Consistency and Inconsistency: The Implications thereof

There are some fighters in history that are counted as great and rather formidable on a who beats who basis, even though they have been inconsistent performers. Their accolades are based on their best performances and their poor performances are excused as being irrelevant.

Inconsistency has an implication though. In every facet of life, inconsistency means " cannot be trusted" but in boxing fans excuse it.

You can't excuse it, even in boxing. If a fighter looks great on certain nights but has looked bad on a few other nights, in the exception of being obviously past his prime age or being injured, it is clear that he only looks good against certain styles and certain abilities. It would be manifest, therefore, that the boxer in question is not versatile, not multi dimensional, not adaptable and not so far above his peers that would allow for victories when things aren't going his way. He would have to be deemed as limited and as not trustworthy in Matchups, mythical or otherwise.

Consistency at the top level is the only true test that a fighter didn't benefit from styles which suit him or X factors outside of his control. Consistency is the only evidence of greatness and prowess.

Duran, for example, showed consistency at 135lbs, reigning for the best part of a decade. This showed that his good performances couldn't be flukes and that he was legitimately great at that weight. However, above lightweight he was somewhat inconsistent which suggests that he wasn't great anymore but good and could pull out great performances of the style and the circumstance suited him but if not.....the little hairy Panamanian shit, went to pieces ( with all due respect, of course)

This is just an example.

So what say you guys on this topic?

 

I say it's kind of sad how you're clinging to this guy.

 

Which guy?

 

Fightbeat must be the only boxing forum anywhere where Roberto Duran, who lost one of his first 73 fights, is described in all seriousness as 'inconsistent'.

MTF ::

 

Consistency depends on the context. A man who fights and routinely beats sub-level competition doesn't prove a great deal by beating them. Joe Calzaghe is a classic modern example - he consistently won, over and over, for many years but because most of his opponents were crap, that consistency has an asterix attached to it. Bernard Hopkins at 160 has a similar asterix.

Conversely, where a fighter routinely fights other, similar top-level fighters and wins consistently, because history proves that it is unusual for even the very best fighters to routinely win against other top-level fighters. That consistency is an obvious marker of excellence

MTF

 

Sly doesn't even attempt to hide his agenda anymore.

His next thread will probably read.... "Is there a strong correlation between a boxer's networth and his greatness?"

 

In another thread today he had the brass neck to accuse me of having an agenda.

MTF ::

 

:laughing:

Tommy Hearns vs Floyd Mayweather.


Who have more cars?

 

Great idea! ;)

 

"Being Articulate is Overrated. My Breakdown of How The Greatest Boxers of All Time are in Fact Stutterers."

 

Floyd would be really tickled if he could read Sly's posts. But he can't.

 

That Willie Pep, 135-1-1... He lacked the consistency of Money May, that's why he have loss

 

Agreed with sly. Consistency is perhaps the most important criteria in judging a fighter (if he face credible opposition) , but boxing fans tend to not give it the necessary importance.

 

:mut:

 

Consistency doesn't mean you don't "have" losses. Plenty consistent fighters through history with losses, Joe Louis for one, Hagler and Monzon, Duran at lightweight.

But beating Palomino, then losing to Lang, then beating Cuevas then getting outclassed by Benitez then beating Moore and then getting fucked up "big time bro!" by Hearns isn't consistency above Lightweight and as such I judge Duran above lightweight as good but vulnerable and in MMs a rather beatable cunt by histoy's consistent fighters.

 

I like how the timeline is squished together there :mut:

you are one adorable cunt

 

you know who is inconsistent? mayweather. one night, he impresses against corrales. the next, he wins by robbery against castillo. or, takes a shit in his own fans' mouth agaonst baldomir. looks great against gatti. goes full on vagina against odh and pacquiao. inconsistent.

 

"Double L, crafty veteran reliever... goes into the windup... and here's the pitch..."

 

::

go Indians

 

:::bears:

 

Lol

 

Doesn't matter what I post around here everyone says I have an agenda, whether it be a Mayweather , Hopkins or anti-80s or whatever. I have been condemned and sentenced already without a fair trial. So, as they say, if you're going to do the time, you may as well do the crime .

 

But he has won every time. He hasn't won any fight by " robbery". Some boring, some exciting, some by KO some by virtuoso decision. But he wins. That's consistency

 

if Mayweather had fought Hearns, hagler and leonard he'd observe consistent appointments with a fucking neurologist

 

....ntly mediocre opposition

 

::

 

What about Lang and Benitez? Style wise Mayweather loses to Hearns and Leonard but I don't see either stopping him much less bombing him out in two rounds. As for Hagler, I've said it before and will say it again , style wise Mayweather beats Hagler

 

After Mosley destroyed Margarito everyone was clamouring for a Mayweather fight. Shane even entered the ring at the end of one of mayweather's fights which causes a minor disagreement. Cool to say Floyd cherry picked him now but at the time it was seen as a legitimate fight regardless of Shane's age.

Cotto, Canelo, de la Hoya, Hatton...all top flight opposition at the time Floyd fought them.

 

At 160?:laughing::::laughing::::tick::laughing:alm:

 

Yup, but weighing no more than 150 on fight night so he can stay fast. Floyds a better fighter than hagler was and his style beats Hagler's style. He'd be too elusive for Marvin. Hagler's fight with Duran and first fight with tiny antuofermo , both of which were him in his prime, tells more all I need to know about a fight with Mayweather.