"You're only as good as your last fight"

How true is this statement? Not true. :beerchug:

"You're only as good as daggum says" Hahahahahahahahaha Sh.up my *****

"You're only as good as daggum says"

If you keep winning, Yes. Style makes fight has more weight than that. Good boxer might fall from first loss and will hardly recover but a great champion will eagerly comeback for his next fight.

I think it should be "you are only as good as your last couple of fights", makes more sense. You'd get a general sense of things any way

I think it should be "you are only as good as your last couple of fights", makes more sense.

Quality of opposition does count for something, but then you start watering down a lot of fighter's records. Ward beating Kovalev and Barrera at LHW doesn't put him in the same league as Michael Spinks beating Qawi and Muhammad. It puts him leap years away from being compared to Archie Moore who defeated Jimmy Bivins, Joey Maxim and Harold Johnson. It's funny you mentioned spinks my next fantasy breakdown is Spinks vs Ward.

it simply comes down to who you fought. Take Crawford, Thurman, and Spence for example. Place them in an era where you have Prime Floyd, Pacman, Mosley, Varga, Oscar, Forrest, and Tito. Will they be top 5 P4P? I think not. Quality of opposition does count for something, but then you start watering down a lot of fighter's records. Ward beating Kovalev and Barrera at LHW doesn't put him in the same league as Michael Spinks beating Qawi and Muhammad. It puts him leap years away from being compared to Archie Moore who defeated Jimmy Bivins, Joey Maxim and Harold Johnson.

Unfortunately this is the overlying sentiment among the casuals on here and every other forum. They don't consider a fighter's volume or work or accomplishments during their prime. Duran is an ATG and HOF'er, yet if we judged him by his last five fights he would be ridiculed, called a hype job, and considered overrated by the fan boys on here who are only familiar with modern era fighters who manage to hold on to their zero until the end. it simply comes down to who you fought. Take Crawford, Thurman, and Spence for example. Place them in an era where you have Prime Floyd, Pacman, Mosley, Varga, Oscar, Forrest, and Tito. Will they be top 5 P4P? I think not.

I think its 100% true for how I take the saying. So yea you are perceived more off of your last performance, good or bad, than any other performance. Look no further than Jeff Horn. Guy is almost complete garbage at the world class level, but cuz he gutted it out & beat Manny now some cats are hyping him as someone to watch out for. Horn thing is mainly trolling

ofc its bull**** .fighters had loses in theyr prime and came back to beat great Copetiton

your thread is nothing without me Everybody is providing cool responses. You're making this a bout Euro fighters like always.

seems to be the case on this forum, golovkins stock plummeted after jacobs fight, kovalev was a flat footed one dimensional euro after he struggled with chilemba, usyk was the future of the cruiserweight division after beating glowacki but now hes nothing special after losing a couple of rounds in his last fight. Get out of my thread!!!!

Unfortunately this is the overlying sentiment among the casuals on here and every other forum. They don't consider a fighter's volume or work or accomplishments during their prime. Duran is an ATG and HOF'er, yet if we judged him by his last five fights he would be ridiculed, called a hype job, and considered overrated by the fan boys on here who are only familiar with modern era fighters who manage to hold on to their zero until the end.

How about fighters who look great in a fight, then in their next fight look terrible. This is simple: It was just something someone said, with unsubstantiated evidence, it sounded clever, it wasn't some kind of proven scenario that was tested with a scientific method. There isn't some kind of 10-year data showing fighters coming off losses or bad performances, what do they do in there next fight. This saying simply caught on and is believed like it's true, but it's actually proven wrong many times. Off the top, Froch losing to Ward, beating Bute next. Ruiz losing to RJJ, beating Rahman next, Pacquiao losing to Mayweather, beating Bradley next, and so on.

If that were the case Mayweather wouldn't have beaten Pacquiao.

Someone told that to Pavlik after Hopkins looked old and every bit his age against Calzaghe and well, you saw how that turned out.

a fighter may look bad against a certain style but good in his next fight vs a style that he prefers to fight but for the most part, "youre only as good as your last fight", is true, and useful when analyzing aging fighters

Seems kinda bullsh*tish to me