When determining the quality of opposition, it's important to look at the context. Larry Holmes beat the same guy in 1980 that Joe Frazier beat in 1971: they'd both answer to the name Muhammad Ali and a DNA test would conclude that they were the same person. But as boxing fans, we look at the context and understand that Frazier's win was of higher quality because Muhammad Ali was a better fighter in 1971 than he was in 1980. It's not just the name that counts.
So when I say something like "Manny fought Hatton after Floyd beat him", that's providing context to judge the quality of the wins. When Floyd beat Hatton, he was undefeated, ranked higher and held to a much higher esteem by boxing fans. When Pac beat him, he had been knocked out, had split with his long time trainer, and by all accounts his drug and alcohol addictions were getting worse. Still a fantastic win, but Mayweather's meant more. Mayweather took his 0. So in bringing that up, I was bringing up something relevant to determining the quality of opponent.
The question of who did better against a common opponent has no relevance to the quality of opposition faced. If Wlad fights Stiverne, David Haye and Andy Ruiz Jr next year and KO's them all, and I fight Stiverne, David Haye and Andy Ruiz Jr next year and get destroyed in 30 seconds by all of them, me and Wlad have fought the same quality level of opposition. I hope that clarifies.
And really I could give a fuck less how many people want to rate Duran - a guy who lost to all his best peers, got KTFO, quit because of a tummy ache, ect - over Leonard. People not knowing boxing isn't my problem.
Bookmarks