Underdogs getting too much credit for losing

I'm seeing an great amount of praise for Josh Padley and the performance he put on against Shakur and I truly do not understand why. He did not look good, lost every moment of every round, got nearly quadrupled in punches landed and dropped 3 times. I don't understand why he deserves this much credit for not being finished immediately by a fighter notorious for his lack of power. I also feel like the narrative that he's some sort of total 9-5'er and a part time boxer is somewhat deceptive, as he's coming off of a massive upset win against 16-0 Mark Chamberlain, who is fairly legit and was holding the WBC silver belt. He is as much of a professional as anybody else and was probably in camp for a rematch with Chamberlain in the next few months anyways, it's not like he was completely coming off of the couch. I would understand the compliments about his heart and his ability to overcome the odds despite his circumstances if he had come close to winning even a single round, but it feels like credit given to Padley comes more from a general dislike of Shakur than anything. It reminds me of recent opponents Ben Whittaker fought, like Leon Willings, getting credit for "showing resilience" in fights where they were completely outclassed and put up zero offense.