Can the status of a win change retroactively?

[Cheek busting]

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

YASSS!!! Hahah I refer to DeGale as "SOG: SON OF GINGER"!

[KillaCamNZ]

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.

One could argue that only looking at the state-of-opinion at the time, and not allowing views to change based on further information being received (ie subsequent results), is quite narrow minded.

Someone may be viewed as a runaway freight train up until a point where they are defeated. The view at that time may be that the victor stopped a rampaging bull - but we may not know just how overrated that person was, until they lose the next fight and the next after.

It's a little like AJ. He's widely viewed as an absolute beast who is the future of the sport. Klitchko beating him now, can mean two things - depending on whether AJ starts a losing streak after being exposed, or he bounces back and trounces guys in succession to show he is damn good, just beaten by a better guy on the night. Because we don't have enough on AJ today to know what he really is, how can we value the result of AJ V Klitchko 100%, until we actually know what he really is? Knowledge is King.

Views can, and should change, if the situation is appropriate. Because what we know today, we didn't know yesterday.

[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.

I forgot to make my point when I wrote this. Farmer has become a really good fighter. I don't think Pedraza's win over him boosts Pedraza but if Pedraza was to fight him and beat him again I think it would enhance his resume. One guy that beat Farmer is now 4-4 and has lost his last three. He stopped Farmer in his debut fight and was also Farmer's debut fight. Farmer really had some bad management.

[TheCell8]

Of course. That's more impressive than if a fighter beats someone that is undefeated, or is very highly ranked, and that fighter that they beat falls off a cliff and doesn't do **** afterwards. All that means is that you exposed someone before someone else did.

But if a fighter you beat goes on to have a great career that looks even better on your legacy. A great example is Lennox Lewis and Vitali Klitschko. Vitali Klitschko's success in the post Lewis/Tyson era bolstered Lewis' legacy. It's probably one of his top 3 wins. But at the time it was just another good opponent.

[BM dnobagaV]

Floyd's victory over Mosley has looked worse with time.
It's basically Floyd sending Mosley into "shot" territory, previously being past-it.
Not as good a victory as when Cotto beat him, but slightly better than when Pacquiao or Canelo beat him.

[LoadedWraps]

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.

Yea but what you do is give me a reason for it but a reason isn't an excuse.

It's a pet peeve of mine that a fan does his homework and does his research and isn't an ignorant fool about what took place before he got into it. Don't tell me they don't have time, don't act like you love this sport if you don't make time to study tape.

[IFightDirty]

I think example of this is Margaritos win over Sergio Martinez. Sergio Martinez was just any other fighter at the time but eventually became MW champ and a p4p fighter.

[mick1303]

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

True.
I think giving credit retroactively is a more legitimate concept than taking credit away. Because fighters get ruined sometimes. Physically and mentally. And the fact that they start losing to inferior competition may very well be the sign of decline than the proof that they were never good to begin with. Whereas the other case is clean as a whistle: the opponent who was degraded (in most cases due to fans agendas) is simple better than he was given credit.

[LoadedWraps]

One could argue that only looking at the state-of-opinion at the time, and not allowing views to change based on further information being received (ie subsequent results), is quite narrow minded.

Someone may be viewed as a runaway freight train up until a point where they are defeated. The view at that time may be that the victor stopped a rampaging bull - but we may not know just how overrated that person was, until they lose the next fight and the next after.

That's the whole point of maintaining the sancticty of that position in the first place - because it destroys conclusions based on hypotheticals like the very one you begin to break down here!!!!


This is exactly what I am talking about folks.


"overrated" is 100% your opinion, so don't couple it with "we may not know" like it would be some irrefutable fact.

And no, it's not narrow minded, it's objective, fair, reasonable, and sensical. Or basically the exact opposite of what you suggest instead - uncertainty, hypothetically drawn conclusions, and the convenience of hindsight.

[DeadLikeMe]

No amount of crying Filipinos will ever erase Manny failing in front of the world.