Can the status of a win change retroactively?

[KillaCamNZ]

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.

Since when is the benefit of a broader range of information, and the ability to review information with a better understanding of context - considered hypothetically drawn conclusions and uncertain? Being able to look at a body of work entirely DECREASES the need to be hypothetical, because there are simply less blanks to fill.

Uncertainty is looking at the current state of things in a vacuum, and trying to draw an accurate conclusion.

Only an NSB poster could argue that more information is bad for understanding.

[Sid-Knee]

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?

I agree a win should look better if the beaten fighter goes on to do something worthwhile. But not in this case as Helenious was shot to pieces. So Wilder doesn't look better for beating Duhumpus.

And don't forget that Duhumpus lost to one of the worst fighters in the heavyweight division in Pianeta. That's how bad Duhumpus is.

If however he does actually beat someone decent, then my view will change. But not until.

[The Smash]

Of course it does.

For example, not a lot of people thought highly of Azumah Nelson, when Sanchez faced him, but his stock rose on that fight and his subsequent success shows that it was an "A" win.

[LoadedWraps]

Since when is the benefit of a broader range of information, and the ability to review information with a better understanding of context - considered hypothetically drawn conclusions and uncertain? Being able to look at a body of work entirely DECREASES the need to be hypothetical, because there are simply less blanks to fill.

Uncertainty is looking at the current state of things in a vacuum, and trying to draw an accurate conclusion.

Only an NSB poster could argue that more information is bad for understanding.

Because all of that information after the fact is irrelevant, because it is precisely, after the fact.

Trying to put stock into irrelevant points in time is misusing data and misleading fans.

[KillaCamNZ]

Because all of that information after the fact is irrelevant, because it is precisely, after the fact.

That doesn't explain anything at all. I'm well aware that you think it's irrelevant, but while I have made a point to explain my opposing view, you're just saying the same thing - what, not why.

Why is information after the fact irrelevant? We're in a position where we are trying to better understand a situation - there's no reason why (unless you're choosing to make an arbitrary point) information "after the fact" should be ignored.

I don't know what is going to happen tomorrow, but when tomorrow comes, I'll better understand today. That's not rocket science.

Do you want some examples?

[BendOver]

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.

I don't think trout rolled over against Lara, he was outclassed and outgunned, actually Lara is the only fighter that has dominated him, all his other losses has been close, I think you are trying to downplay the Cuban win instead of giving him credit,