One thing that has bothered me for the last two years is the following: why is a B-side fighter who defeats a P4P fighter or gives him 12 rounds of hell not usually considered "one of the best fighters in the world?"
I'll provide a few examples:
1.) When Brian Viloria beat up and TKO'd Segura (who was about #8 on Ring Magazine's P4P ratings back then before the rankings weren't bunk), and continued to tear through some ranks and was finally getting some recognition before he faced Juan Estrada.
2.) Amir Khan was considered one of the best fighters in his division or the world when he faced Lamont Peterson. People thought Khan was gonna dispose of Peterson in easy fashion, and he lost a close decision (which many people thought he won) and essentially got beat up and was the worse for wear in the end. Lamont Peterson was not placed anywhere near the top P4P ranks after that.
3.) Miguel Cotto gave the best fighter in the world, Floyd Mayweather, a run for his money (no pun intended) and in my eyes (I know many disagree) snipped the victory 7-5 rounds. Even had he won the fight many fans and critics would not have considered him the best fighter in the world. Why is that? Does he not pass the "eye test?" Does he not have the unreal athleticism, extreme skill, and showmanship?
4.) Had Ricky Hatton pulled off the upset and beaten Manny Pacquiao many people would not have given him the honor of being the best fighter in the world at the time (same goes if Canelo actually had beaten Floyd in my opinion).
5.) Juan Estrada beating Brian Viloria did not earn him a P4P ranking in most people's books.
6.) Antonio Margarito beating a prime Miguel Cotto (who was considered the number 1 welterweight in the world and on Ring Magazine's top 10 P4P best fighter list) was one of the few circumstances in which an underdog and lesser name beating a bigger name was able to capture or "steal" the recognition from his opponent (he was listed as not only the best welterweight after that victory, but also one of the best fighters in the sport). Why is that?
7.) Segura beating Calderon twice earned him a place on the P4P rankings right away.
8.) Jose Luis Castillo beating Floyd Mayweather didn't earn him the title of "best fighter in the world" yet he outworked/outslugged one of the best fighters of our generation.
9.) Frazier beats Ali definitively, and gave him a run for his money in their final fight. Frazier is not considered a top 3 heavyweight of all time. Heck, or Ken Norton beating Ali.
10.) Erik Morales beat Manny Pacquiao, but he never took his fanfare, and as the last person (well, besides JMM) to beat a truly prime Pacquiao he didn't get the recognition he deserved (was he on the top p4p list in 2005?)
11.) Duran beating Leonard the first time didn't seem as big of a deal as Leonard winning the rematch.
12.) Rigo beating the heck out of Donaire and getting zero attention and media/fanfare/love.
Why does the B-side of a big fight or the underdog usually get the shaft in the: promotional, financial, and hardcore fan/critic recognition department? Sometimes the A-fighter can come back and still make more money, get bigger fights, and get more promotional/media attention. Is it because the B-side (I guess Danny Garcia is another minor example) defeated people's expectations and therefore got acknowledgement but not recognition? Is it because the B-side is usually not the charismatic powerhouse that the A-side is? Or that they lack some kind of bedazzling ability that the A-side has? Another example is Paulie Malignaggi upsetting Adrien Broner in my opinion.
Just wondering what you all think. I just think if a lesser known fighter trounces the best, then they should get the credit and earn the title of "King of the Mountain" that once belonged to the A-sider. That's just me. Pc!