Does beating a guy FIRST make it a better win?

I hear this all the time at fightbeat - it doesn't make sense. Of course, it sometimes happens that a guy takes a real beating in his first loss (Davey Moore, Fernando Vargas, Tyrel Biggs might be examples). But they're a small minority. Just as many improve from the experience or the confidence of performing better than expected (Junior Witter, Azumah Nelson, Vitali after Lewis etc). 90% are exactly the same guy in their next big fight minus the mystique we project onto unbeaten fighters.

In the exact same vein, the fact somebody gets hyped up by the media at the time of a fight doesnt make it any greater a win in retrospect. Acknowledging that Michael Grant sucked isn't 'rewriting history', it's putting events in an objective context. Ie writing history properly.

Am I wrong?

 

Damn right Floyd beat Hatton first. RUINED HIM. Manny is a little fucking bitch.

 

No I very much agree. Far too much stock is put into beating someone first.

Occasionally you'll get someone who takes a big mental blow, or even takes a huge beating, but I agree with your estimate, 90% of the time they're the same fighter in their next big fight.

Of course the one exception is Duran being the first man to beat a peak Leonard, not prime, but peak Leonard :kidcool:

But even using that example, was Leonard any worse after losing to Duran? in that same period? I don't think so.

Should Morales get less credit for beating Pacquiao because Pacquiao lose a couple of times at flyweight? Not in my opinion.

 

I think as a general principle, it's horseshit

 

Unless a fighter's loss took a big toll on them physically or mentally i don't see a difference.

 

It depends. Some people get credit for beating undefeated guys. Arthur Abraham was a champion and had a huge officially undefeated streak and he is barely a world class fighter.

Then there are cases when a fighter showed more promise and a lost fucked them up:Lacy, Jermain Taylor to an extent Fernando Vargas.


If the undefeated fighter never eat anyone and then lost after the first loss , it is rational to conclude they just weren't very good. Boxing is unlike other sports. Roy Jones spent nearly a decade fighting no one of note. It depends on matchmaking.

 

Exactly. I'd say it 'depends' on so many other things people should just stop bringing it up all the time.

The example that inspired the thread - Cotto beats Mallinaggi 8-4. Mallinagi comes off that, wins 4 on the bounce, then fights Hatton, who beats the dog shitout him. Cotto's win is better because it was 'first'? No sense.

 

It's a good example.

Malignaggi actually had more respect amongst boxing fans by the time he fought Hatton. He was seen as just a stupid guido when he fought Cotto, everyone thought he'd get destroyed, or quit.

Paulie was a better fighter by the time he fought Hatton I reckon, more experienced and more confident.

So yeah, it is absurd to give Cotto more credit for beating Paulie first, it doesn't mean anything most of the time.

But to play devil's advocate, do you think sometimes an undefeated fighter might be willing to go that extra mile to protect their 0, and have an extra sense of belief in themselves, that they won't be beaten etc?

 

YEAH, it doesn't make sense. Put it this way. If Hatton had been the fighter instead of Cotto,would that Paul have beaten him. I don't think so. Cotto was just there first in time and space.

 

Was Marlon Starling's victory over Simon Brown more impressive than P4P ATG Buddy McGirt Sr. victory over him?

 

Not unless A) Cotto beats him bad enough to take allot out of him B) Mayweather takes another 2 year break and fights Pac aged 36 odd.

 

Nope, if Floyd lost a close decision to Cotto, all it would change is the perception of Floyd.

It's not like Floyd would suddenly become a much worse fighter.

Again, it's possible, he could be in the 10% who is mentally shot or something after losing, but the chances are he'd be the exact same fighter after losing to Cotto.

 

It just changes everybodys perspective. If Cotto wins a close SD decision in a low impact fight, then Floyd fights Pac 5-6 months later, it's basically the same Floyd, no?

 

Do you really think the Paulie that fought Cotto was better than the one that fought Hatton?

Oh noes, Paulie's face swelled up, that must have completely diminished his fighting ability thereafter :notallthere:

 

I'm using the 'low impact split decision' example as the straightest hypothetical line between the 'L' and us knowing he wasnt diminished afterwards. The 4 wins between Cotto & Hatton served the the same purpose for us with Pauli.

 

Boxing history's littered with fighters ruined forever by their first in-ring bruise.:notallthere:

 

If Floyd got a whooping like that from Cotto, there would be no Pac fight.

 

Yep, one loss and you might as well retire. What the fuck has boxing become.

 

.....lets just agree that some guys are worse after their first loss some aren't and it's a case by case judgement, even if we disagree on this one (& the need for any evidence on any opinion we ever form)

 

I agree in this case, since Floyd is viewed as the best boxer in the world. If he got badly beat up by Cotto, the I would attribute that to him being older and inactive.

Pac has losses, KO losses even. Is he worse now than he was back when he lost?

 

Who had the better win? Sanders or Purritty?? Sanders.

Who had the better win? Byrd or Lewis? Lewis.

Who had the better win? Carl Thompson or Wlad? Wlad.

Who had the better win? Freddie Norwood or Chris John? Chris John.

In a word- no. Ali beat Foreman first, but Foreman had recuperated and may well have been a better more rounded fighter by the time the infinitely less talented Jimmy Young managed to survive long enough to pick up a decision win.

A man can open a tin with a tin-opener. So can a chimp. Who opens it better? The guy with the more advanced brain or the ape? See the point? Little powder-puff Ricky Burns beating dangerous Katsidis in an up-close fight might well be as impressive as the vastly more talented Casamayor beating him after a trip to the mat himself.

It all depends.

 

Beating an undefeated fighter at or relatively near his prime is usually more impressive and a better win than any subsequent victories over that fighter.

 

ah, so it's a time thing then?

If Hatton beats up Paulie Malignaggi 10 years after Cotto = Great win

4 years? leftovers