Does having a great career sometimes manipulate our opinions on h2h matchups?

[them_apples]

To elaborate,

You have a fighter who has a fast start, looks incredible and beats some very tough competition, however poor training habits and drug problems may have derailed his career. So in the history books this fighter may not rank as high as someone who stayed professional for a long time but didn't have as nice of a prime.

the other end of the spectrum you have a talented fighter but not a phenom, faced a lot of average competition and edged out some good opponents, they had a nice long career and held titles for a long time but no real ATG career defining win that shows they are a level above the mortal fighter.

essentially it's the quantity over quality argument..

It was brought to my attention from recent threads about Hopkins vs Toney and Duran vs Leonard.

Both Toney and Duran had some vicious primes but are often overlooked too quickly by less informed boxing fans (sorry) because they had poor training habits.

Obviously its not always the fighters fault, Hopkins screamed for a rematch over Jones his entire career, and rewatching the first fight Hopkins switches to a philly pressure fighter for the last few rounds and does quite well...

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Tyson and Oscar both suffer from this... Only fights people talk about are the later career losses.. It seems only people who actually watched boxing then realize how good they were..

New fans just seem to think these guys are hype jobs that lost every big fight which is just not accurate...


Conversely if you are only around for a short period but career cut short then you get turned into some mythical fighter right or wrong, because people never got to see your downfall... Think Sanchez, Ike, Valero, pryor, etc...

I swear if mike Tyson had tragically died in 1989, he would be universally regarded as a top 5 ATG heavy, let him get a few past prime losses and suddenly he is jeff lacy..

[beez721]

Tyson and Oscar both suffer from this... Only fights people talk about are the later career losses.. It seems only people who actually watched boxing then realize how good they were..

New fans just seem to think these guys are hype jobs that lost every big fight which is just not accurate...


Conversely if you are only around for a short period but career cut short then you get turned into some mythical fighter right or wrong, because people never got to see your downfall... Think Sanchez, Ike, Valero, pryor, etc...

I swear if mike Tyson had tragically died in 1989, he would be universally regarded as a top 5 ATG heavy, let him get a few past prime losses and suddenly he is jeff lacy..

that's kinda what has always ticked me off about mayweather. granted,,,,mayweather is and was great but Oscar dlh imo was every bit as great but he lost a handful of fights because he fought the absolute best in there primes and never cherry picked. seems like today,, the"o" is everything in terms of greatness instead of challenging yourself against the most difficult syles matchups

[them_apples]

I agree, we also are seeing a lot of mythical undefeated fighters who have done a lot of cherry picking to get that perfect career and make a lot of money. Then there are fighters who will fight anyone but get the short end of the stick.

[jas]

Bhop ranks higher in ATG rankings than he would on a h2h basis

And I think people correctly factor in his lack of exceptional speed , power and athleticism in fantasy match ups

[K-DOGG]

To elaborate,

You have a fighter who has a fast start, looks incredible and beats some very tough competition, however poor training habits and drug problems may have derailed his career. So in the history books this fighter may not rank as high as someone who stayed professional for a long time but didn't have as nice of a prime.

the other end of the spectrum you have a talented fighter but not a phenom, faced a lot of average competition and edged out some good opponents, they had a nice long career and held titles for a long time but no real ATG career defining win that shows they are a level above the mortal fighter.

essentially it's the quantity over quality argument..

It was brought to my attention from recent threads about Hopkins vs Toney and Duran vs Leonard.

Both Toney and Duran had some vicious primes but are often overlooked too quickly by less informed boxing fans (sorry) because they had poor training habits.

Obviously its not always the fighters fault, Hopkins screamed for a rematch over Jones his entire career, and rewatching the first fight Hopkins switches to a philly pressure fighter for the last few rounds and does quite well...

Perhaps, to some extent (more for some), however, a fighter's weaknesses, aka drugs, poor training habbiits, etc are also indicative of a fighter's mental and psychological make-up, and therefore relevant in certain situations.

Tyson' for example, relied heavily n Rooney, whom he had the most success under, so logically, one would pick that Tyson as a "peak example. However, under Rooney, we never saw Tyson combat the kind of challenge he had when facing Holyfield or Douglas. Regardless of whether or not Rooney was in the corner to settle him down, as in the Tucker fight, Mike would have to find a way not to he frustrated and find the will within, on his own, to come back and win. One cannot just presume Mike would blow everyone out of the water even with Rooney in the corner because he was extended during this time frame by lesser fighters.

Physical ability and muscle memory from good training techniques, such as were practiced during his "best years" cannot account for that moment when truly challenged and him having to dig deeper than that for the heart and will to perservere when challenged, for it is unfair to presume he'd destroy anyone as he said Sammy Scarf, Tony Tubbs, etc.

No trainer can climb into the ring with you. Its just you and the other guy. The closest Tyson came to facing that in his best years was Tony Tucker, who is no Holyfield, or even Douglas on the night he defeated Tyson, though Tucker had defeated Douglas a few years before.

Everything is relative.

[billeau2]

The point about being undefeated is a particularly good one. No fighter should be undefeated. Being undefeated is often an indication more of the lack of comp than skills. Marciano is often cited as being the champ during a lull in the heavyweight division, Calzighe is criticised for his easy fights, and Mayweather catches hell about some of the same issues. Even Ward, who really has fought everyone in his division while he was active is critisized (rightly so) for chronic inactivity and the need to keep his fights local.

Young fighters need the chance to lose and grow. Tyson Fury would have benefitted tremendously from a loss to David Haye, if Haye had won that fight. I think Chisora has learned and become a decent fighter from being in with so many good fighters, and despite his record because of his age I have no doubt he will make a championship run again.

Human beings learn from making mistakes. Fighters need to fight more and learn to use more skills in the ring. Now some people talk about the most elite fighters like Robinson. Robinson, if you count his streaks would have been undefeated for almost, if not 100 fights, and almost as many several times! But how many fighters are at that level?

More likely we see things like Miguel Cotto boxing Shane Mosley and subsequently using more skills in his game. From a very accurate body puncher Cotto has become a much more versatile fighter. Or, Tyson Fury using a tune up to work on skills that will be of great benefitt when he fights his next opponent. Wilder meanwhile, looking like he is 5% body fat, gases out throing leather at half the time that fat James Toney would...But he is undefeated!

[young_robbed]

There is some truth to this. A fighter who has a lengthy, consistent career like Mayweather will probably get the benefit of the doubt regarding H2H matchups more often than not because he was able to show off his prime form for a long time.

But I don't think he is really any better than prime Donald Curry at welterweight - that brief version of Donald Curry was really something special. His performances vs Marlon Starling, Colin Jones, Milton McCrory, and Nino La Rocca showed that much.

While Curry's prime didn't last long at all, in those fights I listed, he was ATG material. Great, sharp laser-like left jab, blistering hand speed, explosive KO power with either hand, great combination punching & athletic foot movement. He really had it all imo.

[Ray Corso]

Most fans make comparisons from common opponents or popular opponents faced.
I prefer to look at Methods & Techniques in their offense and defense along with
ring generalship and their willingness and gamesmenship when in with high quality.
Are they one dimentional or can they change and adapt during a bout if needed.
Power punching is very important to me even if the man isn't a great puncher. There are times in a bout when every man man needs to make a statement and
not allow an opponent to "walk through him". Gaining respect through punches thrown is an essential ingrediant to Methods used.
LaMotta was not a big puncher yet he was respected for his quality shots and being able to off set and hurt an opponent by accumulation.

A fighters record is certainly something to study and the more high quality skilled fighjters fought enhances his stature no doubt.
A fighters prime is considered mostly but the beginning and ending tells a great story also. Sugar Ray Robinson at the end of his great career was defeated many times by verdict. However the men who defeated him were quality contenders and no one stopped him. Most times he would come back to them and win. I remember Sugar helping to promote boxing in Hawaii and fought Stan Harrington twice there a few months apart. It doesn't hurt Robinsons status to loose to a very tough opponent at that opponents "home turf"!!! (free trip to the island was ok too)
Point being theres alot more to consider in a "successful career" than what happens in a ring.
Longevity used to mean alot and today kids get title shots with 22 fights. Far to many divisions and belts, to be a champ had much more meaning years ago with two federations intact.
To consider John Ruiz vs Roy Jones are real title fight is pretty sad to me.
Against any of the great heavies they both get destroyed!
So forget titles and common opponents mean less, look at arsonal and how its utilized. Watch the determination and willingness to control the opponent weither its agression or ring generalship. It does come down to "hit and not get hit" as to Willie Pep's explanation.
Is an individuals skills and talent and his ability to perform them enough against another mans? Thats what to look at when evaluating a fighter. If he can perform at a high level a great percentage of the time than I think the career is a success.
Ray.

[rightsideup]

Most fans make comparisons from common opponents or popular opponents faced.
I prefer to look at Methods & Techniques in their offense and defense along with
ring generalship and their willingness and gamesmenship when in with high quality.
Are they one dimentional or can they change and adapt during a bout if needed.
Power punching is very important to me even if the man isn't a great puncher. There are times in a bout when every man man needs to make a statement and
not allow an opponent to "walk through him". Gaining respect through punches thrown is an essential ingrediant to Methods used.
LaMotta was not a big puncher yet he was respected for his quality shots and being able to off set and hurt an opponent by accumulation.

A fighters record is certainly something to study and the more high quality skilled fighjters fought enhances his stature no doubt.
A fighters prime is considered mostly but the beginning and ending tells a great story also. Sugar Ray Robinson at the end of his great career was defeated many times by verdict. However the men who defeated him were quality contenders and no one stopped him. Most times he would come back to them and win. I remember Sugar helping to promote boxing in Hawaii and fought Stan Harrington twice there a few months apart. It doesn't hurt Robinsons status to loose to a very tough opponent at that opponents "home turf"!!! (free trip to the island was ok too)
Point being theres alot more to consider in a "successful career" than what happens in a ring.
Longevity used to mean alot and today kids get title shots with 22 fights. Far to many divisions and belts, to be a champ had much more meaning years ago with two federations intact.
To consider John Ruiz vs Roy Jones are real title fight is pretty sad to me.
Against any of the great heavies they both get destroyed!
So forget titles and common opponents mean less, look at arsonal and how its utilized. Watch the determination and willingness to control the opponent weither its agression or ring generalship. It does come down to "hit and not get hit" as to Willie Pep's explanation.
Is an individuals skills and talent and his ability to perform them enough against another mans? Thats what to look at when evaluating a fighter. If he can perform at a high level a great percentage of the time than I think the career is a success.
Ray.

Great post Ray!!