Hey Caligula

All depends on how you rank talent. IMO he has A level talent even if he has a D level brain. :warning: Maybe I am just not harsh enough with my grading. He did beat a guy that several people have rated in there top 10 fighters though.

 

No doubt about it. But I'm no knee-jerk appraiser, either. Never have been. So why should I forget my own rules and become one, now? Can't I just think what I want?

 

Is it really a knee jerk reaction though? You know I have always thought pretty highly of Campbell even if his results don't necessarily warrant it. He has been fighting well his last 4 fights though. He was beating the people he was supposed to and beating them badly (something he hasn't always done), then beat Diaz. Maybe after all these years the guy got his head on straight? :dunno:

 

I know you've thought high on Nate. Hell, I remember talking about you with him years ago, before his rematch with Tiger. We're miles apart on the guy.

Maybe he has found 'it'. Maybe not. My point though, is one fight won't change my opinion on him, because he's been good in single fights here and there throughout his career. It's what he does next that will decide where he sits, IMO.

 

Fair enough if you don't subscribe to that concept, but what about the examples I gave?

You're acting like there's only so much one can attain from one fight, either in a positive or negative fashion.

Now I say quite a lot can be proved from just one fight, or the fighter's last fight.

Look at people like Dunne and Duddy, you can't tell me "It's only one fight, it's only their first loss" etc.

Now I don't like to throw around the word "exposed" at all, it gets silly. Some people are even insinuating that Hatton was "exposed" against Floyd :: That's just absurd.

However, people like Dunne and Duddy have recently been exposed, even though most of us knew they weren't much cop to begin with.

Maccarinelli was also exposed. I know you didn't rate him, but a lot of people did, and Haye effortlessly crushed him, exposing him as worse than many believed.

Then of course you have instances where one fight proves a lot in a positive fashion, and silences the naysayers.

Overall you do of course have to judge a fighter by his whole career, or at least the most recent part of it when assessing him.

For example - looking at Nate's whole career, I see this as a career best performance, and one of those nights where a lesser regarded fighter comes into the ring with a bottomless well of determination and desire to win. I don't expect Campbell to go onto great things. But it was a great performance, and at least for now, he deserves to be champ.

Campbell is not the sort of fighter I would bet on, put it that way, he is far too inconsistent.

And Diaz, he'll probably become champ again, he may even beat Campbell in a rematch possibly, but there's no doubt about it - this ONE fight did indeed prove he's not quite as good as most of us thought.

 

Fuck dude, don't write so much. I've got the shalkes right now and I honestly cant tyoe that much straight.

The examples you gave justify your point, but remember...I dont agree with your point. I'd argue that Judah was truely exposedas a loser in his fight with that crazy Columbian dude.

Hatton proved his worth before Tszyu...but also after it. Tszyu wasn't so much then.

Pavlik? He came of age in the Miranda fight, IMO. Taylor isn't much though.

I cant remember what else you said. Sorry.

 

dsimon writes:

Probably so. I think the light weights are hard to stay on top of anyway. Unless somoene has a real punch. Frankly thats IMO why Paquio reigns supreme. He can knock people out in a division where guys generally cannot. I love Marquez, he is one of my favorites but without a sledgehammer if he loses a step.... its over. Those guys depend on speed, reflexes a lot more than the big boys.

We will have to see what Nate's fate has in store.:: I think he had a hell of a fight but I do not know enough about him to prognosticate past that.