DannyMCR wrote:As much as I dislike him and think he only did it for money as opposed to being brave (I'd take a brutal beating for 10% of what he made that night).. Amir Khan seems to have gained a fair bit of respect after the ginger fella sparked him out.
Nah, it went as everyone thought it would and it furthered the glass Khan jokes. We all know Khan is courageous. He's always been that way even when he gets hurt. We know he's talented. But it was always a forgone conclusion.
phillykid wrote:Fernando Vargas after the Trinidad fight. A couple of Arturo Gatti fights come to mind as well.
I disagree with Vargas. His loss to Trinidad was the beginning of the end. He went from 22 to 36 in one fight and never was the same. I remember in his comeback fights after that (I think he changed trainers) he looked very unconfident.
Yep definitely the beginning of the end of his career, but I think that fight also enhanced Vargas reputation as well, especially in terms of his heart. He was really young, and took alot of low blows from a prime and more dangerous version of Trinidad than the weight-drained version Oscar faced, held his own as well as anyone could and went out fighting instead of running. Vargas himself said that fight made his fans have more of a connection to him and didn't regret the loss.
Vitali Klitschko's reputation soared after the loss to Lennox Lewis
Most of Razor Ruddock's fame comes off of his highly entertaining losing efforts to Mike Tyson
Evander Holyfield gained a lot of respect from his critics for the heart he showed in his loss to Riddick Bowe the first time around
Jose Luis Castillo probably never was more highly thought of prior to "losing" to Floyd Mayweather than he was afterward...of course a lot of people thought he won, but whatever.
Just to name a few. Really any time a fighter fights a guy he's not expected to be much of a challenge to, and he exceeds that expectation his reputation goes up.
Thousands of them, good losses are essential in rating fighters. You have to win some too, but a loss like Leonard/Duran is greater than thousands of fighters best win.
I gained respect for Jennings and Haye when they competitively lost to Wlad. I gained respect for Natu Visinia when he lost competitively to Steve Cunningham. Most people gained respect for Johann Duhaupas when he lost semi-competitively to Wilder.
Thomas Hearns seems to be defined by this. Against Leonard I and Hagler he overcame questions about how a guy with his frame would hold up to a war. He nearly had Leonard out and made Hagler earn that victory. Hearns is known, and respected, because of these two losses.
lefthook82 wrote: Agree with that. Kinda felt short changed by his performance if truth be told
Brook did have his moments, yes, but if one takes a step back and look at some of the "cold facts".... then.... He had to retire in the fifth, having won only one round at the time (IMO), having been outlanded in every round, seriously hurt a handful of times, in risk of loosing vision on one eye etc. etc..
In that light it is quite remarkable that this apparently has made him look "brighter than ever". I should think that he looked somewhat brighter just after his win against Porter.
In hindsight, I now look at all the people Brook could've beaten at 147 and 154 without having to prove his limit (taking years off his career) by facing Golovkin. Now, we know he could be competitive against the Spences and Canelos but it would've been better for us to find all that out by fighting them without risking his health against GGG.
Any boxer would risk his health if paid enough. Cases like Brook and Khan moving up ? The end result is what matters. They both got stopped. If you get stopped the fight was not competitive over-all. A lot of fighters are competitive for a while. Losing like Brook and Khan did does not enhance their rep, especially when both knew coming in it was a no lose situation.
Risking his health? Give me a fornicating break.He is a professional boxer - its what they do. Size was not a factor.
twlyall wrote:
Brook did have his moments, yes, but if one takes a step back and look at some of the "cold facts".... then.... He had to retire in the fifth, having won only one round at the time (IMO), having been outlanded in every round, seriously hurt a handful of times, in risk of loosing vision on one eye etc. etc..
In that light it is quite remarkable that this apparently has made him look "brighter than ever". I should think that he looked somewhat brighter just after his win against Porter.
In hindsight, I now look at all the people Brook could've beaten at 147 and 154 without having to prove his limit (taking years off his career) by facing Golovkin. Now, we know he could be competitive against the Spences and Canelos but it would've been better for us to find all that out by fighting them without risking his health against GGG.
Any boxer would risk his health if paid enough. Cases like Brook and Khan moving up ? The end result is what matters. They both got stopped. If you get stopped the fight was not competitive over-all. A lot of fighters are competitive for a while. Losing like Brook and Khan did does not enhance their rep, especially when both knew coming in it was a no lose situation.
Risking his health? Give me a effing break.He is a professional boxer - its what they do. Size was not a factor.
Hearns was stopped in very competitive fights against both Leonard and Hagler and he gained immortality so the end result isn't all that matters.
And yes size is a factor or there wouldn't be weight classes.
Any boxer would risk his health if paid enough. Cases like Brook and Khan moving up ? The end result is what matters. They both got stopped. If you get stopped the fight was not competitive over-all. A lot of fighters are competitive for a while. Losing like Brook and Khan did does not enhance their rep, especially when both knew coming in it was a no lose situation.
Risking his health? Give me a effing break.He is a professional boxer - its what they do. Size was not a factor.
Hearns was stopped in very competitive fights against both Leonard and Hagler and he gained immortality so the end result isn't all that matters.
And yes size is a factor or there wouldn't be weight classes.[/quote]
thank you SIR![/quote][/quote]
Also, I just thought of Ray Mancini, whose career is defined by how he fought in the fights he lost.
Any boxer would risk his health if paid enough. Cases like Brook and Khan moving up ? The end result is what matters. They both got stopped. If you get stopped the fight was not competitive over-all. A lot of fighters are competitive for a while. Losing like Brook and Khan did does not enhance their rep, especially when both knew coming in it was a no lose situation.
Risking his health? Give me a effing break.He is a professional boxer - its what they do. Size was not a factor.
Hearns was stopped in very competitive fights against both Leonard and Hagler and he gained immortality so the end result isn't all that matters.
And yes size is a factor or there wouldn't be weight classes.
thank you SIR![/quote][/quote]
Also, I just thought of Ray Mancini, whose career is defined by how he fought in the fights he lost.[/quote][/quote][/quote]
Boom Boom was on my initial list (below)
The points about Hearns and Henry Cooper are brilliant, losses made their careers. And credit to them for recognising the parts they played in legendary fights.
In hindsight, I now look at all the people Brook could've beaten at 147 and 154 without having to prove his limit (taking years off his career) by facing Golovkin. Now, we know he could be competitive against the Spences and Canelos but it would've been better for us to find all that out by fighting them without risking his health against GGG.
Any boxer would risk his health if paid enough. Cases like Brook and Khan moving up ? The end result is what matters. They both got stopped. If you get stopped the fight was not competitive over-all. A lot of fighters are competitive for a while. Losing like Brook and Khan did does not enhance their rep, especially when both knew coming in it was a no lose situation.
Risking his health? Give me a effing break.He is a professional boxer - its what they do. Size was not a factor.
Hearns was stopped in very competitive fights against both Leonard and Hagler and he gained immortality so the end result isn't all that matters.
And yes size is a factor or there wouldn't be weight classes.
Yeah. Statements don't get more outlandish than that. Pryor/arguello 1 was not competitive. Lol
).