I watched Hopkins vs Mercado I&II earlier and it got me thinking about resumes. Back in the day, a win over "a Mercado" would have been seen as good; the highest ranking contender, solid fighter - excellent. Nowadays, people only rate the wins against elite competition that will stand up to scrutiny after a period of time, e.g.
The Calzaghe win over Lacy and the Mayweather win over Baldomir. At the time they were both lauded as opponents, now they're widely discredited.
Has the average fan descended so far? It appears every win is now examined far more than beforehand and merely "good" wins are quickly dismissed if the opponent is not at least a HOFer.
Thoughts?
The Calzaghe win over Lacy and the Mayweather win over Baldomir. At the time they were both lauded as opponents, now they're widely discredited.
Has the average fan descended so far? It appears every win is now examined far more than beforehand and merely "good" wins are quickly dismissed if the opponent is not at least a HOFer.
Thoughts?
Comment