How do you evaluate someone's career if...

[Fox McCloud]

They never get their big fight they are looking for that would decide who was the best in their division?

Say Roy Jones moved up to 168, and was never able to get his fight with James Toney (who would also remain at 168 for this scenario). A lot of people thought that Roy was going to win (a lot of people also thought Toney was going to win)... If they both ended up retiring without moving up any higher, how would you evaluate their careers? If Roy was calling out Toney the whole time, and Toney wasn't accepting, obviously Toney gets knocked, but how do you make up for that when evaluating Jones's career?

Obviously the big example of this right now is Mayweather-Cotto. If it never comes off, how do we end up evaluating Miguel Cotto's career in the absense of getting a win over Mayweather?

[Fox McCloud]

Nothing? Damn, cold as ice!

[CraigM]

Just by what skills the have shown in the ring, personally i don't think it's who you fight but how you fight that decides how good you should be known as.

But obviously its the big fights that will define a career, Cotto still has a few good names on his CV and has a huge fanbase.

[Vladimir303]

This is way over some peoples heads. You're asking too many hypothetical questions that's beyond some dip****s thought process.

As far as Cotto, if he handles his business for the next few years and keeps recking up victories then it doesn't matter. There is other opponents out there. Hopkins never got to avenge his loss to Roy Jones yet he build up a nice legacy for himself by winning for years and years.

[AntonTheMeh]

i think he's gonna have to fight hatton and the big show at the same time to get the kinda recognition the floyd fans want his opponent to have.

[Fox McCloud]

Just by what skills the have shown in the ring, personally i don't think it's who you fight but how you fight that decides how good you should be known as.

But obviously its the big fights that will define a career, Cotto still has a few good names on his CV and has a huge fanbase.

I think that is an extremely flawed interpretation of how to evaluate a fighter. If you don't fight the best, it is impossible to see how good someone is. Look at Jermain Taylor. He is a perfect example.

Jermain Taylor looked invincible in his fighter on the prospect/contender trail, when he was ****ing EVERYONE up. His jab looked to be the best of all-time. He had a huge right hand behind it. He was able to get people out of there most of the time, and if he didn't, he was able to easily outbox most fighters and win a wide decision.

When he stepped his game up and fought Hopkins, Hopkins, Wright, Ouma and Spinks, he looked tremendously bad, in pretty much every fight. His best result was Ouma and Spinks, but was backed up by light-hitting 154 pounders. He was made to look average at best by guys who make most fighters look average at best, but even so, the view of Taylor came back down to earth when he fought those guys.

Then he got KO'd by Kelly Pavlik, and lost a decision (which he looked a lot better in).

But seriously, how many people would seriously rate Taylor higher now than they rated him before he fought Hopkins? I don't know many.

The best fighters are able to truly test whether those skills can transfer into wins. You know what I mean?

This is way over some peoples heads. You're asking too many hypothetical questions that's beyond some dip****s thought process.

As far as Cotto, if he handles his business for the next few years and keeps recking up victories then it doesn't matter. There is other opponents out there. Hopkins never got to avenge his loss to Roy Jones yet he build up a nice legacy for himself by winning for years and years.

I understand what you are saying, but think... if Hopkins had beaten Roy Jones in a rematch (pre the Tarver KO), he would have been ranked a HELL of a lot higher, right? Cotto definately has a chance to beat Mayweather. Who knows? Maybe he would beat him if they fought. No one knows. So if they never fight, it is hard to get an accurate understanding of how high his career should be ranked. I wonder how they have dealt with this in the past.

[CraigM]

I think that is an extremely flawed interpretation of how to evaluate a fighter. If you don't fight the best, it is impossible to see how good someone is. Look at Jermain Taylor. He is a perfect example.

Jermain Taylor looked invincible in his fighter on the prospect/contender trail, when he was ****ing EVERYONE up. His jab looked to be the best of all-time. He had a huge right hand behind it. He was able to get people out of there most of the time, and if he didn't, he was able to easily outbox most fighters and win a wide decision.

When he stepped his game up and fought Hopkins, Hopkins, Wright, Ouma and Spinks, he looked tremendously bad, in pretty much every fight. His best result was Ouma and Spinks, but was backed up by light-hitting 154 pounders. He was made to look average at best by guys who make most fighters look average at best, but even so, the view of Taylor came back down to earth when he fought those guys.

Then he got KO'd by Kelly Pavlik, and lost a decision (which he looked a lot better in).

But seriously, how many people would seriously rate Taylor higher now than they rated him before he fought Hopkins? I don't know many.

The best fighters are able to truly test whether those skills can transfer into wins. You know what I mean?

.

Yes, but you said what if they never got that big fight... you'd have to just judge it on what you've seen, and if your opinion was wrong, so be it.

Once a fighter is found out, then he is found out... but you can only judge on their skills up to that point. That's what i was getting at anyway.

[Fox McCloud]

Yes, but you said what if they never got that big fight... you'd have to just judge it on what you've seen, and if your opinion was wrong, so be it.

Once a fighter is found out, then he is found out... but you can only judge on their skills up to that point. That's what i was getting at anyway.

Okay, fair enough. I thought you were saying that a fighter should never be judged on resume, but ability alone.

I think that is what has to happen when a fight doesn't happen.

It's just really ****ty though. If Cotto would beat Mayweather if they ever fought, and he never got that chance, he wouldn't get as much credit as he did if they were to fight. There would always be that unresolved question of whether or not he could have.

[Boogie Nights]

i think that cotto wants mayweather more than mayweather wants cotto. however i also think that mayweather needs cotto more than cotto needs mayweather that being because the general consensus is that mayweather is ducking a potential showdown with cotto or any other threatening welterweight thus palying a safe champion in the division. so the blame clearly falls on Junior. cotto is not playing an idiot that mayweather is, retiring and then unretiring when a big payday shows up, miguel is here for a while and there will be other big fights without ****** mayweather that will solidify his carrer.

[Darkstar]

I think they should take a big hit in thier career ranking. If a fighter wants elite fights, sooner or later they could get them if they really wanted. You notice its those shady boxers who always blame not getting big fights on other factors(money,promotion,place). Im more of a fan of losing to great competition than beating nobodys.