Page 2 of 2

Re: wins that meant nothing/little at the time but aged well

Posted: 30 May 2022, 14:20
by gb
gerryd77 wrote: 30 May 2022, 13:52
dookus wrote: 30 May 2022, 07:54 Crawford v Burns
The opposite of ageing well, surely? Crawford winning looked better at the time. Not as impressive now. Burns winning would have aged very well.
This is a LOSS that has aged well. A bit like Selby Vs Kambosos.

Re: wins that meant nothing/little at the time but aged well

Posted: 30 May 2022, 14:24
by gb
Victor Terrazas had a great run after losing to Rendall Munroe.

Re: wins that meant nothing/little at the time but aged well

Posted: 30 May 2022, 16:26
by dookus
gb wrote: 30 May 2022, 14:20
gerryd77 wrote: 30 May 2022, 13:52
dookus wrote: 30 May 2022, 07:54 Crawford v Burns
The opposite of ageing well, surely? Crawford winning looked better at the time. Not as impressive now. Burns winning would have aged very well.
This is a LOSS that has aged well. A bit like Selby Vs Kambosos.
Yes, fair point, probably should have saved it for that thread :lol:

Re: wins that meant nothing/little at the time but aged well

Posted: 30 May 2022, 16:40
by margaret thatcher
eh, it's still in the spirit of this thread :yay:

Re: wins that meant nothing/little at the time but aged well

Posted: 30 May 2022, 16:44
by Kit
Salvador Sanchez beating little known African Azumah Nelson

Re: wins that meant nothing/little at the time but aged well

Posted: 30 May 2022, 17:56
by emallini
Margarito beating Martinez

Re: wins that meant nothing/little at the time but aged well

Posted: 30 May 2022, 18:09
by Giancarlo
Charlie Magri's 10 round decision over Santos Laciar has aged like a fine wine

Re: wins that meant nothing/little at the time but aged well

Posted: 30 May 2022, 18:43
by margaret thatcher
dudes are just bursting with knowledge here, good answers bruhs :bag:

Re: wins that meant nothing/little at the time but aged well

Posted: 30 May 2022, 19:21
by dookus
Raheem v Morales.

As I remember, it made far less of a splash at the time than it really should have, considering Morales then had only 2 disputed losses to Barrera and had just stopped Pacquiao's first almighty tear through the lower weights.

Before the fight against Pacquiao, there was a feeling that Morales would be a bit too big and tough and clever, and that's generally how it turned out. So when Morales himself stepped up a weight against a tricky opponent in Raheem, and came off worse, the same explanation could easily apply. I don't recall anyone saying Morales must be on the decline.

But this was before we knew Pacquiao would hit yet another gear and beat all comers up to welterweight for years on end, while Morales himself would win a world title up at 140. So, Raheem's achievement in beating that version of Morales gets better over time (and makes the rest of his underwhelming career quite baffling). Particularly because it was a pretty wide win.

Re: wins that meant nothing/little at the time but aged well

Posted: 31 May 2022, 02:04
by bennie
olij999 wrote: 30 May 2022, 10:57 Ernesto Marcel outpointing a relatively unknown Alexis Arguello for the WBA feather title in 1974 - at that point, Arguello had fought almost exclusively in Nicaragua.

Similarly, Alfonso Zamora's W KO 2 bantamweight title defence in 1976 over a fairly unknown Panamanian, a 14-1 Eusebio Pedroza, looked a lot better by about 1985.

And I hope this chap - https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/1415 - is dining out on his PTS 4 win in his debut. It certainly looks good now.

I can still remember Zamora's clash with Carlos Zarate in the battle of the 'Z' men in Los Angeles back in 1977. Zamora, who held the WBA bantamweight title, boasted a perfect record of 29-0 (29); Zarate, the WBC bantamweight champion, was an amazing 45-0 (44). It went ahead as a 10-rounder because neither champion wanted to risk the belt and a close, bruising, thrilling affair was expected but in the event, Zarate just walked through Zamora in four one-sided rounds. Zamora's father then attacked Cuyo Hernandez in the other corner, while one idiot had jumped into the ring in his underpants during the fight and was dragged out by the LAPD. Zamora's defeat was a crushing psychological blow. A fight later, he lost his world title to Panama's unheralded Jorge Lujan.

Re: wins that meant nothing/little at the time but aged well

Posted: 31 May 2022, 05:50
by dookus
Tua v Ruiz

Re: wins that meant nothing/little at the time but aged well

Posted: 31 May 2022, 08:42
by Kit
Sugar Ray Leonard’s win over Floyd Mayweather Snr.

Re: wins that meant nothing/little at the time but aged well

Posted: 04 Jun 2022, 18:26
by steve689
Some great answers in this thread :bag:

Re: wins that meant nothing/little at the time but aged well

Posted: 04 Jun 2022, 19:44
by Lenny Cravats
Would Groves Degale count? It was a big domestic level fight, but the pair of them became internationally well known a few years later.

Re: wins that meant nothing/little at the time but aged well

Posted: 04 Jun 2022, 19:55
by Lenny Cravats
I remember we were all taking the piss out of Calzaghe for fighting unknown Sakio Bika - figuring he was another Tucker Pudwill.
There was a thread here where we subtitled some videos.
Bika went on to headbutt and rough up his way around some top fighters for some years afterwards.

Re: wins that meant nothing/little at the time but aged well

Posted: 07 Jun 2022, 19:17
by margaret thatcher
in inoue's 4th fight he beat ryoichi taguchi, who was then the japanese champ. taguchi later became unified world champ

Re: wins that meant nothing/little at the time but aged well

Posted: 08 Jun 2022, 06:44
by bennie
olij999 wrote: 30 May 2022, 10:57 Ernesto Marcel outpointing a relatively unknown Alexis Arguello for the WBA feather title in 1974 - at that point, Arguello had fought almost exclusively in Nicaragua.

Similarly, Alfonso Zamora's W KO 2 bantamweight title defence in 1976 over a fairly unknown Panamanian, a 14-1 Eusebio Pedroza, looked a lot better by about 1985.

And I hope this chap - https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/1415 - is dining out on his PTS 4 win in his debut. It certainly looks good now.

Just looking at Clinton Mitchell's record: the man dropped out of boxing for seven long years after the Hopkins win. Something about the win had an adverse affect on him.

Re: wins that meant nothing/little at the time but aged well

Posted: 08 Jun 2022, 07:00
by Delta Jay
margaret thatcher wrote: 07 Jun 2022, 19:17 in inoue's 4th fight he beat ryoichi taguchi, who was then the japanese champ. taguchi later became unified world champ
Came to say this one. One of only two fighters to ever go the distance with Naoya

Re: wins that meant nothing/little at the time but aged well

Posted: 08 Jun 2022, 11:48
by Delta Jay
Canelo beat Miguel Vazquez in his third fight, went on to be world champion.

Some guy called Rustico Torrecampo beat an unknown 18 year old called Emanuel Pacquiao in 1996, I think he enjoys telling people about that nowadays.

Re: wins that meant nothing/little at the time but aged well

Posted: 10 Jun 2022, 22:10
by brilo33
david haye v chisora, probably hayes best win now