Page 1 of 1
How much/long do you hold losses against fighters?
Posted: 27 Mar 2020, 05:46
by margaret thatcher
I know a guy who refuses to think John Ryder is anything other than sh!t, because he lost Arneld, knocked out by Blackwell, and then lost to Rocky (who this person only seems to remember from the Canelo battering...tbf he looked dreadful there, Liam Smith looked way better). I point out that he's looked in great form lately and you can see by watching him that he's a good fighter, and also point out that he gave the arguable top SMW a hellish fight, but no, he lost to Arnfeld and Blackie and Rocky etc so he must be sh!t, and Callum therefor must be pooeyish too
Wlad was a higher profile example. He had those losses earlier in his career, not exactly to stellar opponents or in good fashion, and even on his long title run they hung over him a bit even as he beat guys clearly better than the likes of Purrity .
When do you feel comfortable 'moving on' , and not treating the losses as super important and admitting that a fighter has made significant improvement? Perhaps the losses are always big factors though iyo...
Re: How much/long do you hold losses against fighters?
Posted: 27 Mar 2020, 06:07
by Noxy
As a rule of thumb, it’s the old cliche - you‘re only as good as your last fight. Fighters improve, of course they do. I‘ve seen people on here harp on about past losses too much. To me it’s also part of the unbeaten thing, which is overrated.
Wlad is a good example, he learned from his losses. Fury is another example, he‘s not that bloke who was gifted a decision against McDermott anymore. Fortunately people have finally stopped harking back to that.
Re: How much/long do you hold losses against fighters?
Posted: 27 Mar 2020, 06:18
by paddy chavez
Lennox Lewis is another good example he was a better fighter under Manny Stewart .
Going further back Steve Robinson must be up there with most improved fighter
Re: How much/long do you hold losses against fighters?
Posted: 28 Mar 2020, 06:52
by Boxerbeetle
Depends on the loss and depends on the fighter.
Re: How much/long do you hold losses against fighters?
Posted: 28 Mar 2020, 07:36
by Deserter
Benn's a good example - written off after Watson yet it was the making of him as a world-class fighter.
I tend to judge it by how they subsequently perform against an opponent who is on a comparable level to the one they lost to i.e. if a fighter returns from a loss with two wins against sub-standard opposition, it's borderline irrelevant for me and I'll reserve judgement accordingly..
At the risk of stating the obvious, it's also the manner of the loss that influences me - there are some fighters who've lost, but actually gone up in my opinion rather than it being held against them e.g. Yarde did better against Kov than I expected, so I'm actually looking forward to seeing him in action again, whereas beforehand I had strong suspicions he was a hype job who was being protected for a reason.
Re: How much/long do you hold losses against fighters?
Posted: 29 Mar 2020, 04:12
by Old bones Ian
Herol Graham is mostly remembered for the Jackson loss , people forgot he stood many a good boxer on their heads.
Hamed on the other hand isn't remembered for the Barrera loss to much, most go on about his wins
Re: How much/long do you hold losses against fighters?
Posted: 29 Mar 2020, 04:48
by keirw
margaret thatcher wrote: ↑27 Mar 2020, 05:46
I know a guy who refuses to think John Ryder is anything other than sh!t, because he lost Arneld, knocked out by Blackwell, and then lost to Rocky (who this person only seems to remember from the Canelo battering...tbf he looked dreadful there, Liam Smith looked way better). I point out that he's looked in great form lately and you can see by watching him that he's a good fighter, and also point out that he gave the arguable top SMW a hellish fight, but no, he lost to Arnfeld and Blackie and Rocky etc so he must be sh!t, and Callum therefor must be pooeyish too
Wlad was a higher profile example. He had those losses earlier in his career, not exactly to stellar opponents or in good fashion, and even on his long title run they hung over him a bit even as he beat guys clearly better than the likes of Purrity .
When do you feel comfortable 'moving on' , and not treating the losses as super important and admitting that a fighter has made significant improvement? Perhaps the losses are always big factors though iyo...
I like Ryder and tend to give him the benefit of the doubt as I had him winning vs both Arnfield and Fielding. He also started strong vs Blackwell until he got caught with a solid combo and couldn't recover.
He also gave BJS a very close fight.
I think it is down to the fighter to prove they have learned from the loss.
Wlad clearly changed his style and became as formidable a heavyweight as we have seen in years. Even in the final round of his career when he was taking a bit of a pasting he was still trying to fight back, it was obvious that the man who fell to pieces vs Puritty no longer exists.
Sometimes you get situations lie AJ losing to Ruiz. He had already beaten fighters of a similar level or better, he will probably have a very hard time living that loss down. Beating Ruiz clearly in a rematch hasn't been enough for people.
Re: How much/long do you hold losses against fighters?
Posted: 29 Mar 2020, 06:55
by littlepug
Baby Jake has a bunch of losses as did Johnny Nelson and Steve Robinson before they found their feet and became world class boxers, some guys just take ages to develop but still manage to use losses as learning experiences rather than career enders.