Wins that cannot be diminished?

Thanks buddy.

 

Curry > McCrory
Zarate > Zamora
McGirt > Brown

 

I like the Zarate over Zamora shout.

Whilst I accept the BW era Zarate dominated likely wasn't as strong as the Herman/Williams/Moore 20's era or the golden age stretching from Jofre through Harada and Rose to Olivares, I don't think it was as weak as many make out.

Like the era of many dominant champions, and at 52-0 with 51 KO's before moving up, Zarate was as dominant as it gets, I feel his opposition is underrated because he was too good for any of them to emerge and distinguish themselves from the pack. I'm not sure it's a complete coincidence that his highest rated BW opponent is Pintor, who via a combination of fighting a likely faded and weight drained Zarate moving down after the Gomez loss, and a robbery on the cards, was the only other BW who stood out during Zarate's time in the division.

 

I’ve been on this forum for about 5 years and there’s always been someone who has attempted to diminish what seemed to me to be pretty much untouchable, historic wins and performances.

When we’re talking about the greatest performances available on film and someone manages to find fault somehow, it’s hard to take those criticisms too seriously.

 

Leonard vs hearns is a good one.

I also think wins where greats in their latter career manage to beat guys who will go on to have hof careers. Like Sanchez over azumah nelson. And Erik morales over Pacquiao in the first fight.

 

Tyson wasn't the same after prison and Holyfield was juiced to the gills and concussed Tyson with a headbutt.

Foreman won off a lucky punch in a fight he was losing and skipped the rematch.

Mercer didn't really know how to box at that point and had a lot of off nights. The win only proves that Holmes could match Jesse Ferguson.

 

Hearns was boiling down to 147 and didn't even know how to clinch. Different story at 154.

Nelson was green and Sanchez was at his absolute best.

Pacquiao wasn't at his best and proved it in the rematch.

 

If we could hit the reset button and replay this fight 10 times, I think Jackson wins his fair share. Jackson barely missed with some fight-changing punches. That is, McCallum did nothing to consciously avoid the punches. Great win and great fight.

 

I don't really consider "their opponent was not the perfect fighter" to diminish a win. I thought the point of this thread was to talk about what types of wins we hold on highest regard. There's already been many threads proving someone can be a cynic about any victory.

 

Pretty sure this thread is nothing if we’re not shooting down each win.

 

Well in that case yes, you can always claim the losing fighter wasn't at their best. That's certainly what the losing fighter will do. Apparently you can even say it with no other explanation like with your pac vs morales 1 excuse. I guess the assumption is that was the absolute best morales? despite him being in the latter part of his career and that he lost in a major upset to a relative unknown in his next fight?

"Not their best..." Might as well just say "he only lost because his opponent landed a greater number and more effective punches"

Maybe a fighter doesn't look their best when they're losing a fight, huh?

 

Aging Morales was a proven PED abuser.

 

Floyd Canelo is definitely not like the others lmao

 

I'd hazard a guess that on average, it's rarer than not for many of the great wins to not have extenuating circumstances to some degree for the loser. Especially where fights were unexpectedly one-sided. It's the nature of the game in sport. Fine margins and endless what might have beens. It's fine (if exhausting) to critique and break down fighters records in that vein as long as bias and spite don't rule your thought process.

Rather than overly penalise the winner on a perpetual basis, I feel better on the whole being generous and understanding towards the loser. Extend them the benefit of the doubt that they might well have done better on a given day etc and take into account whatever impeded their performance while still handing due and reasonable credit to the winner. It's not a binary thing dictated in black and white, much like life in general. Stats and win/loss columns are useful tools and indicators but open to manipulation and lack of context.

A lot of my favourite performances by fighters that are right up there with the best in the history of the sport often have context in some shape or form for the loser that I always try to bear in mind. Might be for some fighters that their luck over their whole career is six and half a dozen, with opposite circumstances balancing the scales a bit. Lionel Rose got battered by Olivares when very badly hindered by weight draining but had benefited earlier in his career by Harada having a similar problem making weight, and Rose also got the benefit of the doubt on the cards vs Castillo and Rudkin in razor close fights. Swings in roundabouts.