Why is it that.....

[{Pito}]

.....If fighter A beats everyone easily even if they're tailor made opponents then he's considered great?
And if fighter B beats everyone, even those not tailor made, but has tough times then he's not considered as great? Even though fighter B fought people that were threats and barely made it he still beat EVERYONE regardless of style and in their prime.

Does fighter B not warrent even more respect and admiration than fighter A? Or do you have to make every fight look easy to be considered great?

Im not talking about anyone specific just something I've seen from "fight fans" who probably have daddy issues and or are looking for superheroes.



Edit: One more thing. Why do fighters who dont jump around weight classes considered ducks or not as good? So what if the guy decides to spend his career in his own weight class AND dominates. He NEEDS to move up to be considered good? What kind of bullshyt is that?

[Russian Crushin]

Broner made the Rings #6 P4P list after beating demarco yet maiadana only made # 9 at WW for beating Broner.

Certain fighters like Broner and canelo are expect to be big stars so they get some bull**** push which is based almost entirely on promised potential then actual fighters beat

[{Pito}]

Broner made the Rings #6 P4P list after beating demarco yet maiadana only made # 9 at WW for beating Broner.

Certain fighters like Broner and canelo are expect to be big stars so they get some bull**** push which is based almost entirely on promised potential then actual fighters beat

Who you blame? Fans or promoters? I mean sure both get equal blame but do you blame the machine pushing certain people or the people who want or believe they want certain people?

[Russian Crushin]

Who you blame? Fans or promoters? I mean sure both get equal blame but do you blame the machine pushing certain people or the people who want or believe they want certain people?

It's mostly the promoters, they push guys like berto, canelo and Broner down our throats as the next big things from a young ago and then baby them. I mean the best win among those 3 is probably collazo. It's crazy

[ImStillHere]

.....If fighter A beats everyone easily even if they're tailor made opponents then he's considered great?
And if fighter B beats everyone, even those not tailor made, but has tough times then he's not considered as great? Even though fighter B fought people that were threats and barely made it he still beat EVERYONE regardless of style and in their prime.

Does fighter B not warrent even more respect and admiration than fighter A? Or do you have to make every fight look easy to be considered great?

Im not talking about anyone specific just something I've seen from "fight fans" who probably have daddy issues and or are looking for superheroes.



Edit: One more thing. Why do fighters who dont jump around weight classes considered ducks or not as good? So what if the guy decides to spend his career in his own weight class AND dominates. He NEEDS to move up to be considered good? What kind of bullshyt is that?

Because easy is the new cool. Think about it, back in older movies the fight scenes are brutal, last ages and both guys usually roll around on the floor for a while. Now it's all about showing as little effort as possible. Think about Neo beating the crap out of agents with one hand behind his back, or Tony Jaa just taking one kick to demolish a guy that seemed indestructible, that's cool as ****. And that's what fighters like Floyd represent to people.

[ImStillHere]

It's mostly the promoters, they push guys like berto, canelo and Broner down our throats as the next big things from a young ago and then baby them. I mean the best win among those 3 is probably collazo. It's crazy

In a fight many people taught Collazo won. But Canelo's trout win is the best.

[ИATAS]

In a fight many people taught Collazo won. But Canelo's trout win is the best.

Which Canelo barely won and had that ******ed open scoring system by the wbc

[4Corners]

Can't believe Maidana only at #9 for RING. He should be #4.

[Grimgash]

.....If fighter A beats everyone easily even if they're tailor made opponents then he's considered great?
And if fighter B beats everyone, even those not tailor made, but has tough times then he's not considered as great? Even though fighter B fought people that were threats and barely made it he still beat EVERYONE regardless of style and in their prime.

Does fighter B not warrent even more respect and admiration than fighter A? Or do you have to make every fight look easy to be considered great?

Im not talking about anyone specific just something I've seen from "fight fans" who probably have daddy issues and or are looking for superheroes.



Edit: One more thing. Why do fighters who dont jump around weight classes considered ducks or not as good? So what if the guy decides to spend his career in his own weight class AND dominates. He NEEDS to move up to be considered good? What kind of bullshyt is that?

Jumping weight classes is what is classified as greatness for the most part. Being able to take on bigger and bigger guys and using your abilities to hang in there. A lot of people fighting in their weight class rehydrate way over it...which is fine a lot of boxers do it but...you get more credit taking on harder and harder fights. Also dominating your own weight class has limitations....especially now not many weight classes are loaded with a careers worth of quality fighters to face...look at 168 and Ward....who's left to fight?