With the benefit of hindsight If you could go back in time and manage a fighter...

[BarryWashington]

Originally Posted by El Bujia

I don't think Franklin's defense was atrocious. He's one of those fighters that gets painted with the wrong brush by the majority of fans based on his legacy and the arc of most of his fights. If you actually analyse his fights you'll see he was an excellent technician. Not a great defensive fighter reflexively, but very well sound as far as hand placement, recooperative techniques, etc. are concerned. Anyone who fights fire with fire as he did so often is going to get hit, and hit plenty. McClellan was being tagged up repeatedly by Benn even when he was offering up no offense of his own, but rather retreating on the defensive, arms by his sides, seemingly willing to eat whatever came his way. You'd never see Franklin doing something similar.

trust me, brah, i'm goin w/my own eyes on that
assessment of franklin/saad muhammad. that's
why the called him "miracle matthew". take a
huge beating and still be able to come back and
get the TKO/KO/victory. i've been watching nothing
but franklin/saad muhammad lately. sure, franklin/
saad muhammad kept his hands up, but, just kept
them their in a poor man's eddie chambers guard.
i never saw him bob & weave, or really slip punches,
or directly counter. don't get wrong, i fuckin' love the
guy, but, defensively on a scale from 1-10 (1 being the
worst) i'd give franklin/saad muhammad a 2.5/3. his
brick chin/jaw is what kept him going in those fights
during his prime. hell johnson in the first fight, and
lopez in both fights were lighting up franklin/saad
muhammad at times. mwale was gettin to him w/ease
before saad muhammad unleashed that video game like
KO. haha, classic stuff.

[BarryWashington]

Originally Posted by zacbox

Yes it was a serious question, I don't disagree with what you say I guess for some people losses are the be all and end all of how a career is rated. If he had of retired before Taylor people may have now argued he was the best ever at middleweight. The losses will tarnish that for some people.

I guess you could turn those results to;

Lost to Taylor twice
Beat a one-dimensional Pavlik
An over-rated Tarver
Lost to Calzaghe
Lost to Pascal
Potentially will become an old champion in a weak era

With regards to legacy by retiring before Taylor it does remove a lot of that.

you mean got a draw w/pascal?

any way, that's why i don't listen to the average
jack ass who has no knowledge or history of the
sport and if some one listed those as examples
to discredit hopkins after taylor I then I would
know to not value their opinion.

[zacbox]

Originally Posted by BarryWashington

you mean got a draw w/pascal?

any way, that's why i don't listen to the average
jack ass who has no knowledge or history of the
sport and if some one listed those as examples
to discredit hopkins after taylor I then I would
know to not value their opinion.

My mistake with regards to Pascal but you get the meaning.

They weren't used to discredit Hopkins, it was a list of his results with a possible spin on them. My point was in reference to the thread that by stopping before Taylor 1 it removes that discussion completely.

[BarryWashington]

Originally Posted by zacbox

My mistake with regards to Pascal but you get the meaning.

They weren't used to discredit Hopkins, it was a list of his results with a possible spin on them. My point was in reference to the thread that by stopping before Taylor 1 it removes that discussion completely.

yes, but then people could still give you the de la hoya
& trinidad weight BS excuses. how eastman, joppy &
holmes were nobodies. how he "quit" against allen in
the first fight & then how allen too was a nobody in '99.
etc. etc. people these days like to put a spin on every
boxer, i could put a spin on almost 95% of boxers after
the year 1970. that's why i know how to avoid those
opinions and go off what's presented before my eyes.
with all of that said, i think his career post taylor I
has definitely helped his legacy a lot (ESPECIALLY
if he gets the win in may against pascal)

[El Bujia]

Well Barry, I just typed out a pretty lengthy response which could've concluded matters, but once again my goddamn computer fucked it up for me. We'll just agree to disagree for now, as I'm not typing all that shit out again.

[zacbox]

Originally Posted by BarryWashington

yes, but then people could still give you the de la hoya
& trinidad weight BS excuses. how eastman, joppy &
holmes were nobodies. how he "quit" against allen in
the first fight & then how allen too was a nobody in '99.
etc. etc. people these days like to put a spin on every
boxer, i could put a spin on almost 95% of boxers after
the year 1970. that's why i know how to avoid those
opinions and go off what's presented before my eyes.
with all of that said, i think his career post taylor I
has definitely helped his legacy a lot (ESPECIALLY
if he gets the win in may against pascal)

Good points. How about another veteran then, Holyfield?

[BarryWashington]

Originally Posted by zacbox

Good points. How about another veteran then, Holyfield?

holyfield should have called it quits after the second
lewis fight. and if not after the second fight then
after the ruiz trilogy. but, i guess he's gotta make
money some how to support all of those kids &
all the other money problems he put himself into.

[lora]

It was after the epic 2nd Lopez fight Saad's D dropped off and became pretty shit.

Before that it was getting drawn into wars willingly(while also being a slow starter) with buzzsaw maniacs like Marvin Johnson that was the real problem.He wasn't someone who would bother to integrate defense and offense too much if he went that route.

Stuff like Kates, Conteh, Lopez 1, Gregory, which were mostly "proper" boxer-puncher fights where he's little worse, if at all than someone like sal sanchez defensively.Just not quite as good a chin so you get a nice dramatic knockdown or stagger here or there.

[Hookie]

Originally Posted by zacbox

At what stage of their career would you advise them to finish, to improve their legacy?

Ali. After Foreman? But then misses the Thrilla victory? After that but then doesn't win the crown for a 3rd time.

Or how about Louis. Should he have stayed retired the first time even with the money issues

Sugar Ray Leonard. After Hagler?

Lewis - would you advise him to fight Vitali again?

Be interested to hear some thoughts on some of the fighters from further back.

This is a good thread... could go on forever.

Had Ali retired after the 3rd fight with Frazier (The Thrilla!), that would have been great IMO. On that note, Frazier should have retired at that point as well... or maybe one more easy one... show off that left hook vs. some bum.

If I had managed Leonard he would have fought more often. Impressive KOs vs. low-mid level fighters never hurt anyones career. He should have retired after Hagler.

Lewis should have got in great shape and fought a rematch vs. V. Klitschko... then retired.

Louis... I know I'm probably alone on this but here goes. Had I managed him he would have had to get in great shape and taken a tune-up before facing Charles. He may have still lost to Charles but he would have still wanted to continue... and why not? I thought he did pretty well between Charles and Marciano.

I'd keep him away from Marciano until Marciano was champ. I'd push for a 3rd fight with Walcott during Walcott's reign. I'd keep him away from a rematch with Charles.

Maybe he could have beat Walcott a 3rd time (I know Walcott should have won their first fight)? If he regains the title from Walcott, retire. If he puts up a good fight but still loses to Walcott... continue on, but take a tune-up before taking on Marciano for the title. Marciano is gonna stop him but maybe Louis puts up a very good fight and people don't feel so sad about? I let him take one more easy one, a definate KO win, then retire!

[Hookie]

Ken Norton and Jimmy Young could have been helped by some slick managing toward the end of their careers.

Young lost a split-decision to Ken Norton in 1978 for the #1 WBC spot. Based off of Norton's win over Young... Norton was proclaimed WBC Champ when Champion L. Spinks would not defend against him. With Norton as WBC champ, Young was the #1 WBC Contender.

Young lost 2 decisions to Ossie Ocasio in back to back fights following the loss to Norton. Not sure how this could have been avoided. It's not like Ocasio was a known threat. Maybe Young could have remained among the top HWs had he picked his opponents more careful following the losses to Ocasio? He did have his moments vs. Ocasio, both fights were close and the first was a split-decision. Ocasio got the shot vs. Holmes.

[Manassa]

Just a thought... Does everyone forget how Joe Louis lost his prime years? Well, he probably had up until '44 before he started noticeably slipping... Could have added Roscoe Toles, Turkey Thompson, Lee Q Murray and a younger Jimmy Bivins to his list of victims. Imagine if Louis had those four as title defences, then rematched Conn, beat Walcott twice (once) and then retired. Greatest heavyweight of all time, without doubt, at 64-1.

[Boucher]

Originally Posted by janitor

Or with a bit of clever matchmaking, you could go after Johnson, McVea and Langford before they peaked.

Maybe, thats the way to go ,though I cant see a peak McVey ,beating Jeffries,and Langford is not being done any favours stylistically against the Boilermaker.