Do wins over novice fighters whom eventually become succesful deserve credit?
Say for instance, fighter A is a world champion in two divisions, is making his 4th defense of his belt and is pitted against a novice fighter with 14 wins and 1 loss. Fighter A demolishes him and moves on with his career. However, fighter B eventually moves up the rankings to earn himself another proper shot and wins a belt. Should fighter A get credit for beating a novice or prospect whom eventually goes on to show world class talent?
I'm not certain on how to feel on this. I almost see it as a cop out(for the renown fighter) for taking on a "meh" challenge that luckily pays off in the long run because the less experienced fighter eventually develops and grows enough to actually earn himself a shot. A shot he may not have deserved in his initial opportunity.
I'm thinking Miguel Vasquez? Lost a MD to Canelo is his first fight, a UD to Canelo in like his 8th, a UD to Bradley in his 16th?, and then held a LW title for years afterwards.
What about Salido's win over Loma... does that get any credit? Sure he was dirty in the fight but he used his experience to get the W against a fighter that out skilled him and beat him in every department except for size.
I personally think the "dirty" claims are way blown out of proportion- It was nowhere near as bad as some people claim. The way I saw it - Salido deserved a point deduction late, which wouldn't have changed the outcome as all he needed to do at that point was survive and hold on to his win.
What I have more problem with is Salido having unfair advantage due to missing weight.
Regardless of how great Lomachenko will go on to be - it's not spectacular win. It was raw fighter still adapting to pro game and you didn't make weight.
Good win, but not as good as the name on the record will suggest, when people will look at it decades from now.
What about Salido's win over Loma... does that get any credit? Sure he was dirty in the fight but he used his experience to get the W against a fighter that out skilled him and beat him in every department except for size.
Ok so what fight was the cut-off point where you no longer considered Canelo a green fighter?
After Floyd. I thought that was a highly educating experience for him and he showed it vs Lara, and has improved steadily, I think he's peaked now (don't feel he's a guy that will do well in his 30's). Not a lot of guys get to fight the p4p #1 at the peak of his craftiness at a young, malleable age.
I dont know. It's like some folks who don't give Floyd credit for beating Alvarez since Saul was too "green" when they fought. I suppose Floyd would get more credit if they were to have fought when Saul had actually stringed together several good wins at the top level first.
Floyd gets credit but perspective is needed that's all.
Alvarez was green and a win over poac is better than ne!o. Plus cw.
No, they are trying to just sht on him. When the fight is happening it's "Why is Floyd draining him", when the fight has a hiccup it's "I told you Floyd would duck him".
It's just hater talk. With that said Canelo was a threat, because of his size, but he was still green.
Ok so what fight was the cut-off point where you no longer considered Canelo a green fighter?
It does mean something because he wouldn't be accused of ducking if they didn't see him as a threat. Canelo had been fighting at world level for a while.
No, they are trying to just sht on him. When the fight is happening it's "Why is Floyd draining him", when the fight has a hiccup it's "I told you Floyd would duck him".
It's just hater talk. With that said Canelo was a threat, because of his size, but he was still green.
Floyd got accused of ducking everyone by haters, fanboys still use this excuse, it's doesn't mean anything, the only people he was really accused of ducking was Pacquiao, Mosley, Cotto, Margarito.
It does mean something because he wouldn't be accused of ducking if they didn't see him as a threat. Canelo had been fighting at world level for a while.
He was being accused of ducking Canelo at the time.
Floyd got accused of ducking everyone by haters, fanboys still use this excuse, it's doesn't mean anything, the only people he was really accused of ducking was Pacquiao, Mosley, Cotto, Margarito.
Roy vs Hopkins was both guys basically in the same place.
Floyd vs ALvarez is the example your looking for and I don't see why you would get full credit for beating an obviously green fighter. Who the fuk goes from fighting his first threat in Austin fuking Trout to fighting the number 1 fighter on the planet. You gotta give him credit for beating Alvarez but the guy was obviously green. Alvarez isn't that good anyway and we'll see that when his career is over.
He was being accused of ducking Canelo at the time.
Margarito vs Maravilla is a good example of this. There are too many variables though, sometimes the guy deserves full credit, other times not so much.
I don't think Canelo was green when he fought Floyd, he was young but had like 45 fights. That's not to say he hasn't improved since Floyd.
Well, each case is different. I'm assuming you're reffering to Chocolatito's win over Estrada - I do give him credit for that, as Juan fought a great fight and gave great account of himself, but I recognise that Estrada's inexperience definitely was a factor...
Same with Bernard Hopkins for Roy Jones, that JrRod mentioned - excellent win, although I definitely wouldn't say Roy beat the best version of B-Hop.
You also have Ricardo Lopez blasting Saman Sorjaturong - I give him a bit less credit for that as Saman lost 6 rounder two fights prior and just wasn't ready at that stage.
You have to look at it individually, but generally I think it's better for fighter's legacies to give shots to young talented fighters that might turn out something, rather than keep fighting guys that we know will never go beyond certain level.
I was actually brought to this idea while re watching Sal Sanchez vs Gomez and remembering Sal also had a win over Nelson.
Roy vs Hopkins was both guys basically in the same place.
Floyd vs ALvarez is the example your looking for and I don't see why you would get full credit for beating an obviously green fighter. Who the fuk goes from fighting his first threat in Austin fuking Trout to fighting the number 1 fighter on the planet. You gotta give him credit for beating Alvarez but the guy was obviously green. Alvarez isn't that good anyway and we'll see that when his career is over.
Well, each case is different. I'm assuming you're reffering to Chocolatito's win over Estrada - I do give him credit for that, as Juan fought a great fight and gave great account of himself, but I recognise that Estrada's inexperience definitely was a factor...
Same with Bernard Hopkins for Roy Jones, that JrRod mentioned - excellent win, although I definitely wouldn't say Roy beat the best version of B-Hop.
You also have Ricardo Lopez blasting Saman Sorjaturong - I give him a bit less credit for that as Saman lost 6 rounder two fights prior and just wasn't ready at that stage.
You have to look at it individually, but generally I think it's better for fighter's legacies to give shots to young talented fighters that might turn out something, rather than keep fighting guys that we know will never go beyond certain level.
Of course he deserves credit.
Think Roy jones vs Hopkins. Roy beating Hopkins before he became the legend he is today. Yet Roy will always get the credit for beating the legend
Margarito also gets credit for beating Sergio. .
I dont know. It's like some folks who don't give Floyd credit for beating Alvarez since Saul was too "green" when they fought. I suppose Floyd would get more credit if they were to have fought when Saul had actually stringed together several good wins at the top level first.
Do wins over novice fighters whom eventually become succesful deserve credit?
Say for instance, fighter A is a world champion in two divisions, is making his 4th defense of his belt and is pitted against a novice fighter with 14 wins and 1 loss. Fighter A demolishes him and moves on with his career. However, fighter B eventually moves up the rankings to earn himself another proper shot and wins a belt. Should fighter A get credit for beating a novice or prospect whom eventually goes on to show world class talent?
I'm not certain on how to feel on this. I almost see it as a cop out(for the renown fighter) for taking on a "meh" challenge that luckily pays off in the long run because the less experienced fighter eventually develops and grows enough to actually earn himself a shot. A shot he may not have deserved in his initial opportunity.
Of course he deserves credit.
Think Roy jones vs Hopkins. Roy beating Hopkins before he became the legend he is today. Yet Roy will always get the credit for beating the legend
Margarito also gets credit for beating Sergio. .