Instances where a fighter has gotten too much props for losing

Of course there is a difference between a loss and a loss, but sometimes fighters get too much props for losing in less destructive manner than they were supposed to. List such instances.

Ruddock vs Tyson, Ruddock became the 'uncrowned champ' by getting badly beaten twice.

Duran vs Hagler, an obvious one

more?

 

Original thread. Rather interesting.

I think you've listed the only two examples of this in history!! ::

 

maybe JLC vs Mayweather?

 

Malinaggi vs Cotto

 

I cant really think of one....

 

You May as Well Re-Title this the 'Roberto Duran' Thread...Even when Duran LOSES, he WINS...

1. "Out of Shape" for the Loss to DeJesus, Even Though the Fight was just North of 135...

2. "Out of Shape" vs. Leonard, Even Though he KNEW Leonard Not Only had a REMATCH CLAUSE, but Fully Intended on EXERCISING It...

3. "Too Small" vs. Hearns, Though Tommy's RIGHT HAND was a Larger Concern than his Height or Reach was...

4. "Out of Shape" & "Unmotivated" in the Losses to Laing, Benitez, etc.
5. "Almost Beat" Hagler, Even Though he Really DIDN'T...

In General, Boxing Fans R Pretty UNrealistic as it Applies to their Favorites...But Roberto Duran Fans Take the Cake...Duran Gets More CREDIT & Benefits of the Doubt for LOSSES than Some Guys Do for VICTORIES...



REED

 

Good one. Extra credit for being feather fisted AND able to take a sustained beating.

I'm pretty sure Tex Cobb capitalized on a brutal beating from Larry Holmes about as well as anyone in history............Wepner against Ali is right up there to.

 

Vitali against Lewis

 

I still honestly can't think of one. I think this is one of these threads where Im just not gonna jive with the thread premise. At best this is very-very rare.

Does Tito against Oscar count? ::

 

Tarver in RJJ/Tarver 1

 

Morales vs Maidana

 

Bad example.............especially in hindsight. :nono:

 

Good one.

 

No, he should have never even gotten a rematch in the first place. ONE card had it a draw.

It's a testament to RJJ's dominance that he got a rematch. Tarver wasn't doing jack until the last 30 seconds of the round for the majority of the fight. Roy's sluggish output didn't help his own cause either.

 

Therefore, enhancing Roy's legacy, because the next two fights never really happened.

::

 

word.

GREAT fighter, but the most overrated clearly.

 

This is a good example.

 

I thought it was by far the best one so far ::

 

Duran would butt fuck Floyd, clearly.

 

And in the process enhance Roy's legacy. :bears:

 

Not really sure how one of the top 2 or 3 lightweights of all time, that moved up two divisions and defeated one of the top 2 or 3 welterweights of all time, then won titles at 154 and 160 (at 38 years old) could possibly be considered "overrated."

 

He loses points for actually fighting guys in weight classes above him, who were a threat to him............which in turn...........say it with me.


Enhances Roys legacy!

ray:

 

:bears:

 

If the fighter in question is called "greatest of all time" even if he obviously is not, then that is overrating him. Overrated does not mean same as 'not great'

 

Vitali got way too much credit for his effort against Lewis, but that's OK, the scribes have spent the last 8 years making sure that things balanced themselves out in the end.

 

Vitali against Byrd. Dude got way too much credit. He should have gotten the same credit Liston did vs Clay and Cerdan did vs LaMotta.

 

Can you name another fighter who is universally considered an all-time great in his division, that moved up 2 divisions to beat another ATG?

The only feat I can think of that sort of compares is Leonard-Hagler, but that of course was a bunch of bullshit on many levels.

 

I was gonna say something similar....

 

You make Derrida come off as a straightforward communicator sometimes, mate

 

It's not on the same level obviously but Pacquiao-ODLH

Manny moved straight up to 147 and demolished (a faded) Oscar.

Spinks-Holmes could also be in the discussion.