Can the status of a win change retroactively?

[Cheek busting]

For example, when Wilder beat Duhaupus, people weren't that impressed - typical Euro-bum, etc.

However, when Duhaupus proceeded to spark Helenius, it showed that while Duhaupus is still continental level, rather than world level, that he is not "just a journeyman," and that he's a legit top 15-20ish contender.


Anyway, that's just a crude example because it was still fresh on my mind from debating in the Wilder/Joshua HW lineal championship thread..... There are much better examples out there...

When at the time, a win may not look that impressive, but if that fighter goes on to beat other fighters who are highly ranked, etc., then should that win be held in higher regard? Or "it is what it is" at the time it happened?

AND, of course, should the same concept be applied in reverse? If at the time a win looks beast as hell, but that fighter goes on to lose his next tuneup fight, and the following 2 out of 3 fights, etc. Should that win then be downgraded?

[Larry the boss]

Yes if a fighter goes on to do well then the win looks better in retrospect

[Cheek busting]

Yes if a fighter goes on to do well then the win looks better in retrospect

agreed...

what about the reverse? If they start losing immediately after the fight/ Obviously in the future boxers will decline.

but say like, Mosley/Mayweather - Mosley was highly regarded cause he beat Margarito going in... but after the fight, he started getting his ass kicked, and drawing guys like Mora lol.

so was Mosley the same washed up Mosley all along? And should Floyd get less credit in retrospect? Or should it still be held as a win over "a top 10 pound for pound" boxer (AT THE TIME they fought)?

I honestly think the win over margarito was extremely overrated, after it came out he had plaster wraps.

[doubletake]

Only if it fits my agenda.
-Everyone here

Seriously though, sometimes, you have fighters that need to underperform/lose before they take things to the next level. Other times, you have fighters that lose and give up all hope after that.

I think Austin Trout is an example of both TBH. After a close loss to Canelo, Trout all but rolled over for Erislandy Lara in his very next bout. Fast forward a few fights and he gave Jermall Charlo hell in a close loss.

Things like that have to be taken in context, and are honestly pretty subjective.

[BrometheusBob.]

Happens all the time in both directions, though I think there is a greater tendency to add credit retroactively than take it away.

I bet in 10 years we will see new fans praise Mayweather/Canelo as a huge win but regard Garcia/Matthysse as unimpressive, even though both fights were considered big matchups at the time and despite that Garcia was expected to get demolished.

[Larry the boss]

agreed...

what about the reverse? If they start losing immediately after the fight/ Obviously in the future boxers will decline.

but say like, Mosley/Mayweather - Mosley was highly regarded cause he beat Margarito going in... but after the fight, he started getting his ass kicked, and drawing guys like Mora lol.

so was Mosley the same washed up Mosley all along? And should Floyd get less credit in retrospect? Or should it still be held as a win over "a top 10 pound for pound" boxer (AT THE TIME they fought)?

I honestly think the win over margarito was extremely overrated, after it came out he had plaster wraps.

What was that fighter ranked when the other fighter BEAT them? sorry you cant just discredit a person beating a top 3 p4p fighter and world champion like that..ESPECIALLY WHEN PEOPLE CLAIMED THE OTHER FIGHTER WOULD NEVER FIGHT THEM OR WOULD LOSE. Why mention that fight?? do i really have to bump threads to show where this forum was then?

[Cheek busting]

What was that fighter ranked when the other fighter BEAT them? sorry you cant just discredit a person beating a top 3 p4p fighter and world champion like that..ESPECIALLY WHEN PEOPLE CLAIMED THE OTHER FIGHTER WOULD NEVER FIGHT THEM OR WOULD LOSE. Why mention that fight?? do i really have to bump threads to show where this forum was then?

That;s the entire point - is that despite beforehand, people claiming how good he is, and how he tried to avoid the fight, etc...

Then afterwards, he never gets a legitimate win again in his career...

So in hindsight, was that win really that impressive?

[BrometheusBob.]

That;s the entire point - is that despite beforehand, people claiming how good he is, and how he tried to avoid the fight, etc...

Then afterwards, he never gets a legitimate win again in his career...

So in hindsight, was that win really that impressive?

I'd say it was a good win. Mayweather made the fight when it seemed threatening to him and when people said he wouldn't do it. He was rated P4P at the time, and at the top of the WW heap. And he actually came to win that night and did more in the first two rounds than many Mayweather opponents do in 12. That has to be worth something, despite his following decline.

[Cheek busting]

I'd say it was a good win. Mayweather made the fight when it seemed threatening to him and when people said he wouldn't do it. He was rated P4P at the time, and at the top of the WW heap. And he actually came to win that night and did more in the first two rounds than many Mayweather opponents do in 12. That has to be worth something, despite his following decline.

Yeah, I agree. I don't think it's the same as a prime Mosley, but the fact that he fought him when he did has to count for something.

But I think everybody also has to recognize that the Margarito he beat WAS NOT the Margarito who we all thought existed that beat Cotto - plaster wraps and all..


So it'd be ignorant to pretend that Mosley beat the Margarito that we thought existed going into the fight.


Also, to me, it looked like Mosley threw the towel in after about the 5th round, when he got frustrated/tired, or a combination of the two most likely.

[LoadedWraps]

For example, when Wilder beat Duhaupus, people weren't that impressed - typical Euro-bum, etc.

However, when Duhaupus proceeded to spark Helenius, it showed that while Duhaupus is still continental level, rather than world level, that he is not "just a journeyman," and that he's a legit top 15-20ish contender.


Anyway, that's just a crude example because it was still fresh on my mind from debating in the Wilder/Joshua HW lineal championship thread..... There are much better examples out there...

When at the time, a win may not look that impressive, but if that fighter goes on to beat other fighters who are highly ranked, etc., then should that win be held in higher regard? Or "it is what it is" at the time it happened?

AND, of course, should the same concept be applied in reverse? If at the time a win looks beast as hell, but that fighter goes on to lose his next tuneup fight, and the following 2 out of 3 fights, etc. Should that win then be downgraded?

NO.

And it isn't a debate. The value of a win is established at the time of the fight - who the opponent was at that moment; was he undefeated? Coming off of a loss? A win? How was he viewed by the media? Like a monster? Like hype? What was his reputation up until that moment? Those things matter when evaluating a fight performance.

Whether the opponent went on a torrid win streak, or spiraled into losses does not matter when judging a fighters resume. Anyone who tries to convince you otherwise is biased and should not be taken seriously.