You're spot on about the double standards re. if Mundine had beaten Jones, and probably right that they could have gotten better oppo than Siaca in particular (the Briggs fight, while a disaster, at least made sense commercially. A bit of an Aussie Haye v Harrison).thunderfromdownunder wrote:i will agree that bringing jones down here was good for boxing, the fight got a load of coverage in all the papers, tv and so on.
as for revisionism, i dont think so, if people were picking jones i think that says more about thie opinions on green than it does about jones, and i guess people overseas mainly remember green as the guy who got outboxed by mundine and beyer.
my whole point here is there is and has always been double standard regarding green and mundine (and im no mundine fan) when mundine beats some scrub we here "he's only fighting bums" ect ect, when green KO's some bum its all "no one can give him a good fight" or "everybodys ducking him" which is total bullshit, everybody here knows if green and hyder wanted better guys than briggs and siaca they could have got them.
think of it this way...if it were mundine who beat someone like jones, he would have gotten absoloutley no credit from anyone, its true
But...
This is also very true. Even Green's worst opponents, I'd heard of them. Mundine's were often a mystery.Marlin wrote:But he would never fight someone like Jones... Even Green's poor opposition is better than Mundine's.
There is a certain amount of double standards in assessments of Green and Mundine, but speculating about what the perception of Mundine results would be vs world class fighters is utterly irrelevant. In the past few years he has been offered world title shots, big-money fights etc, but turned them down for no fathomable reason.
. But i feel his is a bit underrated. He consistently faced tough competition, and managed to win a few as well. I mean if it was that easy to win a portion of the heavyweight title everyone would
