History tells us the true greats have bounced back from defeat. So yes.
Should fighters get credit for beating already beaten fighters?
Collapse
-
-
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
-
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