Why do some boxers get praised for winning by decision whilst others get discredited?

[Mr Objecitivity]

Why does this double, triple or more of those standards exist among boxing fans? When one boxer wins a decision by shutout, winning every round in the process. They get criticized for being exposed or lacking this or that ability. Whilst when other boxers accomplish this exact same feat. They are credited and praised for displaying 'high level boxing skills'.

An example of this would be Artur Beterbiev taking 12 rounds to stop Enrico Koelling. Despite Beterbiev winning every round comfortably until the 12th where he eventually dropped and finished off Koelling. Some of the fans are discrediting Beterbiev for apparently being 'exposed' or 'not being good enough' or 'lacking x, y or z ability'. Another similar example is Alexander Povetkin beating Christian Hammer by shutout 12 rounds decision and ends up being discredited similarly to how Beterbiev was discredited by those fans after his win over Koelling.

Yet, when Andre Ward beats someone like Alexander Brand or Sullivan Barrera by decision. It somehow apparently shows Andre Ward is such a 'skilled boxer' with such 'high level boxing abilities', according to those same fans discrediting decision victories of Beterbiev and Povetkin. Even though Andre Ward pretty much accomplished the same feat as the other two boxers?

Why do these multiple standards exist for different boxers? Why can't every boxer be judged / evaluated by the same standard?

[DinoCop]

Thats bcz ppl here are politicians rather than boxing fans, they have to promote their worthless worldviews.

[DuckAdonis]

Beterbiev doesnt even have any decision victories bro 100% KO ratio

[Mr Objecitivity]

Beterbiev doesnt even have any decision victories bro 100% KO ratio

Buh Buh he went 12 rounds with Enrico Koelling DOE DOE DOE

[P4PLoser]

Because some have different skin color.

There I said it

[Robbie Barrett]

Andre Ward has proven his ability over the best fighters in the damn sport. Beterbiew hasn't proven ****. Shut your troll ass up. ******.

[HarvardBlue]

Why does this double, triple or more of those standards exist among boxing fans? When one boxer wins a decision by shutout, winning every round in the process. They get criticized for being exposed or lacking this or that ability. Whilst when other boxers accomplish this exact same feat. They are credited and praised for displaying 'high level boxing skills'.

An example of this would be Artur Beterbiev taking 12 rounds to stop Enrico Koelling. Despite Beterbiev winning every round comfortably until the 12th where he eventually dropped and finished off Koelling. Some of the fans are discrediting Beterbiev for apparently being 'exposed' or 'not being good enough' or 'lacking x, y or z ability'. Another similar example is Alexander Povetkin beating Christian Hammer by shutout 12 rounds decision and ends up being discredited similarly to how Beterbiev was discredited by those fans after his win over Koelling.

Yet, when Andre Ward beats someone like Alexander Brand or Sullivan Barrera by decision. It somehow apparently shows Andre Ward is such a 'skilled boxer' with such 'high level boxing abilities', according to those same fans discrediting decision victories of Beterbiev and Povetkin. Even though Andre Ward pretty much accomplished the same feat as the other two boxers?

Why do these multiple standards exist for different boxers? Why can't every boxer be judged / evaluated by the same standard?

I think a better example would be Golovkin. You know that's what you were getting at, why not just say it? He was billed as an unstoppable monster with a near perfect KO ratio. Danny Jacobs was supposed to be chinny and was expected to get demolished in a few rounds. Golovkin's team and fans held him to a different standard. When it went 12 rounds not only did the critics say he was exposed but the excuse from his fans was that he was old. Everyone knows Ward or Mayweather are not KO artists. No one hold them to the same standards as fighters like Golovkin, Kovalev, or even Beterbiev. When Stevens went 12 rounds with Fonfara he was supposedly exposed. No one made any excuse that he was old.

[sunny31]

Why does this double, triple or more of those standards exist among boxing fans? When one boxer wins a decision by shutout, winning every round in the process. They get criticized for being exposed or lacking this or that ability. Whilst when other boxers accomplish this exact same feat. They are credited and praised for displaying 'high level boxing skills'.

An example of this would be Artur Beterbiev taking 12 rounds to stop Enrico Koelling. Despite Beterbiev winning every round comfortably until the 12th where he eventually dropped and finished off Koelling. Some of the fans are discrediting Beterbiev for apparently being 'exposed' or 'not being good enough' or 'lacking x, y or z ability'. Another similar example is Alexander Povetkin beating Christian Hammer by shutout 12 rounds decision and ends up being discredited similarly to how Beterbiev was discredited by those fans after his win over Koelling.

Yet, when Andre Ward beats someone like Alexander Brand or Sullivan Barrera by decision. It somehow apparently shows Andre Ward is such a 'skilled boxer' with such 'high level boxing abilities', according to those same fans discrediting decision victories of Beterbiev and Povetkin. Even though Andre Ward pretty much accomplished the same feat as the other two boxers?

Why do these multiple standards exist for different boxers? Why can't every boxer be judged / evaluated by the same standard?

You are giving linear interpretations to complicated questions and expecting linear answers. Fact is every fight, and every situation is different and needs to be judged on its own merit.

Also comes down to expectations vs reality, which fans themselves are as guilty as anyone of over-hyping and building up expectations.

If I take your example - normally fighters who have accomplished a lot and been in with the best, fans have a fix on their level and the pattern their fights tend to follow. Those fighters have also probably earned more leeway for a stale performance because of those overall accomplishments. We are talking about someone like Ward now.

After those Barrera and Brand performances he was getting stick anyway, he got hit more than normal against Barrera and fought below par against Brand. But lots of people still picking him over Kovalev because at his best, people have seen what he is capable of. He shuts down top level fighters, but he's not a knock out artist.

When you look at Beterbiev - his reputation has been built on being a fearsome puncher who puts his opponent under pressure. He will be judged on the effectiveness of his style, and his ability to take that style to elite level. He hasn't fought at elite level yet, so at this stage people are trying to interpret if he's good enough. I guess if he's already being taken deep into fights, looked ok, and he hasn't reached top level yet, people are going to question his credentials because he doesn't have that track record.

Fair or not that's how it goes. Maybe Koeilling was just very durable, time will tell.

No offence though, but comparing two fighters with two completely different styles is not smart, and whilst double standards do exist, I don't think this is a good example at all.

[pasawayako]

Best example.
Pac vs Mosley
Floyd vs Mosley

Pac got discredited for knocking down and winning every rounds.

Floyd got credited for being almost knock down and winning the decision.

[Robbie Barrett]

Best example.
Pac vs Mosley
Floyd vs Mosley

Pac got discredited for knocking down and winning every rounds.

Floyd got credited for being almost knock down and winning the decision.

Mayweather gets hardly any credit for that fight. Even though Mosley was the lineal champ and Pacquiao ducked him. Pacquiao's trainer even said Mosley was "too good"