Does having a great career sometimes manipulate our opinions on h2h matchups?

[K-DOGG]

The point about being undefeated is a particularly good one. No fighter should be undefeated. Being undefeated is often an indication more of the lack of comp than skills. Marciano is often cited as being the champ during a lull in the heavyweight division, Calzighe is criticised for his easy fights, and Mayweather catches hell about some of the same issues. Even Ward, who really has fought everyone in his division while he was active is critisized (rightly so) for chronic inactivity and the need to keep his fights local.

Young fighters need the chance to lose and grow. Tyson Fury would have benefitted tremendously from a loss to David Haye, if Haye had won that fight. I think Chisora has learned and become a decent fighter from being in with so many good fighters, and despite his record because of his age I have no doubt he will make a championship run again.

Human beings learn from making mistakes. Fighters need to fight more and learn to use more skills in the ring. Now some people talk about the most elite fighters like Robinson. Robinson, if you count his streaks would have been undefeated for almost, if not 100 fights, and almost as many several times! But how many fighters are at that level?

More likely we see things like Miguel Cotto boxing Shane Mosley and subsequently using more skills in his game. From a very accurate body puncher Cotto has become a much more versatile fighter. Or, Tyson Fury using a tune up to work on skills that will be of great benefitt when he fights his next opponent. Wilder meanwhile, looking like he is 5% body fat, gases out throing leather at half the time that fat James Toney would...But he is undefeated!

Excellent synopsis. Would so give you green k, if I could.

Cheers.

[K-DOGG]

Most fans make comparisons from common opponents or popular opponents faced.
I prefer to look at Methods & Techniques in their offense and defense along with
ring generalship and their willingness and gamesmenship when in with high quality.
Are they one dimentional or can they change and adapt during a bout if needed.
Power punching is very important to me even if the man isn't a great puncher. There are times in a bout when every man man needs to make a statement and
not allow an opponent to "walk through him". Gaining respect through punches thrown is an essential ingrediant to Methods used.
LaMotta was not a big puncher yet he was respected for his quality shots and being able to off set and hurt an opponent by accumulation.

A fighters record is certainly something to study and the more high quality skilled fighjters fought enhances his stature no doubt.
A fighters prime is considered mostly but the beginning and ending tells a great story also. Sugar Ray Robinson at the end of his great career was defeated many times by verdict. However the men who defeated him were quality contenders and no one stopped him. Most times he would come back to them and win. I remember Sugar helping to promote boxing in Hawaii and fought Stan Harrington twice there a few months apart. It doesn't hurt Robinsons status to loose to a very tough opponent at that opponents "home turf"!!! (free trip to the island was ok too)
Point being theres alot more to consider in a "successful career" than what happens in a ring.
Longevity used to mean alot and today kids get title shots with 22 fights. Far to many divisions and belts, to be a champ had much more meaning years ago with two federations intact.
To consider John Ruiz vs Roy Jones are real title fight is pretty sad to me.
Against any of the great heavies they both get destroyed!
So forget titles and common opponents mean less, look at arsonal and how its utilized. Watch the determination and willingness to control the opponent weither its agression or ring generalship. It does come down to "hit and not get hit" as to Willie Pep's explanation.
Is an individuals skills and talent and his ability to perform them enough against another mans? Thats what to look at when evaluating a fighter. If he can perform at a high level a great percentage of the time than I think the career is a success.
Ray.

Thank you, sir. Phenomenal points to refer to. Excellent post. Thank you for your insight.

[them_apples]

Perhaps, to some extent (more for some), however, a fighter's weaknesses, aka drugs, poor training habbiits, etc are also indicative of a fighter's mental and psychological make-up, and therefore relevant in certain situations.

Tyson' for example, relied heavily n Rooney, whom he had the most success under, so logically, one would pick that Tyson as a "peak example. However, under Rooney, we never saw Tyson combat the kind of challenge he had when facing Holyfield or Douglas. Regardless of whether or not Rooney was in the corner to settle him down, as in the Tucker fight, Mike would have to find a way not to he frustrated and find the will within, on his own, to come back and win. One cannot just presume Mike would blow everyone out of the water even with Rooney in the corner because he was extended during this time frame by lesser fighters.

Physical ability and muscle memory from good training techniques, such as were practiced during his "best years" cannot account for that moment when truly challenged and him having to dig deeper than that for the heart and will to perservere when challenged, for it is unfair to presume he'd destroy anyone as he said Sammy Scarf, Tony Tubbs, etc.

No trainer can climb into the ring with you. Its just you and the other guy. The closest Tyson came to facing that in his best years was Tony Tucker, who is no Holyfield, or even Douglas on the night he defeated Tyson, though Tucker had defeated Douglas a few years before.

Everything is relative.

Good post, but to clear things up I wasn't hinting at Mike Tyson being undervalued on this forum. I completely agree his competition was rather weak, especially during his prime. He never faced anyone with balls so to speak. People also forget that both spinks and holmes were coming back for money and had to quickly get in shape. But in reality tyso. Destroying spinks is nothing more special than frazier destroying foster, if that - considering the point in spinks career.

The fighters that went the distance with Mike were all subpar fighters who just happened to be mentally tough enough not to fear him. Fighters like mitch green and bone crusher smith. Although Mike was a good puncher with some good setups and speed, he lacked the consistency to really break anyone tough down over the long haul. That being said, he had a decent chin, and with his tool set you could still consider him a solid contender amongst other eras.

I don't think he would have the power, or at least the workrate to get rid of a guy like frazier, even a prime Norton. Both these guys got bulldozed by George Foreman and they get a negative rating on their chins. The problem here is that foreman notoriously breaks jaws, even iron jaws. The man stopped chuvalo as well as Cooney later in his career.