How boxer A does Against Boxer B has no effect on how boxer B does against boxer C

Recently someone posted on asking does Andre Wards win over Mikkel Kessler make Joe Calzaghes win over Kessler any less worthwhile. Well no it doesnt.

Heres some examples why

George Foreman destroyed Joe Frazier and Ken Norton. Two boxers who in 6 combined bouts with Ali gave him all he could handle. Yet Ali beat Foreman. Logic would dictacte that Foreman beats Ali.

Tony Tucker beat Buster Douglas, Mike Tyson beat Tony Tucker, Buster Douglas beat Mike Tyson. Surely Tyson Should have beat Douglas.

Thomas Hearns stopped Roberto Duran in two rounds, Iran Barkely stopped Thomas hearns in three rounds. Roberto Duran outpointed Iran Barkely, Who then beat Hearns again.

Finally Ingemar Johannson destroyed Eddie Machen (watch it on youtube it's brutal) Yet Sonny Liston could only subsequently beat Machen on points over 12 rounds and Joe Frazier took 10 rounds to stop him. Doe this make Johannson better or harder punching than Frazier and Liston?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SEANIE

Recently someone posted on asking does Andre Wards win over Mikkel Kessler make Joe Calzaghes win over Kessler any less worthwhile. Well no it doesnt.

Heres some examples why

George Foreman destroyed Joe Frazier and Ken Norton. Two boxers who in 6 combined bouts with Ali gave him all he could handle. Yet Ali beat Foreman. Logic would dictacte that Foreman beats Ali.

Tony Tucker beat Buster Douglas, Mike Tyson beat Tony Tucker, Buster Douglas beat Mike Tyson. Surely Tyson Should have beat Douglas.

Thomas Hearns stopped Roberto Duran in two rounds, Iran Barkely stopped Thomas hearns in three rounds. Roberto Duran outpointed Iran Barkely, Who then beat Hearns again.

Finally Ingemar Johannson destroyed Eddie Machen (watch it on youtube it's brutal) Yet Sonny Liston could only subsequently beat Machen on points over 12 rounds and Joe Frazier took 10 rounds to stop him. Doe this make Johannson better or harder punching than Frazier and Liston?

---

triangle theorys dont work

however kessler losing to andre ward although it doesnt mean ward would beat calzaghe, it maybe shows kessler as not being as good a fighter as we thought at the time

its different

Its the classic old boxing adage 'Styles make fights'. Nothing more, nothing less.

It really depends you have to look at everything as a whole I believe. There are so many factors that have to be taken into consideration, not just looking at a win loss sheet.
You used James Douglas as an example and he was beating Tucker before he decided to quit for example, it wasnt a stylistic mismatch he just stopped fighting and quit in the later rounds.
In the case of Calzahge I think there was a lot of questions about his resume up until the end of his career. Now that two of his biggest wins were soundly shut out in similar manner by (a faded Jones defeating Lacy and an unproven Ward defeating Kessler), it does tend to shine badly on Joes wins, because both wins were also one sided shut outs which tends to lead one to believe that those wins werent as monumental as originally made out to be.
Styles do make fights and are an important factor, but in the case of these two fighters they were beaten the same way by what most considered, at that point in time, lessor fighters than Joe, and I dont think it was any type of stylistic mismatch, especially when you consider the state of Jones Jr and the inexperience on the world class level of Andre Ward.
The media tends to be a bigger factor than ever in hyping fighters to a level they dont belong and people buy into it. One win and they zoom to the top of the pound for pound list.
Calzahge was an excellent fighter and probably would have done really well had he been fighting top level opposition from the get go, but a fighter like Bernard Hopkins at his advanced age having the success hes having on the world class level should be viewed more as a reflection of the state of skill level as opposed to his super human talents in his old age.
Look at Hopkins in his prime, he consistently beat every middleweight they put in front of him defense after defense and it wasnt questionable opposition. It wasnt super great but it wasnt questionable and certainly better than a good portion of Calzahges defenses which were somewhat questionable and that, factored in with the Lacy and Kessler losses is what is raising these questions, and I believe they do have some merit.

First of all, I don't believe the Kessler/Calzaghe question as much reflects on Kessler's inability as much as it does on Ward's ability. Kessler is at the upper echelon of smw's as is Calzaghe, but maybe Ward's the best smw of all time? Also, Calzaghe's reputation shouldn't take a hit until we can adequately discredit Kessler. One loss against a potentially superstar in Ward doesn't cut it. For example, if Kessler dominates Froch and beats his next opponent and Ward wins the whole thing and doesn't lose for twenty fights, Calzaghe's legacy remains looking pretty good.

To the point of the post, styles definitely make fights. But when fighter A and C have similar styles, and A beats B, most likely C will beat B too.

I was extremely disappointed with Kessler against Ward, maybe he just had a bad night and he can come back from that poor performance.
Styles make fights, Tszyu didn't handle Hatton as well as he should've, yet i believe he would have handled both Mayweather and Paquiao a whole lot better.
Foreman destroys both Norton and Frazier yet both of these guys give Ali trouble?
The great Eder Jofre just couldn't handle Figthing Harada? Styles make fights.