Discredting Wins?

**Larry the boss** · 02-10-2014, 02:34 PM

People discredit wins won by fighters they dislike...and if a fighter they like fights the same damn fighter afterwards then somehow it is then a great win

**Spray_resistant** · 02-10-2014, 02:36 PM

Depends in what context like Tim Bradley over Pac, he didn't win the fight plain and simple it was a robbery Pac won clearly but no one can discredit a quality win where someone did win when favored to lose or beat a fighter who was highly regarded at the time.

**Box-Office** · 02-10-2014, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Spray_resistant

Depends in what context like Tim Bradley over Pac, he didn't win the fight plain and simple it was a robbery Pac won clearly but no one can discredit a quality win where someone did win when favored to lose or beat a fighter who was highly regarded at the time.

Yeh no doubt that was a robbery. Thats like saying Rios beat Abril. But to say things like Matthysse is a hype job after Garcia is unfair with Garcia as he was the one suppose to get KOed.

**The Big Dunn** · 02-10-2014, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Box-Office

Yeh no doubt that was a robbery. Thats like saying Rios beat Abril. But to say things like Matthysse is a hype job after Garcia is unfair with Garcia as he was the one suppose to get KOed.

Matthysse was being hailed as the next big thing in boxing. He got beaten by a fighter he was favored against that he was supposed to KO.

Is he a hype job, maybe thats too strong. But posters paid more attention to HOW he was winning rather than WHO the wins came against. They also discounted his losses.

In that regard, he was over hyped because posters assumed he would defeat top tier opponents the same way he was lesser opposition.

**TOBYLEE1** · 02-10-2014, 04:40 PM

People to often when a fighter loses they call them a hype jobs or say they should retire, got exposed, was not good to start with anyway, etc.

Or got a million excuses why their favorite fighter lost. Khan's win over Maidana shouldn't be discredited but he did wobble to victory.

No different how they discredit Garcia's wins over Khan and Lucas. In a rematch ppl assure me that Garcia will lose and have a million and one excuses why either guy lost

**Box-Office** · 02-10-2014, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by The Big Dunn

Matthysse was being hailed as the next big thing in boxing. He got beaten by a fighter he was favored against that he was supposed to KO.

Is he a hype job, maybe thats too strong. But posters paid more attention to HOW he was winning rather than WHO the wins came against. They also discounted his losses.

In that regard, he was over hyped because posters assumed he would defeat top tier opponents the same way he was lesser opposition.

You can call him a hype job thats fine as Lacy turned out to be the same. But at the time Matthysee was as you stated "next big thing" so the fact Garcia toppled him in such a classy manner makes Garcia more elite and his win should not be discredited in the future IF Matthysse fails to impress ever again. So the point of this thread is to look at wins from the perspective of what those fiters meant at that time regardless of how they turned out after. No doubt Maidana became better which shines on Khan but even if he retired after Alexander it shouldnt have been taken away from Khan how he overcame the boogeyman of that time.

**The Big Dunn** · 02-10-2014, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Box-Office

You can call him a hype job thats fine as Lacy turned out to be the same. But at the time Matthysee was as you stated "next big thing" so the fact Garcia toppled him in such a classy manner makes Garcia more elite and his win should not be discredited in the future IF Matthysse fails to impress ever again. So the point of this thread is to look at wins from the perspective of what those fiters meant at that time regardless of how they turned out after. No doubt Maidana became better which shines on Khan but even if he retired after Alexander it shouldnt have been taken away from Khan how he overcame the boogeyman of that time.

I get what you are saying.

I had danny beating Matts because I didn't think Matts could win other than KOing Danny. matts was good but I felt NSB over rated him becuase of his power.

I had Khan beating Maidana as well. I think the issue is NSB tends to over rate fighters with power.

**Box-Office** · 02-10-2014, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by TOBYLEE1

People to often when a fighter loses they call them a hype jobs or say they should retire, got exposed, was not good to start with anyway, etc.

Or got a million excuses why their favorite fighter lost. Khan's win over Maidana shouldn't be discredited but he did wobble to victory.

No different how they discredit Garcia's wins over Khan and Lucas. In a rematch ppl assure me that Garcia will lose and have a million and one excuses why either guy lost

That annoyes the pi$$ out of me. I mean one loss and hes exposed. Its true for guys like Bute or Chavez with cupcake fites but someone like Abner Mares who has such an excellent resume was also being called exposed after one loss.

**The Gambler1981** · 02-10-2014, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by The Big Dunn

I get what you are saying.

I had danny beating Matts because I didn't think Matts could win other than KOing Danny. matts was good but I felt NSB over rated him becuase of his power.

I had Khan beating Maidana as well. I think the issue is NSB tends to over rate fighters with power.

Any fighter with an obvious attribute gets over rated, power and speed are the most obvious ones as they are easy to understand for anyone with eyes.

The more important stuff is much less obvious even for someone who watches a ton of boxing, because how can you tell what is going through someones brain just looking at them unless it is some obvious Tyson-Spinks type shit where the look of fear is undeniable.

Discredting Wins?