Can the status of a win change retroactively?

[BrometheusBob.]

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.

The value of a fight ought not to change over time, but I think the general opinion of the value of a fight does change over time. This is mostly due to the fact that new fans of the sport look back at the old fights with full knowledge of the aftermath and it colors their perception. That's why I said what I said above about Garcia/Matthysse - people looking back on it in the future will see that Matthysse went on to fail to win any world titles and that will inevitably affect how they see that fight.

[The Gambler1981]

Nothing takes place in a vacuum and fighters like all humans are not perfect. Some nights they show up others they do not. Frequently people make much too much out of one fight and even if a guy is on the slide they might pull it together for a night.

You have to look at all the evidence, and take it all into account to really judge. If someone is not doing that then they are blindly judging, evidence that pops up after or during a fight is just as meaningful as evidence before a fight.

Still a good win is always going to be a pretty good win, a good win is not going to go to trash and a trash win is not going to become good. Adjustments, not huge changes generally speaking of course.

[Holystroke3]

I think a win can look better in retrospect, but I don't like to downgrade a win after the fact

[Cheek busting]

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.

Excellent points.

I can see merits in both sides - I just wanted to generate a discussion.

I think this is a great post, doe.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

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.

I agree with this one. It's all about the time of the fight and where both guys were going in. Say, if Nicolas Walters does nothing the rest of his career, he was still undefeated going in with some credible wins on his resume and obviously solid punching power. In retrospect, people could look back and say it didn't matter. Loma was way better going in, but we really didn't know if Walters would be able to connect and the axe man has plenty of power. So you have to look at it like that. What was at stake going in?

[Motorcity Cobra]

It kinda depends. Look at Tevin Farmer for example. I think his early four loses were bad management. This guy had limited amateur experience, started boxing in his late teens and they put him in there with Pedraza in his 12th pro fight.

[iamboxing]

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?

if a pacquiao rin one titre maywarer go

[TheCleaner]

groves win over degale has likely been elevated since he became a champion and the collision course is set up nicely if both get through their next fights. similarly when some bloke knocked another one out in front of 80k at wembley (who was the again?) that if said knocked out bloke went on to win a rematch with degale to unify multiple titles, that only enhances froch's 'legacy'... speaking of which, Andre Ward beat that then more elevated guy, so does his win go through the roof? haha

[gmc_rfc_06]

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 suggest the Mayweather fight was the main reason for the sudden decline of Shane.

After a few rounds you could see his confidence going. It got to the point that every time he tried to throw it was him getting clocked with a counter punch. To me he became visibly gun-shy in that fight and never recovered.

[Dr Rumack]

Yes, of course. Why would you deliberately ignore relevant information?