History tells us the true greats have bounced back from defeat. So yes.
Should fighters get credit for beating already beaten fighters?
Collapse
-
-
what? you are one the posters i was referring to.
your posts in other threads:
Comment
-
Wth? If fighters dont get credit for beating already beaten fighters then no one is the best. Unless you beat Calzaghe, Froch, or Mayweather.Comment
-
I catch the sarcasm, but Juan Diaz was outclassed by Campbell. If you're supposed to be top-level you should perform at top-level. I was rooting for Diaz, but it didnt take long to figure out he was outgunned.Comment
-
Or they can credit for fighters that are 25-0 and suck and have never fought anyone or fight harder fights with guys that are 35-5 and have been in there with the elite and won some.
When somebody is already shot and most people know, credit shouldn't be given. Like Mitchell versus Paul Williams and **** like that.Comment
-
Depends on when and how they lost
Does the fighter still recieve credit? Of course, but how much depends on again, how many fights ago and how their opponent lost.Comment
-
Most fighters have had a few losses, so if that was the case then no win would get credit... so of course a fighter should get credit for beating a fighter that has already lost. Unless that loss really did something to them...I lost count on how many posters ive seen belittling Juan Manuel Marquez's win over Juan Diaz by stating that Nate Campbell had already beaten him. I never really knew this. Apparently everyone should take a look at their favorite fighters resume and every win better be against an undefeated fighter, or you need to reevaluate who you give credit to.Comment
-
Comment