Results that look worse over time?
-
james5000+
- Middleweight
- Posts: 78
- Joined: 18 Apr 2014, 21:55
Results that look worse over time?
Arguably the majority of GGG's wins look like utter scrubs now, not that they were super impressive when he was fighting them.
Seems like another hype job resume tbh
Seems like another hype job resume tbh
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Calzaghe' win over Lacy stands out for me. Going in Lacy was viewed as a monster, and future of the division. Subsequent fights showed him to be mediocre at best. It can be argued hiw much Calzaghe took out of him that night, but for sure, in hindsight, he was way overated going into the Calzaghe bout.
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Agree, although luckily for Joe he has two wins which look better with time (Hopkins and Kessler)ALI wrote: ↑24 Oct 2019, 00:13 Calzaghe' win over Lacy stands out for me. Going in Lacy was viewed as a monster, and future of the division. Subsequent fights showed him to be mediocre at best. It can be argued hiw much Calzaghe took out of him that night, but for sure, in hindsight, he was way overated going into the Calzaghe bout.
-
margaret thatcher
- Super Featherweight
- Posts: 39344
- Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43
Re: Results that look worse over time?
LOL no sh!t it's a hype job resumejames5000+ wrote: ↑23 Oct 2019, 23:55 Arguably the majority of GGG's wins look like utter scrubs now, not that they were super impressive when he was fighting them.
Seems like another hype job resume tbh
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Haye vs valuev got loads of plaudits, but sees underwhelming in hindsight.
-
haymakerhayman
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 30
- Joined: 20 Dec 2011, 18:17
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Froch beating Bute was massively impressive at the time but lost quite a few after?
-
Boxerbeetle
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 32945
- Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 10:59
-
ThereByTheGrace
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 4016
- Joined: 04 Sep 2010, 05:22
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Id say the same but change bute with groves, taylor and kessler.haymakerhayman wrote: ↑24 Oct 2019, 02:54 Froch beating Bute was massively impressive at the time but lost quite a few after?
Looking back froch was decent but all of his big wins were against folk who were past it or finished. Against dirrell it was close
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Froch's win over Bute. That guy was incredibly overrated.
edit/ just noticed it's already been mentioned.
fwiw his Ktfo of Groves looked better after GG bounced back.
edit/ just noticed it's already been mentioned.
fwiw his Ktfo of Groves looked better after GG bounced back.
Re: Results that look worse over time?
I don't agree.tobyh5 wrote: ↑24 Oct 2019, 00:57Agree, although luckily for Joe he has two wins which look better with time (Hopkins and Kessler)ALI wrote: ↑24 Oct 2019, 00:13 Calzaghe' win over Lacy stands out for me. Going in Lacy was viewed as a monster, and future of the division. Subsequent fights showed him to be mediocre at best. It can be argued hiw much Calzaghe took out of him that night, but for sure, in hindsight, he was way overated going into the Calzaghe bout.
What about..., Lacy froze on the night and was never the same again after the mental and physical beating ?
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Taylor had probably seen better days, yes, but Groves and Bute were both unbeaten, so it's a bit daft to say they were past it or finished. Kessler was also far from finished.ThereByTheGrace wrote: ↑24 Oct 2019, 03:55Id say the same but change bute with groves, taylor and kessler.haymakerhayman wrote: ↑24 Oct 2019, 02:54 Froch beating Bute was massively impressive at the time but lost quite a few after?
Looking back froch was decent but all of his big wins were against folk who were past it or finished. Against dirrell it was close
-
margaret thatcher
- Super Featherweight
- Posts: 39344
- Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Maybe both? Because even before the JC fight there were plenty of warning signs about Lacy---just struggling past Omar Sheika, level on the cards with a guy like Donnell Wiggins before pulling it out, very close with Vanderpool till stopping him too. And he was pretty much just feasting on US domestic scene guys, the type who would be on Friday Night Fights and only move beyond that as fodder. A career best win over Robin Reid isn't that impressive either.
What did he really do to say, yes, he was actually as good as hyped and Joe simply ruined him
-
leejonesjnr
- Middleweight
- Posts: 2667
- Joined: 31 Dec 2013, 18:32
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Nah. Calzaghe broke Lacy and he was never the same again but the excellent victory stands.
What does look worse is the Robin Reid loss to Lacy as he was easily brushed aside yet had given Calzaghe a tough contest and some argue a loss.
What does look worse is the Robin Reid loss to Lacy as he was easily brushed aside yet had given Calzaghe a tough contest and some argue a loss.
-
margaret thatcher
- Super Featherweight
- Posts: 39344
- Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43
Re: Results that look worse over time?
What is Jeff Lacy's legacy in boxing other than being a beatdown victim. Pretty much nothing,. You have very little to work with in terms of anything impressive he accomplished before or after. Robin Reid and then a bunch of lacklustre vs US domestic scene opponents. Never rated him so the hype doesn't give the win any extra cred for me. Sakio Bika was better than him.
Re: Results that look worse over time?
I agree, you can't recover from those sort of beatingsleejonesjnr wrote: ↑24 Oct 2019, 13:49 Nah. Calzaghe broke Lacy and he was never the same again but the excellent victory stands.
What does look worse is the Robin Reid loss to Lacy as he was easily brushed aside yet had given Calzaghe a tough contest and some argue a loss.
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Pretty sure (with the exception of Glen Johnson) all Froch's world title opponents were younger than him.ThereByTheGrace wrote: ↑24 Oct 2019, 03:55Id say the same but change bute with groves, taylor and kessler.haymakerhayman wrote: ↑24 Oct 2019, 02:54 Froch beating Bute was massively impressive at the time but lost quite a few after?
Looking back froch was decent but all of his big wins were against folk who were past it or finished. Against dirrell it was close
The likes of Abraham, Pascal and Groves even went on to win World titles afterwards.
-
margaret thatcher
- Super Featherweight
- Posts: 39344
- Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Froch's resume ages really well actually. Even with Bute, Loosh went on to face some good opponents like Degale, Pascal, and Jack, and while he didn't win he was never close to being blown away like Froch did, and actually won maybe 4 rounds vs Degale and Jack.
-
Terminator666
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1665
- Joined: 06 Nov 2007, 10:18
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Tyson- Spinks maybe? Spinks being a blown up light heavyweight but it was a mega big fight at the time
Also Lloyd Honeyghan v Don Curry was sensational at the time
Also Lloyd Honeyghan v Don Curry was sensational at the time
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Lacy suffered a serious rotator cuff injury in the fight vs Tsypko following the loss to Calzaghe, possibly contributed to his decline too.
Lacy's win over Reid looked impressive until you realise what a shambles Reid's training camp was like.
Lacy's win over Reid looked impressive until you realise what a shambles Reid's training camp was like.
Re: Results that look worse over time?
I’ll toss a hand grenade into the discussion.
Fury-Klitschko.
If you follow the narrative that AJ was never that good and still KO’d Wladimir, then never looked amazing again before being demolished by a fat little blob, and then throw in that Wlad had previously gone 12 with the very ordinary Bryant Jennings, then Wlad was very possibly a fighter on a serious decline. Throw in Fury’s dropping out of the rematch, the pathetic dross he’s fought since (Wilder fight excluded, although in terms of heavyweight history Wilder is CRAP) and there isn’t really that much evidence to support the theory of Fury’s brilliance.
Fury just got lucky and beat a very faded champ.
Discuss.
Fury-Klitschko.
If you follow the narrative that AJ was never that good and still KO’d Wladimir, then never looked amazing again before being demolished by a fat little blob, and then throw in that Wlad had previously gone 12 with the very ordinary Bryant Jennings, then Wlad was very possibly a fighter on a serious decline. Throw in Fury’s dropping out of the rematch, the pathetic dross he’s fought since (Wilder fight excluded, although in terms of heavyweight history Wilder is CRAP) and there isn’t really that much evidence to support the theory of Fury’s brilliance.
Fury just got lucky and beat a very faded champ.
Discuss.
-
mickey1975
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 23095
- Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 12:54
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Although Hammer and Del 2 look better!
-
lillywhite14
- Heavyweight

Re: Results that look worse over time?
Fair points but it was still a great win for Fury. Wlad, as diminished as he might have been, and as flawed as he always was ( already comprehensively beaten by both Brewster and Sanders etc ) was still reigning champ and had reigned for a long time. Very few here gave Fury a chance to win that night.clopixolacuphase wrote: ↑25 Oct 2019, 11:36 I’ll toss a hand grenade into the discussion.
Fury-Klitschko.
If you follow the narrative that AJ was never that good and still KO’d Wladimir, then never looked amazing again before being demolished by a fat little blob, and then throw in that Wlad had previously gone 12 with the very ordinary Bryant Jennings, then Wlad was very possibly a fighter on a serious decline. Throw in Fury’s dropping out of the rematch, the pathetic dross he’s fought since (Wilder fight excluded, although in terms of heavyweight history Wilder is CRAP) and there isn’t really that much evidence to support the theory of Fury’s brilliance.
Fury just got lucky and beat a very faded champ.
Discuss.
Re: Results that look worse over time?
I agree about the Hopkins win, though Joe did not look too good in the fight, he got the W and thats what matters.tobyh5 wrote: ↑24 Oct 2019, 00:57ALI wrote: ↑24 Oct 2019, 00:13 Calzaghe' win over Lacy stands out for me. Going in Lacy was viewed as a monster, and future of the division. Subsequent fights showed him to be mediocre at best. It can be argued hiw much Calzaghe took out of him that night, but for sure, in hindsight, he was way overated going into the Calzaghe bout.
Agree, although luckily for Joe he has two wins which look better with time (Hopkins and Kessler)
I have my reservations about Kessler. No doubt he was a top quality fighter, and unbeaten when Joe fought him, but Ward did a much better job on him 2 years later, completely schooled him. It was his fights with Froch that give him the most credits, but i dont hold Kessler in quite as high a regard as many others perhaps do.
Calzaghe's entire career frustrated me, and if i am honest, as good as i believe he was, i think he is overated in retirement for what he actually achieved during his career.
-
Ruthless-RKO
- Welterweight
- Posts: 103195
- Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59
Re: Results that look worse over time?
I think the same..ALI wrote: ↑26 Oct 2019, 02:36I agree about the Hopkins win, though Joe did not look too good in the fight, he got the W and thats what matters.
I have my reservations about Kessler. No doubt he was a top quality fighter, and unbeaten when Joe fought him, but Ward did a much better job on him 2 years later, completely schooled him. It was his fights with Froch that give him the most credits, but i dont hold Kessler in quite as high a regard as many others perhaps do.
Calzaghe's entire career frustrated me, and if i am honest, as good as i believe he was, i think he is overated in retirement for what he actually achieved during his career.