Discredting Wins?

[The Gambler1981]

Well if you are really being honest some wins to need to be taken with a grain of salt. There is really no way around it, if you really want to get down to the bottom of why fights went a certain way.

[kiaba360]

Some victories don't age well, some aren't that great to begin with. I think it's acceptable to critique a victory before the match-up and years after.

[MisterHardtop]

Some victories don't age well, some aren't that great to begin with. I think it's acceptable to critique a victory before the match-up and years after.

Not really, unless that victory was obtained via dubious circumstances.

Every other win should be taken for what it was at the time, an example many have used here is the Danny Garcia v Lucas Matthysse fight held last year. It was a very good match up between the hardest hitter in the sport and a man wanting to prove his own worth. Garcia's win should never be tainted by Matthysse's lack of lustre in the latter rounds or people claiming his was a "hype job". Garcia pulled off an upset and in parts, looked great doing it.

Slightly off topic, I believe Garcia to be the best young champion in the sport today. He has the poise and temperament in the ring of a 30 year old and can adapt as good as anybody I have seen in quite some time. I believe, if he stays at 140, he will dominate for years to come.

[Box-Office]

Not really, unless that victory was obtained via dubious circumstances.

Every other win should be taken for what it was at the time, an example many have used here is the Danny Garcia v Lucas Matthysse fight held last year. It was a very good match up between the hardest hitter in the sport and a man wanting to prove his own worth. Garcia's win should never be tainted by Matthysse's lack of lustre in the latter rounds or people claiming his was a "hype job". Garcia pulled off an upset and in parts, looked great doing it.

Slightly off topic, I believe Garcia to be the best young champion in the sport today. He has the poise and temperament in the ring of a 30 year old and can adapt as good as anybody I have seen in quite some time. I believe, if he stays at 140, he will dominate for years to come.

Pretty much what i meant to say. Also agreed with Garcia being best young champion and thats from a Khan fan. Id definitely want Khan to fite and beat Garcia but other than that hes a great fiter.

[MisterHardtop]

Pretty much what i meant to say. Also agreed with Garcia being best young champion and thats from a Khan fan. Id definitely want Khan to fite and beat Garcia but other than that hes a great fiter.

A Khan rematch would be great, however long it lasts. I think Khan has lost the prime of his career, due to physical deterioration (he just doesn't look after his body) and a trainer who doesn't understand him. Garcia would probably stop Khan again but it may take longer this time around.

[WilkinsOlajuwon]

Is this really a serious question?

[kiaba360]

Not really, unless that victory was obtained via dubious circumstances.

Every other win should be taken for what it was at the time, an example many have used here is the Danny Garcia v Lucas Matthysse fight held last year. It was a very good match up between the hardest hitter in the sport and a man wanting to prove his own worth. Garcia's win should never be tainted by Matthysse's lack of lustre in the latter rounds or people claiming his was a "hype job". Garcia pulled off an upset and in parts, looked great doing it.

Slightly off topic, I believe Garcia to be the best young champion in the sport today. He has the poise and temperament in the ring of a 30 year old and can adapt as good as anybody I have seen in quite some time. I believe, if he stays at 140, he will dominate for years to come.

Garcia's best win is Matts. What happens in Matt's career moving forward won't hurt Garcia's win or his performance, but it could improve a fan's opinion of him if Matts bounces back.

[Jsmooth9876]

There is always going to be people who discredit wins based on the fact the other guy was a "hype job" or now the loser is better and will win if they rematched. Dont you guys think its better to look at the fite from the perspective of when it happened what those two guys meant at the time.

For example: Jeff Lacy was wat we call Hype Job, but when Calzaghe fought him he was suppose to be 2nd coming of Tyson. Now i dont like Calzaghe but credit where its due.

2nd: Maidana's win over Ortiz is discredited cuz Ortiz didnt live up to his potential of being 2nd coming of De La Hoya yet when they fought Maidana was a stepping stone Ortiz was gonna have an easy nite against.

3rd: Khan beat Maidana when Maidana was considered GGG at the time yet now ppl come out saying Maidana will beat Khan today. He may as well but at the time Khan was suppose to lose by a devastating KO heard across the world.

So i think we should look at wins from the perspective of wat each fiter meant at the time and their chances.

Thoughts??????

Completely agree with everything. When you fight someone means 100x more then just the name you beat. Ali got beat up at the end of his career and yes, those wins count, but the guys that beat him could never say they beat a prime Ali could they? Lots of people just get caught up in a name on a record and that's total BS.