talivar, Dec 22, 2009
    Talivar, Dec 22, 2009
    #10
  11. itrymariti

    itrymariti Cañas! Full Member

    13,728
    47
    Sep 6, 2008
    I agree that Calzaghe's victory was dubious at best, but it certainly looks good for him that he was in a close fight with someone who made Pavlik his *****.

    Then again, Taylor was in two close fights with Hopkins and Pavlik left him in a heap.
     
    itrymariti, Dec 22, 2009
    itrymariti, Dec 22, 2009
    #11
  12. horst

    horst Guest

    Then if you yourself called it very close, why on earth do you think it is some sort of conspiracy if some called it to Hopkins, and therefore find Hopkins's win over Pavlik completely irrelevant to Calzaghe's legacy?? :huh
     
    horst, Dec 22, 2009
    horst, Dec 22, 2009
    #12
  13. Talivar

    Talivar Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,022
    52
    Jan 22, 2008
    Because objectives deal with facts and facts say calzaghe won, subjectivly you could argue Hopkins deserved it but he lost so there is nothing anyone in world can do to change it, wasnt any of Hopkins wins close decisions that could have easily been given the other way?
     
    Talivar, Dec 22, 2009
    Talivar, Dec 22, 2009
    #13
  14. Talivar

    Talivar Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,022
    52
    Jan 22, 2008
    Btw i wanna make clear i like Hopkins, i actually think his wind ups make everything more entertaining. To many people let it get to them and annoy them but thats a differant story.
     
    Talivar, Dec 22, 2009
    Talivar, Dec 22, 2009
    #14
  15. VIP

    VIP Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,175
    2
    Aug 19, 2004
    What makes a great fighter? To beat other great fighters. Of course there will be emphasis on how well a fighter does later. Particularly in Calzaghes' case where his legacy was built on his demolition of Lacy and beating the younger unbeaten Kessler. But neither were great fighters at the time and didn't become great fighters.

    Jones and Eubank was definitely faded at the time and Hopkins fight was well a close one.
     
    VIP, Dec 22, 2009
    VIP, Dec 22, 2009
    #15
Page 1 of 2