Is too much weight given to victories in the assessment of how good a fighter is?

[Double L]

Is winning all that counts? It certainly cannot be discounted as a major criteria in assessing how good a fighter is.

However, I think to a much greater extent than any other sport, the manner in which a fighter wins counts for a lot, or at least it should, in the evaluation of a fighter.

For example, Maskaev knocked Rahman out of the ring with one punch in his victory over him. Should that count the same as Holyfield's head-butt fueled TKO over Rahman?

Isn't it far too simplistic to simply talk in terms of who beat whom? And in doing so, doesn't it encourage fighters not to fight the best for fear of losing? And even in the case when they do fight the best, doesn't it perpetuate the safety first approach that so many fighters have adopted that create tedious and utterly boring fights, that quite possibly, could in large part account for the decline of boxing as a main-stream sport?

[REEDsART]

HOW a Guy Wins is VERY Important, but WINNING is the OBJECTIVE, Doug....U CANNOT Minimize a Clear-Cut VICTORY...

U Know the Axiom, "Win TODAY, Look Good TOMORROW"...

But When Rating 2 Fighters who NEVER Faced Each Other, MANNER of Victory is VERY Important...



REED

[D MAN]

It all comes down to the fact that boxing has been taken off mainstream tv, so when a fight happens all that 90% of sports fans know is who got the W.. and hence way too much emphasis is placed on the end result, rather than what actually happened.

I agree 100% that to much weight is given to victories. In particular too muich weight is given to KO victories.. ie most people consider a 3rd round KO to AUTOMATICALLY be far more dominant than a comprehensive 12 round beating.. but they couldn't be more wrong about it.

[Ugotabe Kidding]

I think the defining criteria should be how hotpair of thighs the fighter has

[whiskey]

I just decide who i like better before the fight. Then even if my fighter loses, i complain "how" they lost and try to diminish the other guy's accomplishment.

Winning shouldn't mean anything unless it's the fighter i like who wins.

[Trplsec]

I just decide who i like better before the fight. Then even if my fighter loses, i complain "how" they lost and try to diminish the other guy's accomplishment.

Winning shouldn't mean anything unless it's the fighter i like who wins.

Hmmmm. This is like reading between the lines.

[Double L]

I just decide who i like better before the fight. Then even if my fighter loses, i complain "how" they lost and try to diminish the other guy's accomplishment.

Winning shouldn't mean anything unless it's the fighter i like who wins.

that's an interesting point. i'll have to mull that one over. seems like you might be trying to guess at my motive for this thread - that it is my indirect way of minimizing the fact that sloppy manages to win one stink job after another and that the only time he manages a stoppage is in wales.

have you watched more than two or three of sloppy's fights? they're absolutely horrendous to watch. try watching his fight with David Starie. I think it was on the under-card of a Tyson card. It's gotta be the most tedious fight anyone has ever seen.

Even his fight with Hopkins and RJJ were for the most part boring as hell.

The Kessler fight was okay because Kessler maintained his distance and to the best of his abililty avoided a hug-fest.

But by and large, the guy wins ugly. I don't think that should be overlooked in the case of any fighter.

Fighters who win ugly win ugly because they're not good enough to win pretty.

[KaukipRrr]

that's an interesting point. i'll have to mull that one over. seems like you might be trying to guess at my motive for this thread - that it is my indirect way of minimizing the fact that sloppy manages to win one stink job after another and that the only time he manages a stoppage is in wales.

have you watched more than two or three of sloppy's fights? they're absolutely horrendous to watch. try watching his fight with David Starie. I think it was on the under-card of a Tyson card. It's gotta be the most tedious fight anyone has ever seen.

Even his fight with Hopkins and RJJ were for the most part boring as hell.

The Kessler fight was okay because Kessler maintained his distance and to the best of his abililty avoided a hug-fest.

But by and large, the guy wins ugly. I don't think that should be overlooked in the case of any fighter.

Fighters who win ugly win ugly because they're not good enough to win pretty.

You shouldn't blame the Hopkins fight on Calzaghe, infact,.. all Hopkins eye-busters are of his doing... sports writers attempt to sugar-coat 'Mr unknockoutable', with this ironic phrase,..

"Hopkins makes you fight HIS fight!"....

yep...he certainly does..