What's the most recent "clean" great win in boxing?

[PivotPunch]

I stopped reading your honest question when you mentioned the Wlad - Joshua fight cause Klitchko was 41... You DO realize Wlad had that dude dead to rights out on his feet and that was one of the most competitive HW fights we've seen in years, right?
THAT'S an honest question.

Joshua's win was as legit and clean as it gets. It wasn't because Klitch was 41. Wlad wouldve stomped ANY other HW of the last 10yrs that night. The "prime" argument is bs... if a guy comes to fight and is truly as competitive as the other guy and doesnt get blown away clearly cause he got "old overnight", then you cant make that excuse. Klitchko was a strong as he'd ever been. Matter of fact prime Klitch probably gets rolled by Joshua early.

Joshua deserves respect but come on. Wlad WAS old. He already looked past his best vs Povetkin and he looked REALLY old vs both Jennings and Tyson. He didn't suddenly get any younger he was just more motivated and a bit more aggressive btu he was still 41 and clearly past his best by at least 5 years. And that is his overall best when Wlad was at his physical best he wasn't even at his best overall.

Wlad was at his best vs Chagaev up until his fight with Haye. Prime Klitschko would have beaten that version of Joshua clearly he would have stopped him where old Wlad failed. Not to say Joshua isn't going to improve further.

 

[nastyleft]

Joshua deserves respect but come on. Wlad WAS old. He already looked past his best vs Povetkin and he looked REALLY old vs both Jennings and Tyson. He didn't suddenly get any younger he was just more motivated and a bit more aggressive btu he was still 41 and clearly past his best by at least 5 years. And that is his overall best when Wlad was at his physical best he wasn't even at his best overall.

Wlad was at his best vs Chagaev up until his fight with Haye. Prime Klitschko would have beaten that version of Joshua clearly he would have stopped him where old Wlad failed. Not to say Joshua isn't going to improve further.

I get your point, but when its THAT competitive, I throw the excuses out the window.

 

[PivotPunch]

I get your point, but when its THAT competitive, I throw the excuses out the window.

Why? Completely shot Anderson Silva gave Daniel Cormier a semi tough fight on 3 days notice that doesn#t mean Cormier beat Anderson at his best it just meant Anderson is that good so even completely past it he gives everyone a tough fight. Same with Wlad

 

[nastyleft]

Why? Completely shot Anderson Silva gave Daniel Cormier a semi tough fight on 3 days notice that doesn#t mean Cormier beat Anderson at his best it just meant Anderson is that good so even completely past it he gives everyone a tough fight. Same with Wlad

But I doubt Anderson is making excuses, why should we for him? He took the fight to win it.

 

[PivotPunch]

But I doubt Anderson is making excuses, why should we for him? He took the fight to win it.

It doesn't matter who makes or doesn#t make excuses though it was a fact that a 40 year old guy with over a decade of pro fighting isn't in his prime probably not even close to it

 

[PUO3]

Cotto Canelo

I don't know. I don't see it to the same extent and I follow football, basketball and baseball. It's more meta level - i.e. the superteams in basketball, or about luck i.e the David Tyree catch vs the Pats or maybe one bad influential call. But it doesn't really seem to create controversy that undermines the win as much as in boxing.

See "who did they actually beat" arguments all the time.

 

[wilddeuces]

The fact is, so many fights have asterisks next to them. Whether it's a layoff or an injury or a this or a that. At some point we draw an arbitrary line and say, "I'll allow this much" for a fighter. Pacquiao's shoulder injury was accepted by many, but some said he was a liar and refused to accept it. Either way though, Pacquiao was way past his best and Mayweather knew it, so the asterisk is there.

But the same line of thinking extends to so many fights. What about the turmoil in Kovalev's camp going into his rematch eith Ward? Easily an asterisk. That is more of a factor than the body punches (some of which were, admittedly, low - even if he hiked his trunks up to his armpits, his dick doesn't slide around down there....I suspect). What of Salido's win over Lomachenko (he was fighting only his second pro fight and was getting low blowed, but Salido won).

So, you have to take it as part of this, and any sport. What about the team that loses it's star player to a concussion? Does that take away from the Stanley Cup win for the team that beat them? It probably should but that hardly gets mentioned.

 

[Sunfish]

Hatton vs tszyu

 

[nastyleft]

The fact is, so many fights have asterisks next to them. Whether it's a layoff or an injury or a this or a that. At some point we draw an arbitrary line and say, "I'll allow this much" for a fighter. Pacquiao's shoulder injury was accepted by many, but some said he was a liar and refused to accept it. Either way though, Pacquiao was way past his best and Mayweather knew it, so the asterisk is there.

But the same line of thinking extends to so many fights. What about the turmoil in Kovalev's camp going into his rematch eith Ward? Easily an asterisk. That is more of a factor than the body punches (some of which were, admittedly, low - even if he hiked his trunks up to his armpits, his dick doesn't slide around down there....I suspect). What of Salido's win over Lomachenko (he was fighting only his second pro fight and was getting low blowed, but Salido won).

So, you have to take it as part of this, and any sport. What about the team that loses it's star player to a concussion? Does that take away from the Stanley Cup win for the team that beat them? It probably should but that hardly gets mentioned.

Thats because it shouldnt.....You think everyone has easy smooth training camps? you think everyone comes into fights without a single nick or minor injury? You think teams don't go to championships with key players injured? you still have to compete, win or lose. No excuses. some of you guys sound like you've never competed in a physical man-to-man violent sport. you win or you lose regardless of the circumstances, you suck it up and deal with it and move on. Otherwise, forfeit, don't show up, tell everyone the reason was your wife left you and your mind is fucked up. My arm hurts so let's reschedule. Oh no actually I'm too old, my prime was 10 years ago I shouldn't do this, but if I lose just so you know that's why....smh

 

[wilddeuces]

Thats because it shouldnt.....You think everyone has easy smooth training camps? you think everyone comes into fights without a single nick or minor injury? You think teams don't go to championships with key players injured? you still have to compete, win or lose. No excuses. some of you guys sound like you've never competed in a physical man-to-man violent sport. you win or you lose regardless of the circumstances, you suck it up and deal with it and move on. Otherwise, forfeit, don't show up, tell everyone the reason was your wife left you and your mind is fucked up. My arm hurts so let's reschedule. Oh no actually I'm too old, my prime was 10 years ago I shouldn't do this, but if I lose just so you know that's why....smh

Yeah, you can't see two truths existing in the same place, can you? You can name drop competing all you want, but two things can be correct at the same time. Either you understand this and are just getting bent out of shape for a point I did not raise, but are passionate about (which is fine, I guess), or you're narrow minded (which is not okay: you are not entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to your informed opinion, no one is entitled to being ignornant).

Or disregard the above and you could get pumped up about nothing. That's fun too!

 

[nastyleft]

Yeah, you can't see two truths existing in the same place, can you? You can name drop competing all you want, but two things can be correct at the same time. Either you understand this and are just getting bent out of shape for a point I did not raise, but are passionate about (which is fine, I guess), or you're narrow minded (which is not okay: you are not entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to your informed opinion, no one is entitled to being ignornant).

Or disregard the above and you could get pumped up about nothing. That's fun too!

Hah, I don't accept any excuses, that's all. If a person or team shows up and gets their ass whacked that all it is. Don't compete if there's excuses to follow. I mean really. Yeah he lost, but...... They got beat but..... Sure there's reason's if say the star QB is out and a team gets beat. Sure they might've been stronger with the top guy making the calls, but I take it with a grain of salt too. I don't discount the victor's win any less. For example, Cotto legitimately beat the shit out of Martinez, regardless if his knees were shot. Maybe a prime Sexy would've done better but that the way the cookie crumbles, I don't discount the Cotto win because, Martinez knew what he was getting into, he knew he may not have been 100% effective. He should've cancelled or postponed then. But he didn't, so he has every right to get tooled up the way he did with no other excuses. If you want to call that seeing two truths in the same place sure, he wasn't the same guy. But I will always stop before I accept something like that's the reason Cotto won. But yeah like you said everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
An I'm not bent out of shape, just have more time than usual to put thought into my posts today.

 

[Shoemaker]

TC/Postol was uncontroversial

Meh you'll just get that Postol wasn't great. This is kind of a fishing expedition in the Sahara. Most examples I come up with can be argued as "not great", "unproven", or "too old." I mean, how often do two p4p fighters face off in their prime without anything anything going wrong?


I'll say Cotto/Canelo though. Cotto was on a tear and Canelo was coming up in weight. That's just a good win.

 

[BluntTrauma21]

Floyd/Corrales. That was a dominant performance against a prime, undefeated, great fighter, and Floyd dismantled him almost effortlessly .

 

[Shoemaker]

Floyd/Corrales. That was a dominant performance against a prime, undefeated, great fighter, and Floyd dismantled him almost effortlessly .

Floyd/Cotto too at that

Forgot Pac/Marquez 4. No controversy there. Clear win. Both great fighters.

 

[wilddeuces]

Hah, I don't accept any excuses, that's all. If a person or team shows up and gets their ass whacked that all it is. Don't compete if there's excuses to follow. I mean really. Yeah he lost, but...... They got beat but..... Sure there's reason's if say the star QB is out and a team gets beat. Sure they might've been stronger with the top guy making the calls, but I take it with a grain of salt too. I don't discount the victor's win any less. For example, Cotto legitimately beat the shit out of Martinez, regardless if his knees were shot. Maybe a prime Sexy would've done better but that the way the cookie crumbles, I don't discount the Cotto win because, Martinez knew what he was getting into, he knew he may not have been 100% effective. He should've cancelled or postponed then. But he didn't, so he has every right to get tooled up the way he did with no other excuses. If you want to call that seeing two truths in the same place sure, he wasn't the same guy. But I will always stop before I accept something like that's the reason Cotto won. But yeah like you said everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
An I'm not bent out of shape, just have more time than usual to put thought into my posts today.

Yeah, what you said overall is true, but it's an oversimplification. No doubt about that. I wouldn't go around saying, "that's the reason Cotto won," (regarding Martinez's loss to him) but I would weigh the variables and see the relationship that exists between them. I would surmise that more left hooks probably landed because of a bad knee, but also not deny Cotto's ability to set them up and use his boxing acumen to be a successful fighter that night (he did, after all, at age 35, go the full twelve in a competitive fight, against a peaking Alvarez, so bad knees don't explain everything in the universe). So he won that night against Martinez, and looked dominating, but also, I wouldn't make some inductive leap from that bout and say he'd be dominant against other high level guys because although Martinez is a high level name, he wasn't operating at that level that night. Making such a leap would botch my appraisal of the future and I don't play those games of partial vision; I want the best view when looking ahead.

Refusing to see past the obvious truth, or deny the existence of certain things, without considering more isn't the most thorough way to think.

 

[Sunfish]

Yeah, what you said overall is true, but it's an oversimplification. No doubt about that. I wouldn't go around saying, "that's the reason Cotto won," (regarding Martinez's loss to him) but I would weigh the variables and see the relationship that exists between them. I would surmise that more left hooks probably landed because of a bad knee, but also not deny Cotto's ability to set them up and use his boxing acumen to be a successful fighter that night (he did, after all, at age 35, go the full twelve in a competitive fight, against a peaking Alvarez, so bad knees don't explain everything in the universe). So he won that night against Martinez, and looked dominating, but also, I wouldn't make some inductive leap from that bout and say he'd be dominant against other high level guys because although Martinez is a high level name, he wasn't operating at that level that night. Making such a leap would botch my appraisal of the future and I don't play those games of partial vision; I want the best view when looking ahead.

Refusing to see past the obvious truth, or deny the existence of certain things, without considering more isn't the most thorough way to think.

We can talk about the variables. I haven't heard sexy say his knees were shot. We know they were but you don't need excuses for losing to cotto. Likewise if your eye is about to get finished (vitali) you've obviously blown your knee out (Tyson), whatever Hayes injury was which he showed the scan of aren't people excusing themselves, just happens. Calzaghe had broken his hand before he kicked lacys ass so imo makes it more impressive.

Some of these fighters would have and did win without the extenuating circumstances. It's boxing.

 

[wilddeuces]

We can talk about the variables. I haven't heard sexy say his knees were shot. We know they were but you don't need excuses for losing to cotto. Likewise if your eye is about to get finished (vitali) you've obviously blown your knee out (Tyson), whatever Hayes injury was which he showed the scan of aren't people excusing themselves, just happens. Calzaghe had broken his hand before he kicked lacys ass so imo makes it more impressive.

Some of these fighters would have and did win without the extenuating circumstances. It's boxing.

Yup. This goes along with what I've been saying. It's there, but it's not making the win not happen.

 

[JonJonesLines]

That was my first choice as well but people questions those belt blows.

Somewhat competitive first fight but Ward blew him away in the second. Proved very clear who the better fighter was.

Somewhat competitive first fight? I have heard 60% Kovalev won, 40% Ward won. It was an extremely close fight that I had Kovalev winning by 2 rounds.

 

[JonJonesLines]

I stopped reading your honest question when you mentioned the Wlad - Joshua fight cause Klitchko was 41... You DO realize Wlad had that dude dead to rights out on his feet and that was one of the most competitive HW fights we've seen in years, right?
THAT'S an honest question.

Joshua's win was as legit and clean as it gets. It wasn't because Klitch was 41. Wlad wouldve stomped ANY other HW of the last 10yrs that night. The "prime" argument is bs... if a guy comes to fight and is truly as competitive as the other guy and doesnt get blown away clearly cause he got "old overnight", then you cant make that excuse. Klitchko was a strong as he'd ever been. Matter of fact prime Klitch probably gets rolled by Joshua early.

Are you high? Klitchko wasn't the same fighter he was 3 years ago, let alone 6-8 years ago. He looked slower, stiffer, and just different in the ring that night. He smokes Joshua when he's 33 or 35 and possibly even 38.

 

[hiphopnazi]

Somewhat competitive first fight? I have heard 60% Kovalev won, 40% Ward won. It was an extremely close fight that I had Kovalev winning by 2 rounds.

I should've removed 'Somewhat'.