Page 1 of 2
Results that look worse over time?
Posted: 23 Oct 2019, 23:55
by james5000+
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?
Posted: 24 Oct 2019, 00:13
by ALI
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?
Posted: 24 Oct 2019, 00:57
by tobyh5
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.
Agree, although luckily for Joe he has two wins which look better with time (Hopkins and Kessler)
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Posted: 24 Oct 2019, 00:57
by margaret thatcher
james5000+ 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
LOL no sh!t it's a hype job resume
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Posted: 24 Oct 2019, 02:22
by Steveh583
Haye vs valuev got loads of plaudits, but sees underwhelming in hindsight.
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Posted: 24 Oct 2019, 02:54
by haymakerhayman
Froch beating Bute was massively impressive at the time but lost quite a few after?
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Posted: 24 Oct 2019, 02:57
by Boxerbeetle
Steveh583 wrote: ↑24 Oct 2019, 02:22
Haye vs valuev got loads of plaudits, but sees underwhelming in hindsight.
That was mainly due to the sheer size difference though, everyone always knew Valuev couldn’t box for sh!t.
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Posted: 24 Oct 2019, 03:55
by ThereByTheGrace
haymakerhayman wrote: ↑24 Oct 2019, 02:54
Froch beating Bute was massively impressive at the time but lost quite a few after?
Id say the same but change bute with groves, taylor and kessler.
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?
Posted: 24 Oct 2019, 03:55
by Ricky
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.
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Posted: 24 Oct 2019, 04:48
by skanksta
tobyh5 wrote: ↑24 Oct 2019, 00:57
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.
Agree, although luckily for Joe he has two wins which look better with time (Hopkins and Kessler)
I don't agree.
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?
Posted: 24 Oct 2019, 05:36
by gb
ThereByTheGrace wrote: ↑24 Oct 2019, 03:55
haymakerhayman wrote: ↑24 Oct 2019, 02:54
Froch beating Bute was massively impressive at the time but lost quite a few after?
Id say the same but change bute with groves, taylor and kessler.
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
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.
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Posted: 24 Oct 2019, 13:43
by margaret thatcher
skanksta wrote: ↑24 Oct 2019, 04:48
tobyh5 wrote: ↑24 Oct 2019, 00:57
Agree, although luckily for Joe he has two wins which look better with time (Hopkins and Kessler)
I don't agree.
What about..., Lacy froze on the night and was never the same again after the mental and physical beating ?
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
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Posted: 24 Oct 2019, 13:49
by leejonesjnr
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?
Posted: 24 Oct 2019, 13:51
by margaret thatcher
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?
Posted: 24 Oct 2019, 15:27
by Coco
leejonesjnr 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.
I agree, you can't recover from those sort of beatings
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Posted: 24 Oct 2019, 15:35
by keirw
ThereByTheGrace wrote: ↑24 Oct 2019, 03:55
haymakerhayman wrote: ↑24 Oct 2019, 02:54
Froch beating Bute was massively impressive at the time but lost quite a few after?
Id say the same but change bute with groves, taylor and kessler.
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
Pretty sure (with the exception of Glen Johnson) all Froch's world title opponents were younger than him.
The likes of Abraham, Pascal and Groves even went on to win World titles afterwards.
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Posted: 24 Oct 2019, 15:47
by margaret thatcher
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.
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Posted: 24 Oct 2019, 16:09
by Terminator666
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
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Posted: 24 Oct 2019, 16:50
by banjo
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.
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Posted: 25 Oct 2019, 11:36
by Cyclops
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?
Posted: 25 Oct 2019, 12:54
by mickey1975
Although Hammer and Del 2 look better!
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Posted: 25 Oct 2019, 14:10
by lillywhite14
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.
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.
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Posted: 26 Oct 2019, 02:36
by ALI
tobyh5 wrote: ↑24 Oct 2019, 00:57
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.
Agree, although luckily for Joe he has two wins which look better with time (Hopkins and Kessler)
I 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.
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Posted: 26 Oct 2019, 03:25
by Ruthless-RKO
ALI wrote: ↑26 Oct 2019, 02:36
tobyh5 wrote: ↑24 Oct 2019, 00:57
Agree, although luckily for Joe he has two wins which look better with time (Hopkins and Kessler)
I 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.
I think the same..
Re: Results that look worse over time?
Posted: 26 Oct 2019, 09:30
by Cyclops
mickey1975 wrote: ↑25 Oct 2019, 12:54
Although Hammer and Del 2 look better!
True.