THE VALUE OF MULTIPLE WINS [RECYCLED]

By this I mean multiple wins by one fighter over another very good or better fighter. At one extreme are those guys who just have another's number. For example Iran The Blade Barkley's two shockers over ATG Tommy Hearns. At the other extreme is the extraordinary welterweight rivalry between ATG's Ted Kid Lewis and Jack Britton. Together they fought 650 fights, twenty of them against one another. They handed the undisputed welterweight title back and forth three times and went 224 rounds against one another. Can you imagine the arduousness of just that twenty fight struggle?

Yet I hear some say that multiple wins over by one fighter over another somehow have diminishing value. That they don't measure up to single wins over multiple lesser fighters. I can't think of a single other sport where we believe this to be true.

When the Patriots beat the Colts or vice versa more than once in a season we consider it a sign of high accomplishment that a team as good as one or the other could not figure out a way to impose their will. Anybody want to argue Bill Russel's eleventh NBA title was less impressive than his first? Or Fifth? Or ninth? What is more impressive? The Lakers defeating the Nets, Wizards, Timberwolves and Blazers or them beating the Cavs or Celtics four times? What do we generally consider more impressive? When Mariano Rivera closes effectively against the Orioles, Twins, Blue Jays and Angels or when he shuts down the Bosox three times in a series?

The latter in each case. Why? Because the better teams have more resources with which to adjust, are more accustomed to winning and in general succeed because they both have more talent and know how to apply it.

Now why would boxing be any different? Can you imagine just how good Ezzard Charles had to be to go 5-0 against fighters as accomplished as Archie Moore and Charley Burley? Two of the smartest, slickest and most accomplished fighters in history couldn't figure out a way even once to defeat Charles? Don't you think Archie and Charlie made some adjustments? Thought about their initial defeats and tried to come up with a a tactical approach that would work? What does it say that after losing his initial fight to HOFer Jimmy Bivins that Ezzard figured out a way to beat him four consecutive times?

Anybody think Ezzard's record would be more impressive if he'd fought other guys instead? That's like thinking a baseball hitter wouldn't improve by facing a rotation of Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Tim Lincecum and CC Sabathia all year. His numbers might not be quite as good, but he's either going to become a better hitter or he simply will not survive. He would become tempered in a way that he couldn't possibly become facing number four and five starters. Heaven help the number five starter who tried to get that hitter out after he faced that dream rotation for a full year.

Why would anyone think boxing is different? Facing top guys who have won enough to stay in the rankings over a period of several years on multiple occasions? Isn't that the most draining possible kind of schedule? Isn't that the schedule that most heavily tests a fighter? It has to be to be more challenging than facing a few ranked guys once and then facing the unranked. Would any of us think more of Joe Frazier and Muhammad Ali had they each fought a guy like the solid Henry Clark instead of meeting in Manila?

Now, occasionally does a good fighter like Iran Barkley have a great fighter like Tommy Hearns number? Yup. But ask yourself this. Had they met a third time soon after their second fight, anybody really think the odds would have favored the Blade?

One fighter beating another very good or great fighter on multiple occasions is MORE impressive than beating him once, not less. Beating him three times more impressive than beating him twice in my view. If a fighter can beat enough other guys to stay in the rankings over time and earn a repeated shot at a guy who has already defeated him and the fighter who won the first time wins again? VERY prestigious in my view.

The Law of Diminishing Returns applies to many things in life. But not to sports and not to boxing.

OK first I agree with everything in your post.

But I do have one question for you. In today's boxing world of fighters only fighting 3 times a year if we are lucky is it better to have fought 3 of the top 10 guys or the number one guy 3 times? With fighters fighting often like they used to it would be no question which is better but what about now? Would you be more impressed with a guy like Pac beating on Cotto three times in a row or would you be more impressed with him beating Cotto, Clottey and now Margo? (that might not be the best fights I can come up with but its early in the morning and I am very sleepy).

Sooner, I think we'd both be more impressed if Pac fought Mayweather 3 times and beat him twice. (We know by now that's impossible. MW won't fight him.) I think you make a good point, but if Pac beats on Cotto again, it could result in Cotto meeting an early grave. No pun intended. (I have a weakness for Cotto because I think Tony loaded his gloves against him. I want him to retire.)

Frank wrote:Sooner, I think we'd both be more impressed if Pac fought Mayweather 3 times and beat him twice. (We know by now that's impossible. MW won't fight him.) I think you make a good point, but if Pac beats on Cotto again, it could result in Cotto meeting an early grave. No pun intended. (I have a weakness for Cotto because I think Tony loaded his gloves against him. I want him to retire.)

Yeah thats why I didnt say Mayweather.

Soonermark890 wrote:OK first I agree with everything in your post.

But I do have one question for you. In today's boxing world of fighters only fighting 3 times a year if we are lucky is it better to have fought 3 of the top 10 guys or the number one guy 3 times? With fighters fighting often like they used to it would be no question which is better but what about now? Would you be more impressed with a guy like Pac beating on Cotto three times in a row or would you be more impressed with him beating Cotto, Clottey and now Margo? (that might not be the best fights I can come up with but its early in the morning and I am very sleepy).

Good question! If there clearly is a #1 guy? Then I'd say the #1 guy three times.

But I'm not sure there usually is a clear #1 guy.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Soonermark890 wrote:OK first I agree with everything in your post.

But I do have one question for you. In today's boxing world of fighters only fighting 3 times a year if we are lucky is it better to have fought 3 of the top 10 guys or the number one guy 3 times? With fighters fighting often like they used to it would be no question which is better but what about now? Would you be more impressed with a guy like Pac beating on Cotto three times in a row or would you be more impressed with him beating Cotto, Clottey and now Margo? (that might not be the best fights I can come up with but its early in the morning and I am very sleepy).

Good question! If there clearly is a #1 guy? Then I'd say the #1 guy three times.

But I'm not sure there usually is a clear #1 guy.

Its hard in todays boxing world.

Soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Soonermark890 wrote:OK first I agree with everything in your post.

But I do have one question for you. In today's boxing world of fighters only fighting 3 times a year if we are lucky is it better to have fought 3 of the top 10 guys or the number one guy 3 times? With fighters fighting often like they used to it would be no question which is better but what about now? Would you be more impressed with a guy like Pac beating on Cotto three times in a row or would you be more impressed with him beating Cotto, Clottey and now Margo? (that might not be the best fights I can come up with but its early in the morning and I am very sleepy).

Good question! If there clearly is a #1 guy? Then I'd say the #1 guy three times.

But I'm not sure there usually is a clear #1 guy.

Its hard in todays boxing world.

This post wasn't intended to really argue against what say Montiel or Manny is doing. It is just meant to argue that when they happen, multiple wins shouldn't be denigrated as in "Oh yeah Ezzard beat Archie Moore three times. Why didn't he fight someone else?"

How about Harry Wills' multiple victories over Sam Langford?

Saddler against Pep.I know most here will say Pep wasn't the same after his accident,but Iam of the belief Saddler's style would have given Willie fits in any stage of Pep's career.

WinstonSmith wrote:How about Harry Wills' multiple victories over Sam Langford?

In that particular case Sam was awfully long in the tooth. Once Jack Johnson defeated Tommy Burns in 1910 Langford really let himself go physically as he knew he'd never get a shot at being heavyweight champion. IIRC those two first me in like 1913.

But it isn't the number of times Wills beat Langford (10+) that's the limiting factor, it's that Sam in those years was no longer the Sam he'd been a decade before.

WinstonSmith wrote:Saddler against Pep.I know most here will say Pep wasn't the same after his accident,but Iam of the belief Saddler's style would have given Willie fits in any stage of Pep's career.

One thing I've often wondered about there is if Saddler's odd physique somehow camouflaged how close to Pep he actually was. I mean I wonder if Pep just couldn't really tell about distance with Saddler.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:How about Harry Wills' multiple victories over Sam Langford?

In that particular case Sam was awfully long in the tooth. Once Jack Johnson defeated Tommy Burns in 1910 Langford really let himself go physically as he knew he'd never get a shot at being heavyweight champion. IIRC those two first me in like 1913.

But it isn't the number of times Wills beat Langford (10+) that's the limiting factor, it's that Sam in those years was no longer the Sam he'd been a decade before.

Points taken,but I think Wills' size advantage was too much for Langford to overcome.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Soonermark890 wrote:OK first I agree with everything in your post.

But I do have one question for you. In today's boxing world of fighters only fighting 3 times a year if we are lucky is it better to have fought 3 of the top 10 guys or the number one guy 3 times? With fighters fighting often like they used to it would be no question which is better but what about now? Would you be more impressed with a guy like Pac beating on Cotto three times in a row or would you be more impressed with him beating Cotto, Clottey and now Margo? (that might not be the best fights I can come up with but its early in the morning and I am very sleepy).

Good question! If there clearly is a #1 guy? Then I'd say the #1 guy three times.

But I'm not sure there usually is a clear #1 guy.

Its hard in todays boxing world.

This post wasn't intended to really argue against what say Montiel or Manny is doing. It is just meant to argue that when they happen, multiple wins shouldn't be denigrated as in "Oh yeah Ezzard beat Archie Moore three times. Why didn't he fight someone else?"

Oh I know I just was adding food for thought.

WinstonSmith wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:How about Harry Wills' multiple victories over Sam Langford?

In that particular case Sam was awfully long in the tooth. Once Jack Johnson defeated Tommy Burns in 1910 Langford really let himself go physically as he knew he'd never get a shot at being heavyweight champion. IIRC those two first me in like 1913.

But it isn't the number of times Wills beat Langford (10+) that's the limiting factor, it's that Sam in those years was no longer the Sam he'd been a decade before.

Points taken,but I think Wills' size advantage was too much for Langford to overcome.

Well it sure didn't help! But Wills was more than just big. He was good. Langford was beating bigger guys that Wills in those years. Big Bill Tate and Bearcat Wright IIRC.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:Saddler against Pep.I know most here will say Pep wasn't the same after his accident,but Iam of the belief Saddler's style would have given Willie fits in any stage of Pep's career.

One thing I've often wondered about there is if Saddler's odd physique somehow camouflaged how close to Pep he actually was. I mean I wonder if Pep just couldn't really tell about distance with Saddler.

Or the fact Saddler's tactics made Mustapha Hamsho look like a choirboy.

WinstonSmith wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:Saddler against Pep.I know most here will say Pep wasn't the same after his accident,but Iam of the belief Saddler's style would have given Willie fits in any stage of Pep's career.

One thing I've often wondered about there is if Saddler's odd physique somehow camouflaged how close to Pep he actually was. I mean I wonder if Pep just couldn't really tell about distance with Saddler.

Or the fact Saddler's tactics made Mustapha Hamsho look like a choirboy.

LOL, TRUTH!

Saddler ranks up there with Norfolk and Zivic when it came to the dirty stuff.To Pep's credit he gave Sandy some of his own medicine in their foul filled affairs.

WinstonSmith wrote:Saddler ranks up there with Norfolk and Zivic when it came to the dirty stuff.To Pep's credit he gave Sandy some of his own medicine in their foul filled affairs.

The last fight is really, really funny. Elbows, headbutts, guys trying to trip one another etc.