Cases where the better fighter ON THE NIGHT lost!!!

Inspired by Double's thread, naturally, but a little different.

Should be self-explanatory but let me give examples to alleviate any possible confusion...


Herol Graham - Julian Jackson (Jackson was on the receiving end of a whupping until he uncorked that homerun)
Klitschko - Brewster 1 - Klitschko was in complete command and tattooing that mediocre ass until he seemed to run out of steam


I'll give some more...but later, after I get your input. opcorn:

 

Felix Sturm-Oscar De La Hoya
Hasim Rahman-David Tua 1
Juan Coggi-Eder Gonzalez 1

 

To me, only judging and/or refereeing errors can count. If we talk about who was better ON THE NIGHT, he can't have lost the fight

 

Agreed.

If not then only come from behind KO's apply. :dunno:

 

Yeah, I agree.

I don't really buy much into the whole "he was better but made a mistake and lost" type thing.

Part of being better on that night is having better focus, chin, durability, etc...An attribute is having one-shot power and exploiting mistakes to the fullest.

So even come-from-behind KOs where one shot ends it or makes the difference, like Weaver-Tate, Tyson-Botha, Castro-J.D. Jackson, and Jackson-Graham....I can't call the losers "the better fighters on that night".

 

I wouldn't include even those. To win a boxing match it takes of course skill and physical abilities, but also things like concentration and intelligene. If a fighter beats his opponent up but gets so careless that he is knocked out, then he is not the better man that night.

Injuries are borderline, I could understand them

 

I just mean that one fighter can appear to be the better fighter by easily outboxing his opponent for long stretches and then get starched. I agree that it does not make the loser "the better fighter though". How can the better fighter lose? It does not make sense.

Unless there was some outside influence or an injury (especially if caused by a foul) i will never argue the better man lost angle.

 

I've never seen the fight, but I've heard that Jorge Arce was soundly beating Michael Carbajal until Carbajal landed a right hand which turned the fight around.

 

Terry Norris-Luis Santana 1-2 are borderline.

Norris was a hothead and fouled Santana, but you're not a lesser fighter IMO if the other guy is a better actor.

 

You heard correct.

 

Jhonny Gonzales-Israel Vasquez
David Diaz-Jose Santa Cruz

 

Gerry Penasola - Johny Gonzalez

 

Demetrius Hopkins-Stevie Forbes. Forbes was the better fighter going into the fight, was the better fighter from rounds 1-12, and is still the better fighter

 

Roy Jones - Montell Griffin 1

OBVIOUS example.

 

disagREED - Roy looked confused and lethargic throughout most of the fight. Griffin was clearly the better fighter that night, at least through 8. To say Roy was, just based on his being better on paper and rallying in the 9th, contradicts your first two examples.

 

Muhammad Ali-Earnie Shavers
Julio Cesar Chavez-Frankie Randall 2

 

Plus, as I said earlier, a fighetr has to be able to remain focused and control his nerves. Roy couldn't do that on the night and lost fair and square

 

disagREED.

Roy did more than just rally in the 9th. Griffin won rounds and had his moments, but my recollection has him winning rounds due to mainly landing the last shot when they exchanged as Roy languished on the ropes. Roy spent much of his time in the center of the ring throwing 6 inch jabs and hoping to catch Griffin coming in.

"However"

When Roy turned up the heat he was clearly the better fighter and he hurt Griffin when he finally nailed him clean. Griffin's punches didn't have anywhere near the effect on him that Roy's had.

To say Griffin was the better fighter that night is inaccurate. :nono:

 

I see your point, and you are correct to a point. But it seemed to me that although roy wasn't at his best he was gradually creeping up and creeping up on Griffin round after round after round and the eventual KO was always just a matter of time.

That's my not so humble opinion, of course. ::

 

Didn't read this post before posting mine.

All I shall say is....


word.

 

What more did Roy do that night? He got credit for a questionable knockdown in the 7th, and as you even alluded to, he spent much of the night - and I quote Larry Merchant "throwing an 18" jab at a 36" target."

I agree that when Roy turned up the heat, he was the better fighter. But guess what? It didn't start getting warm for Griffin until the 9th round. Just as you argue that Griffin merely had his moments throughout, so too did Roy in all of the rounds he was giving away. There's no questioning that Roy is/was the better fighter, period. So much that very few cared about the PPV rematch (which is why HBO invested very little into it and shoved it on a Thursday night). But a fight where you can argue who was winning at the time of the stoppage, is not an obvious example.

If we're looking for DQ losses as obvious examples, I offer Terry Norris-Luis Santana I and II (in fact, probably the best two examples for this topic, DQ or otherwise).

 

"Like I said before..."

When Roy stepped it up, the fight was over. Also, the knockdown wasn't questionable, Griffin got hit with a shot started to lose his balance then Roy came in on him. Was pretty clear to me.

Griffin had won rounds because of what Roy wasn't doing. I didn't see him dictating the fight, hurting Roy or dominating. To say Griffin was the better fighter that is in fact misleading. :nono:

 

If i have to pick one i'll say De La Hoya - Trinidad.

 

Ok, so let me ask this. Other than the 9th round:
- When was Roy dictating the terms of the fight?
- When did Roy hurt Griffin?
- When was Roy dominating the fight?

You're arguing that Griffin never hurt Roy, that his punches had nowhere near the effect on Roy than the other way around - yet what was causing Roy to do next to nothing for so much of the fight?

Anyway, I stand by my earlier claim that Norris-Santana I and II are much more obvious examples than Jones-Griffin I. Griffin won more rounds against Roy than Santana won MINUTES, never mind rounds, in all three fights against Norris.

 

The answer to your question is what I stated in an earlier post...the short jab was meant to draw Griffin in "however" Griffin wisely didn't bite. It was a ploy which wasn't effective, but a ploy no doubt.

Griffin didn't fight Jones any differently than he fought Toney either time. He simply outhustled Toney by utilizing a strategy he started in the first fight with Jones.

Jake musta forgot!

 

Word.

 

There's a lot of decisions far worse than Trinidad-De La Hoya.

 

I think whiskey might have pointed out the tactical error DLH made. Though one could argue again that tactical intelligence is also part of boxing

 

Well tactical intelligence is definitely part of boxing, and so is stamina.

But in the long run I still thought DLH was the better fighter than night....just not 6 points better like an Escalera-Everett decision.

 

Alright, let me get this straight:

- Jones offered a short jab that proved to be ineffective, in order to prevent Griffin from fighting the same fight (according to you) he did twice against Toney. Griffin didn't fight any different, though, (again, your words) and wasn't drawn in by Roy's short joab

... and this is an indication of how Roy dictated the terms of the fight?