Big fights/wins were the loser came off 12+ months of inactivity

[chrisJS]

so what are we doing here? agreeing that crawford shouldnt get credit and just deflecting?

No. Though I acknowledge that Gamboa was the much smaller man it was still a good win because of timing. Crawford was a brand new World Champ and was inexperienced at that level. It was a great fight for his development. I think had Crawford already scored the Beltran and Postol wins and then wrecked Gamboa he wouldn't get as much credit.

[.!WAR MIKEY!.]

No. Though I acknowledge that Gamboa was the much smaller man it was still a good win because of timing. Crawford was a brand new World Champ and was inexperienced at that level. It was a great fight for his development. I think had Crawford already scored the Beltran and Postol wins and then wrecked Gamboa he wouldn't get as much credit.

I disagree for teh exact reason you stated "much smaller" + "12 month layoff" is already stacked up against gamboa and also you state "because of timing" yeah good timing for crawford bad timing for gamboa. So not a legit win cause if Crawford didn't have those 3 thing in his favor he doesn't win.

[HarvardBlue]

Would it have been tainted wins if these fights went the opposite direction? Once you step in the ring you're considered prepared to fight. All but one of the losers did very well early on in each fight. Martinez lasted 9 rounds being inactive and having a bad leg. Was Cotto expected to forfeit the fight and give him another opportunity down the line?

[The Big Dunn]

we are not talking about the same thing. you're trying to make fanboys eat crow, and i'm evaluating a win without giving a f#ck about what some f#ggots posted seven years ago. it was not a great win. has nothing to do with what was said prior. we know shane had little to nothing left, that he looked garbage aginst mayorga, that he was on the slide three years prior when he lost to cotto, and that the margarito win was pretty much useless and that shane had no business on the p4p list in 2009.

My point is simple- how you saw the fight prior to it should determine how you rate the win. That is the exact same thing you are saying.

You listed why Shane's status was a "mirage". I said if you looked at it as a real boxing fan, then you'd have considered all of this when discussing the fight.

I have no issue with you saying it wasn't a great win. I have an issue with those who viewed Shane completely different prior, then changed that because he lost, then judge the win.

[chrisJS]

I disagree for teh exact reason you stated "much smaller" + "12 month layoff" is already stacked up against gamboa and also you state "because of timing" yeah good timing for crawford bad timing for gamboa. So not a legit win cause if Crawford didn't have those 3 thing in his favor he doesn't win.

He does. Their careers kind of support that theory.

However, it is true he didn't beat the best of Gamboa. Nor did Gamboa face the best of him.

[chrisJS]

Would it have been tainted wins if these fights went the opposite direction? Once you step in the ring you're considered prepared to fight. All but one of the losers did very well early on in each fight. Martinez lasted 9 rounds being inactive and having a bad leg. Was Cotto expected to forfeit the fight and give him another opportunity down the line?

No. He did what he had to, but Martinez was diminished coming into the fight and obviously the layoff probably didn't help.

[IronDanHamza]

Mayweather-Marquez
Mayweather-Ortiz

[chrisJS]

Mayweather-Marquez
Mayweather-Ortiz

They didn't lose. The topic is when the loser of the fight was possibly at a disadvantage due to ring rust.

[IronDanHamza]

They didn't lose. The topic is when the loser of the fight was possibly at a disadvantage due to ring rust.

Oh sorry I misread the question.

[TheCleaner]

One that gets discredited as a win is Lomachenko - Walters (11 Months)