Which carries more weight? What an opponent accomplished before or accomplishes after a fight?

[Manrae]

As the title says, my question to you all is... which situation carries more weight in evaluating a boxer's opposition?
What their opponent has accomplished before their bout, or after? Are they equal? 60/40? 20/80?

I'm curious to hear your opinions...

[Thomastearns]

Ultimately it has to be what they do afterwards.

The Muhammad Ali defeated by Joe Frazier was completely different to the one beaten by Michael Spinks.

Or let's take the case of Chris Eubank Sr.

According to Barry Hearn Chris insisted on 3 particular conditions before signing- no southpaws, no undefeated fighters and no one under 25

Careful matchmaking is a big part of boxing no doubt, and it also makes comparing records difficult.

Hearn, like many others, is of the opinion that Eubank was never the same fighter after that epic Michael Watson fight, and looking at his subsequent record it's easy to agree with him.

[Manrae]

Ultimately it has to be what they do afterwards.

The Muhammad Ali defeated by Joe Frazier was completely different to the one beaten by Michael Spinks.

Or let's take the case of Chris Eubank Sr.

According to Barry Hearn Chris insisted on 3 particular conditions before signing- no southpaws, no undefeated fighters and no one under 25

Careful matchmaking is a big part of boxing no doubt, and it also makes comparing records difficult.

Hearn, like many others, is of the opinion that Eubank was never the same fighter after that epic Michael Watson fight, and looking at his subsequent record it's easy to agree with him.

I never knew that about Eubank Sr...

What if a boxer's opponent retires after their bout?
For example, Mayweather v Genaro Hernandez. GH was champ & #1 prior to the bout, yet retired after being dominated & stopped. Would this make this accomplishment less than say, Jesus Chavez or Carlos Hernandez?

[HomicideHenry]

Leon Spinks.... not Michael.

[Evander]

Loaded question isn't it.
You could make a case for both and it depends where in their careers they are at the time.
For the sake of the thread, before.

[Redback Rasta]

There is no 'one size fits all answer to this one.

I would argue the weight of a win is best judged by what the opponent had done in their previous few fights coupled with what they do in their next few fights. What they did 10 fights before or 10 fights after is almost irrelevant.

[Lackeos]

Before matters more. If their best accomplishment is after they fought you, then they might have notched that win using skills and athleticism that they developed after fighting you. In which case, the dude you fought was weaker than the dude who notched that later win. In which case, you don't deserve the credit for beating the future version of him. You only get the credit for what he was when he fought you.

Of course, it's possible that he was that good all along, and he just hadn't proven it yet. In which case, you should be entitled to the credit for beating the guy who was that good.

But since we can't tell which is which, achievements that are notched after your fight should only count like 20%. Achievements notched before your fight, as long as the fighter hasn't taken a downturn, should count 100%.

But if you beat a fighter past his prime, e.g. Kevin McBride beating Mike Tyson, then you aren't absorbing the full credit for everything Tyson has ever done. You get the credit for beating Tyson as he was at that time, knowing that he was like 92% diminished from the abilities he had at his peak.

[Thomastearns]

Leon Spinks.... not Michael.

Yes, of course. If you hadn't pointed it out, I'd never have believed I wrote that.

I was going to say Ali vs Berbick but that win by Berbick is worth even less than the one by Leon Spinks. Besides, that was Ali's final fight.

Not Berbick's fault, he could only fight those put in front of him. I don't recall Trevor Berbick ever boasting about his victory, I certainly hope he didn't.

Most boxing careers, at least of the greats/Hall of Famers etc follow an upside down trajectory.

They tend to win most, if not all of their fights on their way up and then start to lose with increasing regularity as father time begins to take its toll.

Therefore I guess a lot depends upon exactly where on their lifetime trajectory a boxer was when you defeated him.

I'd put Bivol's win against Canelo higher Mayweather's but that's a rare case when the defeated fighter was still climbing his trajectory. Depending on what happens next, even Bivol's win might become devalued if Canelo really is fading fast.

GGGs stolen win over Canelo ranks the highest especially since Golovkin was 35 at the time and Canelo a peak 27.

Another case in point, Max Schmeling's 1936 win over Joe Louis was worth a lot more than Ezzard Charles' 1950 one even though Louis went to win his next 8 before finally crashing out to Marciano.

It's long been established that when you fight someone is a crucial factor in building careers.

There's hardly anyone left in boxing today who's willing to fight anyone, anywhere these days.

Other factors include where you fight, at what weight you fight, possible rehydration clauses, the purse cut, rematch clauses, choice of referees, judges, the size of the ring, what gloves are available, the stringency of the drug testing etc.

Hence we continue see all these seemingly endless negotiations.

[gilgamesh]

It varies.

Like say the Canelo win for Floyd definitely got better with time because Canelo went on to become basically the next big PPV mega star of the sport for the next decade following the fight, and has faced a who's who of his era, doing quite well.

Then you have a case like say Joe Calzaghe against Jeff Lacy. Lacy was considered a pretty fierce, and dangerous guy coming into the fight with Calzaghe. After the fight with Calzaghe he never looked anything other than ordinary at best. That being said, I think you could make a fair statement that Calzaghe BEAT IT out of him. If nothing else the beating Calzaghe gave him probably shot his confidence to hell. Lacy never recovered from that loss and never appeared remotely special after it, but you can't say he wasn't a big opponent at the time the fight went down because he was.

[pound per pound]

As the title says, my question to you all is... which situation carries more weight in evaluating a boxer's opposition?
What their opponent has accomplished before their bout, or after? Are they equal? 60/40? 20/80?

I'm curious to hear your opinions...

It is not only who you beat and but when the match happened, the age and shape of the opponent, and his activity level going into the fight.

[pound per pound]

As the title says, my question to you all is... which situation carries more weight in evaluating a boxer's opposition?
What their opponent has accomplished before their bout, or after? Are they equal? 60/40? 20/80?

I'm curious to hear your opinions...

It is not only who you beat and but when the match happened. The age and shape of the opponent, and his activity level going into the fight matter a lot.

[Manrae]

There is no 'one size fits all answer to this one.

I would argue the weight of a win is best judged by what the opponent had done in their previous few fights coupled with what they do in their next few fights. What they did 10 fights before or 10 fights after is almost irrelevant.

Sounds good, question...
Would it be fair to skip certain fights that are "stay-busy fights" when making that consideration?

Like, if their next 3 bouts are... 2 stay busy bouts (guys with losing records, guys on long losing streaks, debut boxers who have no business even being in the ring, etc), and 1 against a legit opponent.

Would it be fair to skip the 1st two and just count only the next 3 legit opponents (not on long losing streaks, winning record, experienced, etc)

[Manrae]

Before matters more. If their best accomplishment is after they fought you, then they might have notched that win using skills and athleticism that they developed after fighting you. In which case, the dude you fought was weaker than the dude who notched that later win. In which case, you don't deserve the credit for beating the future version of him. You only get the credit for what he was when he fought you.

Of course, it's possible that he was that good all along, and he just hadn't proven it yet. In which case, you should be entitled to the credit for beating the guy who was that good.

But since we can't tell which is which, achievements that are notched after your fight should only count like 20%. Achievements notched before your fight, as long as the fighter hasn't taken a downturn, should count 100%.

But if you beat a fighter past his prime, e.g. Kevin McBride beating Mike Tyson, then you aren't absorbing the full credit for everything Tyson has ever done. You get the credit for beating Tyson as he was at that time, knowing that he was like 92% diminished from the abilities he had at his peak.

That's the trickiest part... I feel like it's difficult to say, and then not to mention injuries that cut certain careers short...

[Manrae]

It varies.

Like say the Canelo win for Floyd definitely got better with time because Canelo went on to become basically the next big PPV mega star of the sport for the next decade following the fight, and has faced a who's who of his era, doing quite well.

Then you have a case like say Joe Calzaghe against Jeff Lacy. Lacy was considered a pretty fierce, and dangerous guy coming into the fight with Calzaghe. After the fight with Calzaghe he never looked anything other than ordinary at best. That being said, I think you could make a fair statement that Calzaghe BEAT IT out of him. If nothing else the beating Calzaghe gave him probably shot his confidence to hell. Lacy never recovered from that loss and never appeared remotely special after it, but you can't say he wasn't a big opponent at the time the fight went down because he was.

Great points.

[Redback Rasta]

The level of achievement in beating an opponent is best measured by how good that opponent was AT THE TIME. This is best measured by what the opponent had done in their previous few fights coupled with what they subsequently did in their next few fights. What they did 10 fights before or 10 fights after is almost irrelevant. As is whether that opponent then went on to greatness or to mediocrity.

[apollo creed]

The level of achievement in beating an opponent is best measured by how good that opponent was AT THE TIME. This is best measured by what the opponent had done in their previous few fights coupled with what they subsequently did in their next few fights. What they did 10 fights before or 10 fights after is almost irrelevant. As is whether that opponent then went on to greatness or to mediocrity.

This.